Posts Tagged ‘interpretation’

Presenting: What’s In A Name?

Thursday, December 18th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

I work for a small performing arts organization which performs each year in a tax-payer funded, non-traditional space. The venue makes itself available for rental as an event space. In the past, we have been allowed to pay them a reduced rental rate in exchange for a full-page ad in our program and recognition as a lead sponsor. Additionally, we regularly receive glowing reviews in local and national media that prominently feature color photos and positive mentions of the venue, which our audiences and reviewers (and we!) view as critical to our work and to our experience.  This year they have asked for additional money in order to cover what they claim are increased maintenance costs. This would be a significant burden for us, as we are a small non-profit and we are already cutting expenses. We did not budget or anticipate an increase rental fee. They have suggested that they will waive the fee increase if we agree to bill them as a “presenter.” We are certainly open to the idea, but would like to understand what “presenter” typically means in this context. What would that word represent to our audiences and other organizations? What could we reasonably ask of them, financially or otherwise, in exchange for such billing? The venue does not produce, and rarely hosts other arts performances.

“Presenter” is one of those performing arts industry terms that can take on many different connotations and meanings depending upon the context and whom you ask. Legally, on its own, it is not self-defining. Like terms such as “hold”, “commission”, or “cancellation”, there is no official grimoire of terms or official definitions that are “industry standard.”  Contractually, it means whatever the specific parties agree it means.

The better, or, should I say, more meaningful question is what implications listing them as a “presenter” would have in the minds of third parties critical to you and your organization, such as your audience, reviewers, and donors.  In this context, the term “presenter” becomes more of a branding or marketing issue than anything else.

For most folks within the performing arts industry, being a “presenter” carries a curatorial implication. A presenter is usually perceived as an individual or organization that has used its own artistic judgment to select a production or performance that reflects its mission, has artistic merit, and meets the standards expected of the presenting venue or institution.  However, the general public typically approaches this far differently.

Many venues produce and present performances as well as rent their spaces out to others. Most people do not realize this, much less make a distinction—or even care. Whether the Vienna Philharmonic performs at Carnegie Hall or Applebees, the average audience member, rightly or wrongly, usually assumes that wherever they are physically sitting at the time is the entity that is responsible for producing or presenting the performance they are watching. (Chicken wings and Mozart—what a concept!) Its sort of like blaming the waiter for over-cooking your steak—whoever presents the meal will enjoy the credit or the blame.

If your venue is asking to be billed as a “presenter” then it probably means they want to be seen as having discriminating tastes in deciding whom to allow to pay their rental fee. Perhaps they want to leverage some artistic credibility for marketing purposes or perhaps they are simply trying to justify their public funding by showing that they are more than just a commercial rental space. Either way, they obviously want to ride your coat tails. Fine. You wouldn’t be the first entity to leverage a little artistic integrity in exchange for survival. By acknowledging them as a lead sponsor, your audience has probably been giving the venue credit for the success of your performances anyway. Just make sure that your program, credits, billing, and other marketing materials continue to emphasize that it is you and your artistic team that are responsible for your work. And make sure that your written agreement with them clearly specifies the exact wording of the billing they will receive. Leave nothing to misinterpretation or chance. You might even ask to have approval over any marketing or publicity the venue issues on its own.

As for what you could reasonably ask of them, financially or otherwise, in exchange for such billing: There is nothing to “ask.” They have already set the price. You would agree to credit them as a presenter in exchange for letting you rent the space for a lower fee. Now is not the time for counter offers to try and get further concessions from them. Your immediate goal should be to avoid having to find a new venue or spend money you didn’t budget for, not win a negotiation challenge on “The Apprentice.”

___________________________________________________________________

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

We will be taking a short break from the blog until January 7, 2015. 

Please click on the photo to enjoy our gift to you. 

GG Holiday 2014

Presenting the Dancing GG Arts Law Holiday Elves: Brian, Robyn and Ann

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters | Comments Closed

The Invasion of the Visa Examiner Body Snatchers Continues! (aka “The Day The Visa Process Stood Still”)

Thursday, May 8th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

I recently received an RFE for a group touring the US this summer. The group is represented by a European manager who books their dates, but our US management company has previously filed petitions for them in the past, all of which have been approved without a problem. The RFE claims that I need to prove that we are not only the agent for the artists, but for each of venues on their tour. I provided an itinerary, a letter of agreement between us and the group where we are agreeing to serve as their US representatives, as well as engagement contracts confirming all the dates, including fees. This is what I have always given them before. What do they want?

For those of you who have been lucky enough not to be following along, about four months ago, the US government agency that reviews and approves visa petitions for artists, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), was invaded by aliens…and, by that, I do not mean non-US citizens, but something non-human. It began at the USCIS Vermont Service Center where reports indicate that in early February 2014 the bodies of several unsuspecting USCIS visa examiners spontaneously exploded into a burst of tentacles, multiple glowing eyes, and gaping orifices of dripping fangs. Shortly thereafter, their seedlings were able to infiltrate deliveries of pico de gallo sent to the USCIS California Service Center where they quickly replicated themselves, consuming the bodies of helpless visa examiners there as well. Ever since, these insidious creatures have taken over the review of O and P petitions, resulting in flurry of spurious RFE’s or Requests for Evidence (ie: prove that Lincoln Center is a distinguished venue!) and re-imagined interpretations of regulatory language and requirements (ie: for a role in a production to constitute a “lead or starring role” it must also be performed by an artist whose name alone will demonstrably increase ticket sales!)

Whether these beings are the evil spawn of a far-away galaxy offended by interpretive dance or whether they come from a death star of Blue Meanies, we don’t know. What we do know is that, among other things, USCIS has been seriously scrutinizing petitions filed by agents and managers, as well as itineraries. On a recent national conference call with USCIS representatives, there was a considerable amount of talk about concerns over “speculative” employment and making sure that artists had “confirmed engagements” and were not merely asking for visas in anticipation of future work.

As a result, agents and managers are being asked with greater frequency to provide proof of the agency relationship, including proof that they are authorized to represent both the artist as well as the presenters/venues. This can be either a written (and signed) agency or management agreement with the artists or a letter or other statement signed by the artist confirming that the artist has “appointed” the agent or manager to represent them in the United States. If the agent/manager has also booked all of the engagements (ie: the agent/manager’s name appears on each of the contracts or engagement confirmations), then such a letter of appointment appears to be appeasing the visa beasts…at least for now. However, many times either the artist has booked their own engagements directly with the presenter/venue or the engagements have been booked by a non-US agency and the US agent or manager is merely serving as the petitioner for purposes of filing the visa petition. In such cases, which appears to be your situation, USCIS is asking for proof that the US petitioner has been authorized to file the petition by the artist (or the artist’s non-US agent) as well as by the artist’s non-US agent and, in some cases, by each of the presenters/venues on the artist’s itinerary.

Based on a strict regulatory analysis, I cannot say that this is inappropriate. Rather, its just a very literal reading of certain regulations which have never been strictly enforced until now. Regardless, unless you have booked each of the artist’s engagements yourself, if there are any engagements booked directly between the artist and the venue/presenter, then you also need to include an “appointment form” from those presenters/venues authorizing you to include their engagement on the petition. If the artist has a non-US agent or manager, then you will need (1) proof of the relationship between the artist and the non-US agent and (2) proof that you have been authorized by the non-US agent to file the petition for the artist and on behalf of the engagements booked by the non-US agent. If there are any engagements booked directly by the artists, you will also need proof from the presenter/venue that you are authorized to include their date on your petition. The good news, such as it is, is that such “appointment form” does not need to be anything more elaborate that: “I have engaged [Artist] to perform for me. I hereby appoint [Petitioner] to include this engagement on the visa petition.” That’s it.

We’ve actually been doing this for a while. Whenever our management division acts as petitioner, we include appointment forms from everyone—our theory being: the more paperwork we throw into a petition, the more there’s bound to be something in there a US examiner is looking far. We apply this same theory to reviews, programs, and all other evidence as well. So far, this has worked.

As I mentioned, I have participated on several recent national conference calls with USCIS officials and, on each occasion, they have declared no knowledge of any new practices, rules, requirements, or regulatory interpretations designed to frustrate or scrutinize the O and P visa process. Instead, they claim to have helpfully appointed a panel of “performing arts experts”—three, to be exact, who, near as I can tell, have little, if any, actual practical familiarity with what we do—to help come up with suggestions to solve problems they claim do not exist. In other words, to translate this into government-speak:

There is no problem, but if there is a problem, we have appointed a panel of experts unfamiliar with the problem to help come up with solutions to address the non-existent problem which doesn’t need addressing, because there is no problem, but we promise we will make it better by focusing on fixing things that were not broken in the first place…until they were broken…but not by us.  

On second thought, perhaps these invaders aren’t from another planet after all.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Rattle Sabers, Not Contracts

Thursday, February 27th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

We recently had a presenter call us and cancel an engagement “due to inclement weather” because the company’s flight was canceled and they could not arrive the day before the performance as required. The company offered to fly the next day and arrive on the afternoon of the performance.  However, the presenter expressed that they were not comfortable with this because they felt the company would not arrive at the theater in time to run a tech with their team and also had the fear that the company would not arrive in time to perform. The engagement contract has a Force Majeure clause that says:

In the event that the performance of any of the covenants of this agreement on the part of the Company or the Presenter shall be prevented by…act of God, illness, physical disability, acts or regulations of public authorities or labor unions, labor difficulties, strike, war, epidemic, interruption or delay of transportation service, or any other causes beyond the reasonable control of such party, such party shall be relieved of its obligations thereunder with respect to the Performance(s) so prevented on account of such cause.  If the Performance(s) shall be prevented due to a Force Majeure event, neither the Company nor the Presenter shall be under any obligation to present the Performance at a different time, except that if the Performance(s) shall be prevented for any of the foregoing causes, the Presenter shall use its best efforts to re-engage the Company within a twenty-four (24) month period on the same terms and conditions set forth herein, subject however to Company’s availability…In the event that the performance is cancelled due to Force Majeure on the Artist’s behalf, all deposit monies will be returned to Presenter. In the event that the Presenter cancels the performance for any reason other than those described in the preceding paragraph, then the Presenter is responsible for the full fee.

Do we have to return the deposit since the company was willing to fly in the next day, but Presenter decided to cancel anyway? Can we ask for the full fee? We have not yet spoken to the Presenter, but wanted to be forearmed before we do so we can stand our ground.

“Forearmed” for what? Has the Presenter asked for the deposit back? Are you planning on initiating this “battle”? A contract is a tool, not a weapon to be rattled like a sabre. If you approach this as a “battle”, here’s how it will likely play out:

Presenter: Great to see you at APAP. Thanks for the drinks. I’m afraid we’re going to need the deposit back because the artists couldn’t get here due to weather. The force majeur was theirs.

Manager: But they were willing and able to come the next day. You didn’t want to take that risk. So, you cancelled. In fact, you owe us the rest of the performance fee. And, thanks for the birthday card. That cat was adorable.

Presenter: It’s industry standard for the deposit to be returned when there is a cancellation due to weather.

Manager:  But you cancelled and its industry standard that the artist gets paid if the presenter cancels.

Presenter: The company’s flight was cancelled because of the snow. That’s a force majeur.

Manager: The weather prevented the artist from arriving the day before the concert. They could have arrived on the day of the performance. You didn’t want them, so you cancelled and the contract says if you cancel we get to keep the deposit and you owe the full fee.

Presenter: But that’s not industry standard

Manager: It’s what’s in the contract.

Presenter: We were forced to cancel the performance and refund the tickets, which didn’t sell that well anyway. I just didn’t want to say anything about that earlier because of our good relationship. We can’t take those kinds of losses. We are a non-profit.

Manager: The artist had losses, too.  And if you weren’t selling tickets, then you should have told me sooner so I could help with the marketing. If you had marketed better, the show sells itself.

Presenter: No show sells itself. Did I mention we are a non-profit?

Manager: We can’t give the deposit back and the company can’t afford to take a loss on this tour. It’s not their fault it snowed.

Presenter: It’s not our fault either, which is why we need the deposit back.

Manager: I spoke with an attorney and we will have to turn this over to legal counsel if we have to. It not personal.

Presenter: I understand. This isn’t personal on my end either, but we have a free attorney on our board and they will sue you to get our money back…and I won’t ever hire any artist on your roster again.

Manager: Fine

Presenter: Fine

…and scene…

Unless you are dealing with the cancellation of the road tour of “Spiderman”, neither of the parties will…or should…be willing to spend the money, time, and energy necessary to sue each other, so they will just stew over this, avoid each other at conferences, and write nasty things about each other on social platforms.

The point of having an engagement agreement, or any contract, much less as force majeure clause, is to identify problems ahead of time and articulate in advance how disputes will be resolved. In your case, based on the engagement agreement, both parties knew that, in the event of snow or other unforeseeable issues, either could be facing losses they might not be able to recover. A force majeure operates like an “excuse.” It gives each party the right to cancel under certain conditions without having such cancellation become a breach. However, because it isn’t a breach, neither party is going to emerge unscathed. Someone is either going to have lost out-of-pocket costs they can’t recover, or a deposit they can’t get back, or both. However, knowing this, hopefully, allows you to budget and plan for various eventualities.

In this scenario, the phrase “due to Force Majeure on the Artist’s behalf” isn’t really defined. However, a reasonable interpretation is that the cancellation of the artist’s flight constituted a force majeur event on the part of the artists—in other words, it was their flight that was cancelled. The fact that the artists were willing to travel on the day of the performance was a reasonable solution, but it was just as reasonable for the presenter not to want to take that risk. The more important issue is that the engagement agreement requires the presenter to use its “best efforts” to try and re-book the date within the next two years. That’s the first place to start. If you can find a mutually agreeable date, problem solved—you keep the deposit and they presenter pays the balance of the fee after the next performance date. (No, you can’t ask for a higher fee if it’s the same performance!) If you can’t find a date within the next two years, then its reasonable for the artist to keep the deposit, but the presenter not to have to pay the remaining fee. “Reasonable” doesn’t mean that everyone will agree or be happy. “Reasonable” usually means that everyone walks away with less than what they wanted, but more than there were probably entitled to, which, for me, is a much better solution any day than mutually assured self-destruction.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Presenters, Touring, Venues | Comments Closed

Layover Thoughts

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

By Alan Gilbert

Yesterday´s trip from New York to Stockholm turned out fine, I guess, since I eventually arrived, but it would have been easier to take if the problems had resulted from the bad weather that has closed so many of Europe´s airports, rather than from a simple screw-up by the airline. To make a long story short, the airport staff could not locate my reservation, due to the way it had been originally entered. When they finally figured out that I really did have a reservation, the flight had closed, and I couldn´t board. I had to buy a ticket on another airline, for a flight that had a long layover in Amsterdam.

The good thing (other than ending up joining my family at our home just outside Stockholm) was that this gave me time to think about my upcoming Leinsdorf Lecture (on April 4), at which I plan to discuss musical interpretation. On the plane I read a wonderful article by Alan Goldman with the deliberately provocative title of  “The Sun Also Rises: Incompatible Interpretations.” Goldman presents two very cogent, but diametrically opposed, readings of Hemingway´s The Sun Also Rises, and tries to resolve the question of whether they can both be “right.”

This discussion resonated in a meaningful way for me since, for a long time, I have been grappling with my own thoughts about what it means to interpret music, and what makes one  interpretation more compelling than another. I admit that it´s only relatively recently that I´ve been adding a certain rigor to my musings, but I have long held the image in my mind of a piece of music being represented by a mountain, and differing interpretations of the music represented by the different ways one can ascend that mountain. One mountaineer (i.e. musician) might scale the work from the south side, where it is raining, and another might start from its north side, where it is sunny, and both might achieve heights equally close to the summit (that elusive “perfect” interpretation) with completely different points of view.

I´m not sure where I will finally come out on this subject – somehow I like the idea that there is a perfect, best interpretation of a given piece of music, although in practical terms it is essentially meaningless, not least because performances happen in real time, under constantly changing conditions. Furtwängler described a performance as a river: always the same, and yet always different. This seems to me to be a position that is extremely close to an assertion that music does have one “right” course, although one that naturally shifts.

Added complications to the question of musical interpretation include the dimension of technique and execution that is obviously integral to the performance experience, and the expectations and prior knowledge of the audience. A performer must have the technical capacity to realize an interpretation, and this technical capacity finally becomes part of the interpretation, or at least an important aspect of what the audience takes from the performance. Furthermore, audiences may bring their own prejudices, which can either be supported or challenged by a performance – this also becomes part of the relative success or failure of an interpretation.

Hopefully I will come to a point where I will be able to discuss all these threads convincingly. For the moment, I just wanted to share some of my preliminary thoughts with you. I am finding it a fascinating process to read the huge body of work that has been written on the subject by many brilliant philosophers, and will make what headway I can over the next few months.

In the meantime, all best in this holiday season, and see you in the New Year!

(For more information on Alan Gilbert and the New York Philharmonic, visit nyphil.org.)

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Curiously Random, Uncategorized | Comments Closed