Posts Tagged ‘manager’

« Older Entries

Termination For Convenience

Thursday, April 28th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I recently received the following clause from a performing arts venue in a contract they sent:

TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time upon written notice to the other party. If this Agreement is terminated before the performance, the University shall have no obligation to pay Artist. If this Agreement is terminated during the performance for any reason other than the Artist’s breach of this Agreement, the University shall compensate Artist on a prorate basis. 

I told them that, in my mind, this makes the contract virtually worthless.  They came back with this: 

TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE:  Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time upon written notice to the other party. If this Agreement is terminated before the performance, the University shall have limited obligations to pay Artist, as defined below. If this Agreement is terminated during the performance for any reason other than the Artist’s breach of this Agreement, the University shall compensate Artist on a prorate basis.  Under no circumstances will either party be liable to the other for indirect, consequential, or incidental damages, including but not limited to anticipatory profits. The University may from time to time, under such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, make partial payments and payments on account against costs incurred by the Artist in connection with the terminated portion of this contract whenever in the opinion of the University the aggregate of such payments shall be within the amount to which the Artist shall be entitled hereunder. 

I feel that I wouldn’t be doing my due diligence as a Manager to sign this, but it’s a very important venue to me and I do quite a bit of business with them.  But I think this is unconscionable. Am I wrong?

“Unconscionability” implies a certain level of moral indignation is generally unwarranted in a simple engagement negotiation. The venue is merely proposing terms that are in its own best interest, not demanding that you sacrifice a sack full of kittens! If acting in one’s own self-interest were unconscionable, then most artists would have an incalculable amount of karmic debt. However, you are quite correct that the terms they are proposing are unfair to your artist. I’ve seen more and more presenters and venues trying to give themselves the unilateral right to cancel. I get it. Times are tough. Tickets are hard to sell. But it’s unreasonable and unfair to expect an artist to bear the entire loss of a cancellation. The venue’s proposed compromise is basically to reimburse the artist for any out-of-pocket costs, but not to pay the artist for the lost performance or the fact that the artist may have turned away other engagements. That’s not exactly what I would call an equitable compromise.

Regardless, the point of a contract is not to provide some false sense of security or protection, but, rather, to enable the parties to identify any issues that need to be negotiated, evaluate the pros and cons of a deal, and determine whether or not to proceed. In this regard, this contract has proven to be extremely valuable in that the venue has made it quite clear that they want to have the right to cancel without consequences. You have done your due diligence in reading and evaluating the contract. Now comes the hard part. What to do? You need to determine whether or not to engage in further negotiations, to accept the venue’s terms and sign the contract, or walk away and find another engagement. Ultimately, the decision is up to your artist. Your job as the Manager is solely to evaluate and advise your artist.

All art requires risk. The performing arts business requires a certain amount of risk as well. As the Manager, its your job to help your artist evaluate reasonable risks from unreasonable risks. Obviously, I don’t know enough about your specific artist or the specific venue to render an opinion. However, I can tell you that what is completely irrelevant to the analysis is whether or not the venue is important to you and whether or not you do “quite a bit of business with them.”  As a Manager, the focus of all managerial decisions must be what is best for your artist, not you. Is the venue particularly prestigious or important to the artist? Is the fee is particularly large? Does the engagement offer your artist a particularly advantageous opportunity? Then it may be worth advising the artist to take the risk. Otherwise, the artist should decline the engagement. The impact of the artist’s decision on your own relationship with the venue, past or future, is beside the point.

If your ongoing relationship with the venue is more important to you than the relationship with your artist, then you should drop the artist. I have often heard Managers say that artists come and go, but venues are forever. However, I don’t necessarily believe this. In my experience, if an artist is popular and in demand, and especially if an artistic director wants the artist, the presenter or venue won’t care if the artist is represented by Satan himself.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, 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, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Dodging A Bullet With A Contract

Thursday, March 31st, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am a classical concert pianist and booking representative for my small ensemble. I just finished the negotiation of a performance contract with a presenter and, unfortunately, we could not reach an agreement. In my three years of working as a self-presenting artist, it was the first time when a contract became an issue. To summarize the situation, I didn’t agree to sign the presenter’s one-page contract because it didn’t have any terms dealing with such things as cancellation or the date we would be paid. So, I provided my own, more detailed, contract. I also provided a technical rider for such things as piano tuning and how much space our group needed to perform. The presenter claimed that their contract was “standard” and that they engage lots of artists and that no manager or artist had ever objected to their one-page standard contract. So, I offered to propose changes to their contract instead, but then withdrew their offer to engage us, saying that we were obviously too hard to work with and that they had dodged a bullet. Quite a number of series send us one-page agreements and some of them react with frustration when I present a more detailed contract. I start to have a feeling that maybe while I am building my network, I have to play by the rules of the presenter and just hope that everything should be OK. However, in some ways it contradicts what I have learned from reading your blog. It also doesn’t help if its true that most managers are happy to sign these simple contracts creating a way out for a presenter to say: “we never had a problem with our one-page contract” before.

I’d like to say that these are the perils of dealing with small, unsophisticated presenters. But, alas, you have stumbled into one of the dark corners of the entire performing arts industry: at all levels it’s a business run by people who prefer to pretend it’s not a business until someone doesn’t get what they want and then they will all pretend to be experts on business contracts.

In your case, the presenter’s claim that other artists or managers may or may not have had a problem with their one page contract should be disregarded for several reasons: (1) it may or may not be true; (2) many artists and their managers are so happy just to get an engagement that they are happy to sign anything; (3) many artists and their managers often know less about contracts than presenters; and, most importantly, (4) nothing is “standard”. As for your suggestion that you have “…to play by the rules of the presenter and just hope that everything should be OK”, I disagree.

A career in the arts and entertainment in inherently based on risk. So, yes, there may be instances where an engagement or an opportunity presents itself and you may just have to take a risk. However, you can’t make this your standard policy. You need to be judicious. The only way to evaluate the risks and advantages of any offer or opportunity—whether it is an engagement or a recording contract—is through the contract process. You may not always be in a bargaining position to get what you want, but the process itself can be vital. Even if someone refuses to agree to a specific request or a contractual you may propose, that information in and of itself can be essential in helping you evaluate whether or not proceed. However, any presenter or venue that won’t even take the time to discuss your concerns should be avoided.

Nevertheless, while its fantastic that you have taken the time to devise your own contract and technical rider, you also need to know your audience. Its very different to negotiate with Carnegie Hall that it is with a group that operates out of a church basement with a broken upright. If you don’t want to unnecessarily scare off unsophisticated presenters and venues, there are things you can do to make sure your concerns are being addressed without having to send a formal contract with a rider. One approach may be just to send an email or a list confirming your specific concerns. Or you can avoid email altogether and have an actual conversation. Remember, a contract does not have to “look” like a contract. At the end of the day, its less about the wording and format than communicating your concerns, expectations, and clarifications. In short, it doesn’t mean you have to be less flexible in what you need, but more flexible in how you communicate it.

Ultimately, I think you were the one who “dodged a bullet” on this.

________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and GG_logo_for-facebookbusiness issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, 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, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Gambling With Contracts

Thursday, March 17th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

We had an artist leave our roster who is now refusing to reimburse us for expenses we incurred on her behalf. We charge all of our artists a flat monthly fee to cover expenses, but this particular artist refused. So, we agreed to reimburse ourselves out of her engagement fees in addition to our commissions. We do not have any written agreements with our artists, but we never would have agreed to waive our monthly fees if we though she was going to leave and we were not going to get any further commissions. It doesn’t seem fair. Shouldn’t she at least have to pay us the expenses we incurred on her behalf?  

Should she? Yes. Will she? Probably not. Does he legally have to? No. Could you sue her? Sure. Will you win? Probably not. Will you learn from this experience? That remains to be seen.

One of the most frustrating aspects of practicing law within the performing arts is dealing with the fact that people want to have the protection of contractual obligations without the bother of actually entering into contracts. I recall attending an arts conference where someone commented that what the industry needs is for ethical obligations to have “teeth” such that if a colleague or artist acts unethically, there are consequences. While I cannot disagree that there certainly should be professional consequences for unethical behavior, the flaw with enforcing ethics is that ethical obligations with “teeth” are called contracts.

Contractual and legal obligations are very different from ethical and professional expectations and aspirations. If you decide to enter into a business relationship based on trust or expectation, and someone breaches that trust or expectation, you cannot then resort to a legal or contractual solution where there were no contractual obligations to begin with. (Unless, of course, you have the resources to file frivolous lawsuits.) There are many legitimate reasons to dispense with contractual formalities. However, to do so is a business decision and if you make that decision, you have to live with the legal consequences.

If you ask your artists to pay you a monthly fee to cover your expenses and this artist refused, you could have stood your ground and dropped the artist from your roster. The fact that you decided to make an exception for this particular artist suggests that you felt that the value of having her on the roster outweighed the risk of not getting your monthly expense fee. I understand that your decision was based on your expectation that the artist would remain on your roster. That is all very reasonable. However, the fact that you elected not to have a written agreement setting forth your expectations means you felt the risk was worth it. Otherwise, you would have had the artist sign a contract clarifying that he or she would be responsible for all unpaid expenses should they ever leave your roster.

To be fair, even if you had a signed a contract, it doesn’t mean that it would be easy or even cost effective to enforce that contract. More often than not, the money at stake is rarely worth the time and effort of a legal proceeding to enforce a contract. But at least you would have had an argument. The real value of a contract is not in its ability to be enforced, but in its power—assuming people actually take the time to read it—to force the parties into risk assessment, discussion, and self-reflection. Nothing can ever take the place of your own business savvy and acumen. Until someone finds a new model, it is inherent in the performing arts industry that agents and managers risk the investment of their time and money on the expectation of a return on such investment. How you manage and assess such risk is entirely up to you. Like gambling, you never want to risk more than you can afford to lose.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, 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, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division | Comments Closed

It’s Time To Set Your People Free!

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

What would be your response to an artist who re-books themselves in venues that an agent previously booked for them? Is that legally allowed? We booked this particular group to a major venue 2 years back and now they have re-booked themselves at this same venue by contacting the presenter directly. I can’t really justify holding the presenter responsible or expect them to remember who they booked an artist through 2 years ago. I have been told by other managers and agents about respecting a “presenter of record”, but what about an artist having to honor the “agent of record”?  

If you have (or had) a contract with this group that gives you the exclusive right to re-book them at certain venues for a specific period of time, then my response would be that the group is in breach of your contract. If you have (or had) a contract with this group that entitles you to a commission from any re-bookings at venues where you originally booked them, then my response would be that they owe you a commission. On the other hand, if there is no contractual obligation for the group either to re-book through you or to pay you a commission, then my response to the group would be “well done!”

Other than the fiduciary obligations and duties imposed on agents and managers who represent artists, and the obligation for an artist to pay for services knowingly rendered and accepted, there are no other legal obligations inherent in the relationship. An enforceable obligation for an artist to re-book only through the original agent or to pay a commission for re-bookings must either arise contractually or it does not exist at all. In other words, concepts such as either “presenter of record” or “agent of record” have no legal consequence or validity. While some might argue these are, nonetheless, inherently ethical or professional obligations, the whole idea that someone inherently “owns” either a presenter or an artist is more of a quaint feudal concept than a practical one for today’s cultural marketplace.

I appreciate that it can be incredibly time consuming and laborious to sell an artist to a presenter or introduce an artist to a new venue. However, presumably you received a commission for doing so. That was your fee. Charge more next time or move on. If you want to require an artist to book only through you in the future or require a commission if they re-book at a venue where you first booked them, then you need to have a contract with the artist that spells that out. However, be forewarned that no contracts (not even the ones I craft!) are self-enforcing. If an artist elects to breach your contract anyway, you will still need to weigh the pros and cons of enforcement. In many instances, suing an artist only results in an un-collectable judgment and a waste of time that could have been better spent booking other artists.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, 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, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Is It Still Illegal If I Don’t Get Caught?

Thursday, April 9th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

Our organization has engaged a foreign musician whose European agent is balking at the artist having to obtain an O-1 visa that we know he needs. We want to do this right, so I’m getting my ducks in line to tell him no and part of making that case is knowing what potential penalties the organization might face for allowing him to work without the proper visa. I hope there is an easy answer that you can give me off the top of your head—or maybe there is something you can refer me to that would provide the answer.

A lot of artists and their managers balk at the U.S. visa process for artists. I understand. It’s illogical, inane, impractical, unpredictable, arbitrary, and expensive…and those are just the high points. Nonetheless, it’s the one we’re stuck with.

The “easy answer” is simply that “it’s illegal.” Artists are not permitted to perform in the U.S. without an artist visa (most often, either an O or P), regardless of whether or not tickets are sold, regardless of whether or not the artist is paid or who pays the artist, regardless of whether or not the performance is for a 501(c)(3), regardless of whether or not the performance constitutes “training” or is “educational”, and regardless of just about any scenario you can conceive of. What you are really asking is: what are the consequences for breaking the law and what are the odds of getting caught?

Both United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and United States Customs and Border Patrol (USCBP) have been increasingly scrutinizing artists over the last year or so. As a result, artists who have previously managed to perform illegally in the U.S. in the past without the proper artist visa are now being caught with ever greater regularity—resulting in significant consequences for both the artists as well as the presenters and venues who allowed them to perform. Last year, a violinist who had been performing in the U.S. for the past five years without a visa was caught and is now banned from the U.S. for three years. I am aware of a conductor who was turned away at the border when the immigration official discovered that he was coming to perform by “googling” his name. Another artist was advised by his management to enter the U.S. on a visitor visa to perform a promotional tour for a new album, was detained at the airport for 5 hours, and then refused entry. His ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges have been revoked and he must now visit a U.S. Consulate any time he wants to enter the US—even as a visitor. Even more significantly, a management company was caught submitting a fraudulent visa petition to USCIS and is no longer allowed to serve as a petitioner for its own artist’s visas. Large presenters, venues, and festivals are being audited with increasing regularity to determine whether or not all artists have proper artist visas.

The consequences for employing an artist illegally are the same as for any employer who employs an illegal alien. Theoretically, this can include anything from fines and economic penalties to criminal prosecution. However, from a practical perspective, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice lack the resources to prosecute and investigate every venue or presenter who facilitates an illegal performance. This is why most enforcement tends to be focused on the artist at the time of entry. After the artist has entered the U.S., it’s much less likely that DHS would discover the performance unless there is an audit or the performance is reported to them. Audits are much more likely to occur either in the case of larger institutions or employers who already employ foreign workers in other capacities or in the case of prominent or significant venues or performances which are more likely to garner media attention.

In short, whenever a venue contemplates employing an artist without a proper visa or an artist contemplates performing with a proper visa, it’s akin to running a red light. It’s illegal under any circumstances. Whether or not you get caught depends on whether or not there is a camera or cop at the intersection. Whether or not it’s advisable depends on the circumstances and how lucky you feel.

If cost and inconvenience is a factor, and the artist has other U.S. engagements, a potential solution might be an itinerary-based visa covering multiple engagements. I am increasingly and puzzlingly seeing artists obtaining multiple visas rather than coordinating them amongst all of the artist’s presenters. There is no reason for this other than the visa process being all too often delegated to the “new kid” in the office.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, project management, 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, management, 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, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Replacement Woes

Thursday, February 26th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

We are a dance company who is going to perform in March in the United States. We gave the list of names for Visa purposes last September to the venue. Now we have some changes, we have to replace two technicians who are essential for the show. They tell us there is a law that says that technicians cannot be replaced. Only artists. But how are we going to travel without our light and set technician? Is there any exception? Thank you for your news, we are quite desperate with this situation. Only if we could have one technician at least this would help. The thing is that we want to replace the technical director by another one who is unfortunately not in this visa list that the venue got for us.  If you could just confirm me that there is really nothing to do, as they said to me (they say it is a law who does not allow to replace the technicians)

I am happy to shed some light on this, though you may quickly want me to switch it off.

Members of dance companies, theatre companies, orchestras, or any other group, band, or ensemble are required to have P-1 visas to perform in the United States—yes, even if no tickets are sold and no one is paid! For the purpose of obtaining such visas, USCIS divides the members of such companies into two groups: performers and non-performers. All of the performers—dancers, musicians, singers, actors, etc—must be listed as the beneficiaries on a P-1 visa petition. All of the non-performers—choreographers, directors, tour managers, lighting and sound technicians, stage managers, etc—must be listed as beneficiaries on a P-1S visa petition.

Once a visa petition has been submitted to USCIS, no changes, corrections, or substitutions can be made to either the P-1 Beneficiary List or the P-1S Beneficiary List without filing an amended petition (which also means paying a new filing fee.) However, once a petition has been approved, if a performer needs to be replaced, then a U.S. Consulate has the authority to accept substitutions and issue a visa to one or more new performers in place of the ones listed on the original P-1 Beneficiary List provided (1) a visa has not already been issued to the performer(s) being replaced and (2) at least 75% of the total number of performers after the substitution are made will have been performing together for at least a year.

Substitutions at a U.S. Consulate are not permitted for anyone listed on the P-1S Beneficiary List. Should technicians, directors, choreographers, crew, or anyone listed on the original P-1S Beneficiary List be unable to travel or need to be replaced, the only mechanism by which to achieve this is to go back to USCIS and file an amended P-1S Petition (which also means paying a new filing fee and obtaining a new union consultation). Similarly, no substitutions are permitted for O-1 beneficiaries, O-2 beneficiaries, or in any other visa category. Everything requires either a new or amended petition.

One solution is to add additional names of potential technician and crew substitutions as part of the original P-1S Beneficiary List at the time the P-1S visa petition is filed. If it turns out you do not need the substitutions, then these folks simply do not have to apply for their visas. However, should you need them for any reason, their names will already be on the approved P-1S Beneficiary list and they can proceed directly to the U.S. Consulate and apply for their visa. This is yet one more reason why I always recommend that, when planning or booking any foreign tour, issues such as visas, taxes, and related costs and timing should be factored in at the outset and not left to last minute scrambling and panic. What’s that I hear? Crickets and whistling wind?

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, projet management, 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, project management, 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, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

“Leave Here and You Die!” Unenforceable Non-Compete Agreements

Thursday, November 13th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

The management company where I work has asked me to sign a non-compete agreement saying that, if I ever quit or am fired, I would be prohibited from working as a manager or agent anywhere in the world for one year after I leave. The owner also contends that the names and addresses of all venues belong to him and that I cannot contact any presenters or venue where I booked an artist for him. Do I have to sign this? Is this reasonable?  

You never have to sign anything. Can an employer require an employee to sign a non-compete or be fired? Under certain circumstances, yes. Are the terms you describe reasonable? Hardly. More importantly, even if you signed it, I doubt very much that such an agreement would be enforceable.  

In most instances, parties can use a contract to negotiate and agree to just about anything: how and when artists are paid, how commission are calculated, how rights are transferred or licensed, who files and pays for visa petitions, how royalties are calculated, whether the artist gets still or sparkling water in the dressing room, liability, insurance, benefits, salaries—the list is practically endless. However, there are certain instances—albeit rare—when a contractual term will be rendered void or unenforceable. Such instances include:

(1) When a contract either requires a party to do something which would be illegal or refrain from doing something which they have a legal obligation to do.

(2) When a contract term violates an existing law or policy which courts have decided cannot be altered.

Contracts are governed by state laws. In this case, most state laws (particularly the State of New York) will not enforce a non-compete agreement which a judge determines to be “unreasonable” or “over-reaching”—even if the parties agree to it. Reams and reams of case law have determined that prohibiting an ex-employee from working with current clients of the employer is reasonable, but only for a reasonable amount of time—such as a year or two (sometimes longer depending upon the specific circumstances.) However, unless an ex-employee was also the CEO or President of the company, prohibiting an ex-employer from being able to work in the industry in which they earn a living is considered inherently un-reasonable and never enforceable. Simply put, no employer ever has the right to force an ex-employee to move to a different state, change careers, or be rendered unemployable. If the situation were otherwise, too many employers could use the threat of termination to induce or force employees to sign unreasonable non-compete agreements.

As far protecting the confidential or propriety information of an employer, a court will enforce such an agreement provided the information was confidential or proprietary to begin with. Under the Law of Agency, when someone represents someone else, all information belongs to the person they represent. With regard to the arts and entertainment field, any information pertaining to an artist—engagement agreements, the names and contact information of any venues or presenters a manager or agent has contacted on behalf of the artist, the terms of any engagements under negotiation or discussion, etc—all belong to the artist, not the artist’s manager or agent. Moreover, names and addresses are never “proprietary.” The term “proprietary” refers to something unique created or invented by an employer and specific to that employer—such as the colonel’s secret chicken recipe, internal operating procedures or budgets, mark ups, etc. Simply because a manager or agent writes down the name and address of a venue does not make it proprietary. To be sure, an employee, much less an ex-employee, is never permitted to take the physical property or download the files of an employer. However, if something such as names and addresses can be found elsewhere—such as on the internet, in a published list, or is otherwise publically available—then you are free to compile your own list of such information.

As for not being able to book or contact any venues or presenters where you booked artists for a former employer, once again, whether or not this would be enforceable would depend on the “reasonability” of the restriction. If were are talking about a prohibition against contacting particular venues in a particular region for a reasonable period of time, that would probably be enforceable. However, if enforcement of such a restriction would prohibit you from being able to book any artists at any venues in the United States or world-wide that would never be enforceable.

It’s frustrating enough when an artist leaves a roster—its even more so when a trusted employee quits and takes an artist with them. In a highly competitive and risky business, its understandable that artist managements and agencies are looking for ways to protect their interests and livelihoods. However, draconian contracts, strong arm tactics, and paranoia, though frequently embraced, are never appropriate or productive solutions.

Just because an agreement may be unenforceable does not mean you should sign it anyway. An angry and emotional ex-employer may still try to enforce it, requiring you to spend legal fees and court costs getting a judge to throw it out of court. You never want to enter into any agreement knowing at the outset that it will lead to a lawsuit—even if it’s a lawsuit you believe you will win. Certainly, if you are ever asked to sign such an agreement as a condition of employment, run away. However, if your current employer is insisting that you either sign or face unemployment, and a calm discussion offering reasonable restrictions and alternatives falls on deaf ears, you may have no choice but to run the red light and tear up the ticket later.

__________________________________________________________________

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, Contracts, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division | Comments Closed

Plan On It!

Wednesday, October 1st, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.    

We booked a tour for a folk/rock group that will be touring the US for the first time. It took a lot longer to get their visas approved because US Immigration kept asking for unreasonable things like background information on venues and festivals and even made us get actual copies of press. They also made us pay a fee to a union even though the artists are not union members. Now, the consulate is refusing to accommodate the group’s travel schedule. Because the group is on tour before coming to the US, there are only 1 or 2 days that will work for them to go to a US consulate and they will need to get the visas back the same day or the next day at the latest. We have already booked all of the flights and those cannot be changed without great cost. Its probably too late now, but, for the future, is there a way we can request a specific date and get the visas back the same day? How do we avoid all of this delay and scrambling in the future?  

Unless you just arrived to our fair planet, then you probably know that the process for obtaining visas for foreign artists to perform in the United States has been significantly compromised for the last nine months or so. While there have been some minor improvements in some areas, the process has continued to be mired down with narrower interpretations of old regulations, frustrating Requests for Addition Evidence (RFEs), and stricter scrutiny. So you should expect delays and plan for them. If a visa petition was simple last year, expect it to be more time consuming this year…even if its for the same artist and group.

While both United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the United States Department of State’s Consulates (which, for the record, are two different agencies) will make accommodation for emergencies, they are loathe to do so…and the emergencies have to be actual emergencies and not just scheduling or planning conflicts. This means, it needs to involve a last minute cancelation, medical emergency, Act of God, or other severe hardship which could not have otherwise been avoided by advanced planning. Otherwise, the process does not accommodate. You must accommodate the process. You simply cannot count on either USCIS or the US Consulates to accommodate an artist’s tight schedule or limited range of availability.

Your best strategy is to make a realistic assessment of the entire visa process before booking a tour or engaging an artist in the first place. While this may sound obvious, its surprising how often we see the very opposite in practice. There is a presumption that if you book or engage an artist, then all of the other logistics will magically sort themselves out. For example, at a recent arts conference, a manager made an appointment for a free consultation. Their question was that they had just taken on a number of young, non-US artists onto their roster, had already booked a number of US engagements for them at that same conference and wanted to know how hard it will be to get visas for them to perform in the US. That’s a great question, but one which should have been addressed before the manager accepted the artists onto their roster in the first place.

Too often, we see a similar scenario in large presenting organizations where the artistic planning department seems to believe that it is their job to dream big and someone’s else’s job to make sure everyone shows up. I have seen entire festivals planned, with artists engaged and travel plans made, before anyone turned to the issue of visas or other more mundane matters. The truth is that both halves need to work together…and at the same time.

Without question, the US visa process is frustrating, illogical, impractical, absurd, arbitrary, unpredictable, and expensive. What it is not is flexible. For managers and agents, its not just about signing artists that you know you can get booked. For presenters, its not just about planning performances that will sell tickets and enthrall audiences. The artists actually need to show up. That means taking into consideration, at the outset, such issues as: have there been any changes or new requirements since the last time you or the artist obtained a visa? Does the artist or group have the necessary background materials and supporting evidence required for a visa petition? Who will be in charge of the process? What are the costs and who will pay for them? What is the timeline?

Its also not enough just to turn the process over to someone else. There have been many instances where we have been brought into help obtain a visa for an artist or group who has been booked to perform in the US, only to discover that no one has bothered to advise the artist or group of the process or the considerable amount of paperwork and documentation they will need to provide. This almost always causes considerable delay and extra costs. You simply cannot book a foreign artist and ask questions later.

__________________________________________________________________

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, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

The Recipe For Confusion

Thursday, September 11th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

We obtained a three year O-1 visa for one of our artists. We are the artist’s agent and served as his petitioner. A large venue wants to book the artist, but they are insisting that, according to their finance department, they cannot pay us as the artist’s agent and that they must pay the artist directly as an employee of the venue. While we are willing to agree to this, the venue is also insisting that, because they must pay the artist directly, we either must file an amended petition specifically naming the venue as an employer or file a separate petition just for the venue.

Whether its dealing with visas, taxes, or employment issues, we here at GG Arts Law often find ourselves in loggerheads with CFOs, finance departments, HR directors, and others, especially at large venues and organizations, who seem to use the same recipe when developing policies and directives: Take one very broad workshop which they attended several years ago and is now outdated, add an opinion from a board or volunteer attorney who doesn’t actually specialize in the topic at issue, stir in some research done by an intern, mix well with incorrect anecdotes from peers and colleagues, add a dash of ego, bake well, and insist this is the law.

In your particular situation, the venue appears to be confusing several key concepts: (1) the nature of itinerary based visas for artists; (2) the ability to add additional engagements when an artist is on an itinerary based visa; and (3) the relationship (or lack thereof) between employment law and immigration law.

Itinerary Based Visas:

Most immigration scenarios contemplate a single employer submitting a petition on behalf of a non-US individual whom they wish to hire. In those instances, the employer submits an I-129 petition to USCIS and, once approved, the name of the employer will appear on the I-797 approval notice authorizing the individual to work for the employer. If the individual wants to work for more than one employer, then each employer needs to submit its own I-129 petition.

However, there is an exception for artists: The applicable immigration regulations recognize that O-1 artists of “extraordinary ability” typically come to the US to perform “on tour” and, thus, will have multiple employers who hire them to perform. In such cases, a single petition may be filed with USCIS covering all of the artist’s engagements with multiple employers in the US. These are known as “itinerary-based” O-1 visas because, as opposed to covering a single performance, the petition includes an “itinerary” of performances and engagements with multiple employers.

So, for example, let’s say that an opera singer is hired to perform at the Metropolitan Opera, San Francisco Opera, and Seattle Opera. While each venue could certainly file its own, separate I-129 petition, the Metropolitan Opera could be designated as the singers “agent” and submit a single petition on which it also lists the singer’s engagements at San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. As the petitioner, only the Metropolitan Opera’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary” the singer would be authorized to perform for all three. Alternatively, if the singer had an actual US agent or manager, the singer’s agent could serve as the petitioner and serve as the petitioner and submit a single I-129 petition to cover all three engagements. Again, as the petitioner, only the agent’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary”, the artist would be authorized to perform for all three.

Adding Additional Engagements:

Continuing with this example, let’s suppose that after the singer arrived in the US, the singer was contacted by Washington Opera and asked to replace another singer who fell into the orchestra pit and can no longer perform the role. This last minute engagement would take place between the singer’s engagement with San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. Does Washington Opera have to file its own separate I-129 petition? No. Does the petitioner of the singer’s original I-129 petition have to file an amended petition “adding” this new engagement? No. Provided that additional engagements occur within an artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, and provided that the engagements or services are consistent with the artist’s O-1 qualifications (ie: performing, teaching, master classes, residencies, etc.), the artist is legally permitted to add and perform such additional engagements without the necessity of anyone filing an amended petition or otherwise notifying USCIS of the additional employers. The triggering factor is whether or not an artist was on an itinerary based visa with multiple employers to begin with. (By contrast, if an artist wants to add an engagement or performance that would take place after the period of the artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, that would require a new or amended O-1 petition to be filed.)

The Immigration Implications of the Employment Relationship:

Many people see the word “employer” used throughout US Immigration Law and its applicable regulations and presume that it has the same connotations as when used in the context of a traditional “employer-employee” relationship. It does not—particularly in the context of O and P artist visas. US Immigration Law uses the term “employer”, at least in the context of O and P artist visas, to refer to anyone who hires or engages the services of an artist in any capacity regardless of how the employment relationship is structured. A petitioner is neither presumed nor required to be the artist’s actual employer under any circumstances. Moreover, it doesn’t matter who pays whom or whether the artist is paid as an independent contractor or an employee, or even whether the artist is paid at all. This is because US immigration law does not use payment, or lack thereof, as a determinative factor in whether or not an artist requires an O or P visa. If an artist performs in front of an audience or otherwise provides professional artistic services in the US, such artist is required to have either an O or P visa regardless of whether or not the artist is paid, tickets are sold, or the artist receives any compensation from any source directly or indirectly. Thus, while the petitioner of an itinerary based I-129 O-1 petition can also serve in the dual role of one the artist’s employers, there is no requirement under any aspect of applicable immigration law that the petitioner actually serve as one of the artist’s employers, much less that all employment and payments go through the petitioner, or anyone else for that matter.

In short, so long as the artist is on a valid, itinerary-based O-1 visa, anyone can hire and pay the artist, directly or indirectly. Who pays the artist and how are all contractual issues to be negotiated between the parties and not immigration issues.

__________________________________________________________________

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, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Taxes, Touring, Venues, Visas | Comments Closed

Opening Pandora’s Box

Thursday, September 4th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

Loved your recent Musical American newsletter article on ethics.  As a manager, I was very interested when you wrote: “Indeed, the time is long overdue to start considering changes to the long standing paradigms and business models between managers and artists that, for many reasons and for all parties, are no longer viable.”  Any chance I could get you to expand on that comment a bit? 

Must I? It’s only going to get me in trouble! Oh, well, here goes….

It’s hardly a secret that everyone throughout the arts industry is working harder and harder and earning less and less—and searching for both solutions and as well as excuses. Managers and agents are increasingly becoming frustrated with artists who they perceive as making unreasonable expectations and demands in exchange for paltry commissions. Artists are increasingly becoming frustrated with managers and agents who they perceive as earning large commissions but are unable or unwilling to provide the additional skills and services that they feel are necessary in today’s arts and entertainment marketplace.

While some managers are exploring different options (ie: fixed retainers, hourly rates, reduced commissions for more successful artists, etc.) others are wedded to the strict commission model. As I sit here typing this on my computer keyboard surrounded by my collection of quills and antique ink wells, I am the first to admit that I am a staunch traditionalist, resistant to change, and have even been described as “a walking ritual.” However, change is inevitable and merely continuing to claim that what worked in the past will work in the future, ignores the present realities. Assuming that there is some sort of “industry standard” that has and will survive the test of time is both unrealistic and short sighted.

Under the traditional agent or management relationship, managers and agents literally advance their services on the expectation that they will be compensated with an engagement commission at some point in the future and that, if the artist sticks around long enough and is successful, the agent or manager will recoup the initial investment of their time and efforts. While it’s intended to be a mutually beneficial partnership, is this still the case? Are the risks still equitable? While most certainly there are issues to consider far beyond mere economic and business challenges, being an impresario doesn’t always pay the bills. Part of what makes the performing arts industry so unique is the personal passion most agents and managers share for the work of the artists they represent. Nonetheless, even where the goal is to introduce an artistically important artist to new audiences and perpetuate critical art forms, selling tickets, booking engagements, and discovering new programming opportunities are all commercial enterprises. If the end result is that managers and agents simply cannot afford to stay in business, then everyone loses.

One often overlooked factor is that agents and managers are not used to thinking of their time as a valuable commodity. However, like attorneys, doctors, and others who provide personal services, managers and agents are primarily “selling” their time, expertise, and experience and the traditional commission model doesn’t often adequately compensate for the value of the time actually spent. Similarly, because artists think in terms of results, they often don’t have a realistic understanding of how much time and effort it takes to provide them with the services and results they require and often conclude they can find better deals elsewhere or on their own. In other words, a manager’s own success can often undermine the perception of how hard they are actually working.

It’s one thing for an agent or manager to advance their time, but I’m also increasingly seeing agents and managers advancing their own money to cover artist expenses with the expectation of being reimbursed by the engagement or tour fees. When did an agent or manager’s business plan including being a bank? I’ve even seen many managers and agents advance costs for airline tickets or tour expenses, including visas and taxes, out of their own pockets only to have the tour cancelled or an artist leave the roster. At what point is a tour or artist not worth saving?

All of this leads to some important questions: is a demanding artist actually “worth” the time and effort that they require? How do you deal with a demanding client base without killing yourself?  Is the commission model still viable? What services do artists really want, need, or expect? (Remember, at least from a legal perspective, the “client” of an agent or manager is always the artist, never the venue.)  Is there a more efficient or cost effective way of providing those services? Are managers and agents spending too much time learning new skills at the expense of focusing their time on those areas where they already have expertise? While in many instances, the traditional an arrangement is the only way a new or young artist can afford management or an agent, does this arrangement continue to make sense with more established and successful artists? Does it ever make sense for an agency or management company to become overely dependent upon commissions from top artists to underwrite the less successful artists on the roster? Are there other viable options to earning revenue than simply charging higher commissions? Hourly rates? Retainers? Fixed fees? Merging smaller agencies and companies into larger and larger behemoths? Are there different arrangements that might better serve artists as well as agents and managers?

While I obviously have my own thoughts and opinions on these topics, they would hardly be dispositive or universally applicable. There is never going to be a single solution that works for everyone and, ultimately, each agency or management is going to need to develop different solutions that work for them, their business plans and goals, and their artists. Still, I’d love to see more serious consideration and exploration of these topics on multiple levels. Frustratingly, whenever I am a party to workshops and discussions about “new business models”, it almost inevitably winds up being a discussion of how to “sell” artists to presenters and, rarely, if ever, an honest assessment of the field of management and artist representation itself. In other words, the focus of exploration tends to be outwards—how to sell better, package better, market better, and, in short, reach venues and presenters in different ways. While those issues are unquestionable important, there remains a perception that it’s the marketplace that needs to fixed. If you really want to examine new paradigms in a changing environment, agents and managers, as well as artists and presenters, will also need to look inwards and examine themselves as well.

Have a great season everyone!

__________________________________________________________________

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, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division | Comments Closed

« Older Entries