Posts Tagged ‘Tour’

« Older Entries

U.S. Artist Visa Updates as of April 5, 2019

Friday, April 5th, 2019

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

Most of you are aware by now that in fall 2018 a number of significant policy and procedural changes were imposed on the already exasperating process of obtaining U.S. artist visas. No surprisingly, these changes were the work of Donald Trump, who is also known by many other names: Cheeto-In-Chief, Trumpty Dumpty, Captain Chaos, Screaming Carrot Demon, Trumplethinskin, Darth Hater, The Tangerine Tornado, Agent Orange, Putin’s Papaya, Genghis Can’t, The Angry Creamsicle, Bumbledore, The Trumpet of Doom, The Tiny Tentacled Twitter Twat, Prima Donald, The White Pride Piper, and, my personal favourite, Baron Mango Von Wankerdoodle.

Over the last six months we have now had a chance to see how these new policies are actually being implemented and imposed. (For a more extensive analysis of the changes themselves, please re-read our earlier blog posts from September 2018 and November 2018 or visit our website www.ggartgslaw.com)

I. TROUBLES FOR STUDENT O-1 PETITIONS

The rise in Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and visa denials for young artists seeking their first O-1 visa has grown considerably. This has become particularly true for artists who are already in the U.S. on student visas and, after graduation, seek an O-1 visa to remain in the U.S.

Students who have entered the U.S. to pursue a course of study and who have only pursued their academic path without having also performed outside of the U.S. or also performed in non-academic concerts, recitals, and venues appear to be in the most peril.

Remember, in the twisted world of U.S. artist visas, “achievement” and “recognition” does not refer to an artist’s degree of talent, ability, technique, mastery of repertoire, or esteemed mentors. Rather, it refers primarily to the degree of an artist’s publicity and professional (non-academic) fame or infamy. In other words, an artist who has performed on Britain’s Got Talent or who has may have received a Gramophone Award for “World’s Worst Violinist” is more likely to be approved for an O-1 than an artist whose only credits are a Master’s Degree in the baroque flute and a flurry of accolades from teachers and professors attesting to her great talents and skills.

II. USCIS IS NO LONGER GIVING “DEFERENCE” TO PRIOR VISAS

Just today, we received one of the most shocking denials I have ever seen in over 20 years of preparing artist visas: the top program director of the official arts council of a large U.S. state, who has been working in the U.S. on an O-1 visa for three years and who has considerable international recognition for his expertise in arts administration and education, was DENIED a new O-1 on the basis that (a) he failed to show that he continued to be “extraordinary” since arriving in the U.S. and (b) his initial O-1 should never have been granted in the first place.

We are also currently addressing a green card application filed by a musician who is the First Chair of one of the world’s leading orchestras, with enough credits to fill a trophy case and over a decade of O-1 visas, who has been asked by USCIS to justify why it would be in the “national interest” of the U.S. for him to live here.

Whether these are isolated situations or a worsening trend, this is insane!

III. USCIS IS ASKING FOR ORIGINAL UNION LETTERS, NOT COPIES

When unions and peer groups issue no-objection letters, they will often email a scan to the petitioner with the original to follow later in the mail. To save time, petitioners will simply print out the scan and submit that with the petition. USCIS has recently been issuing RFEs for the ORIGINAL letter, claiming that this minimizing the risk of fraud.

IV. U.S.-BASED MANAGERS/AGENTS ARE BEING ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL “PROOF” OF PETITIONER AUTHORIZATION

When U.S-based booking agents or managers file petitions for their artists to perform at multiple venues, USCIS has been requiring each presenter or venue to provide a signed letter formally authorizing the manager/agent to include the engagement on the petition, even if the manager/agent booked the date in the first place and/or issued the engagement contract. Artists and groups are also being required to sign a similar letter authorizing the manager/agent to file the petition on their behalf. Whilst these authorizations literally need only be one sentence, not all presenters or venues will agree to sign these easily. The only way around this if for the manager/agent to directly employ the artist or group directly as the U.S. producer or promoter.

V. PROCESSING TIMES

However, due to a significant backlog, USCIS standard processing is taking anywhere from 1 – 3 months. Premium processed petitions continues to be reviewed within 15 days—but, remember, the processing fee was raised to $1410 last fall.

Yes, there are those out there who will tell you that they have had their petitions returned more quickly without paying for premium processing. However, that is purely anecdotal and not the norm. Even a blind bat can find its way out of cave if it bumps its head enough times.

In addition—and perhaps more significantly—there are delays in issuing receipt and approval notices (even with premium processing) as well as updating the USCIS database to reflect approvals. This is significant because (1) a receipt notice is necessary to schedule an application interview at the consulate and (2) the consulate will not issue a visa until it can confirm through the USCIS database that a petition has, in fact, been approved.

VI. U.S. CONSULATES

U.S. Consulates continue to run amuck, operating as autonomous city states subject to little to no oversight or supervision. As a result, there is a considerable lack of consistency with regard to what to expect when an artist goes to a consulate to apply for a visa.

Some consulates are asking for original approval notices as well as copies of the visa petition, even though they are supposed to ask for neither. However, predictably, we are mostly seeing this being an issue for students approved for their first O-1.
Many consulates are taking longer to process visa applications as they conduct more thorough background checks and fraud investigations. Depending upon an artist’s ethnicity and/or or past travel history, this can cause significant delays.

Again, contrary to what you may be hearing, the U.S. Consulate in London continues to be a nightmare for O-1 visas except for all but the most famous or well-known artists. If mangers or agents are telling you that their artists have had no trouble in London, congratulate them and then ignore them.

VII. ENTRY ON ESTA/VISITOR VISAS

This continues to be a significant obstacle. Please remember, except in very limited circumstances, artists are not authorized to enter and perform in the U.S. through ESTA or with a visitor (B-1/B-2) visa REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE PAID!

A non-U.S. artist manager was recently refused entry merely for saying that he was entering the U.S. to “help” one of his artists move out of his apartment. The immigration officer presumed “help” meant “providing professional services.” Whereas the same artist manager was permitted to enter only weeks before to attend a booking conference.

The primary issue continues to be that, even in those instances when an may be legally entitled to enter the U.S. either through ESTA or with a visitor (B-1/B-2) visa, an immigration officer the complete and unfettered authority to refuse entry to anyone for any reason.

As the rules can change at any time, it is critical that you consistently check with reliable sources (ie: not chat rooms, facebook groups, or “the collective mind”) for updates and developments before booking a non-U.S. artist or group. At the very least, it’s always best to check and confirm with multiple sources that whatever information you are given is, in fact, accurate. (As a general rule, the length of time someone claims to have been doing anything in the arts industry is often disproportionate to their actual expertise in knowing how to do it!)

As always, for official and reliable visa information, we recommend:

1) www.artistsfromabroad.org
2) The USCIS website: www.uscis.gov
3) The US Department of State website: www.travel.state.gov
4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov
5) The American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.aila.org)

You can also always find updated information on the “resource” page of our website: www.ggartslaw.com. And if there’s something in particular you want to know about, be sure to contact us!

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit www.ggartslaw.com or www.gginternationalllc.com 

__________________________________________________________________

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

WHY ARE ARTISTS BEING DENIED ENTRY INTO THE US? HOW DID IT COME TO THIS AND WHO DO WE BLAME?

Friday, March 17th, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

By now, you should all be aware that the incidents of artists and performers from a wide range of nationalities arriving in the United States as visitors (either on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the visa waiver/ESTA program) and being refused entry are growing at an alarming rate. These artists are being pulled aside, subjected to hours of questioning, and, in many instances, being handcuffed and held overnight until return flights become available…all without the benefit of being able to contact anyone or seek counsel.

We should all be angry and outraged. However, the value of general cathartic explosions notwithstanding, it is important to know whom to blame and where to focus all of the outrage and anger.

First and foremost, unlike some artists and others have asserted, no laws or regulations have been changed with regard to the visa waiver/ESTA program. To the contrary, ever since the United States immigration laws were overhauled in the 1990s, it has always been the case that artists are not permitted to perform in the US either on visitor visas or through the visa waiver/ESTA program regardless of whether or not artists are paid or whether or not tickets are sold. In order to perform, artists must have an appropriate artist visa—which, in most cases, is going to be either an O visa or a P visa.

Very often, an artist, manager, or presenter will contact our office in situations where there has been a list minute engagement opportunity and there is no time for an artist to obtain an O or P visa. They will almost always ask whether the artist can perform without an O visa or P visa if the artist does not get paid—or, worse, presume that this is the case. No! Payment—or lack thereof—is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is whether or not there is an audience.

One of the few exceptions to this counter-intuitive restriction is that an artist may enter the US either on a visitor visa or through visa waiver/ESTA provided the artist’s sole purpose is to audition or perform a showcase for the sole purpose of obtaining future work and engagements and provided ALL of the following requirements are met:

(1) The artist is not being paid;

(2) The performance is closed to the public; AND

(3) The performance is restricted to promoters, managers, presenters, bookers or other industry professionals who book or engage artists.

Merely calling a performance a “showcase” does not make it a showcase. Performing, even for free, in the hopes of obtaining future engagements is not sufficient. Rather, the narrow crack in the otherwise strict prohibition against artists performing without an O visa or P visa was created purely to allow artists to attend booking conferences (such as Arts Midwest, PAE, or APAP) or a traditional audition where the artist performs before a few gruff and aloof producers or directors. If at any time the general public is allowed to attend (even if no tickets are sold), then it is not considered an “audition” or “showcase” and the exception does not apply.  Accordingly, promotional and publicity tours do not qualify either. Similarly, if an artist is entering to perform as part of training program and the performance is open to the public, the exception also does not apply.

As to why such onerous restrictions were ever enacted in the first place, the “official” argument is that it was to protect the United States labor market. True as this may be, it reflects an offensive disregard of the fact that artists are unique and all performances, good or bad, are distinctive. Unlike non-US manufacturing labor who arguably may have similar training and experience as their US counterparts, non-US artists cannot merely be substituted or swapped for a US alternative who just happen to have similar technical abilities. If you have seen one artist, you most definitely have not seen them all. However, without in the least defending these regulations, it is worth bearing in mind that the United States has no Ministry of Culture to advocate policy on behalf of arts and artists. Rather, the arts must rely upon a loose coalition of independently funded arts advocates and institutions whose impassionate pleas are shouted from the wastelands of Whoville. While we also have a National Endowment for the Arts titularly funded by the government, it is purely a granting institution which admirably struggles to disburse crumbs and scraps to the artists crowded at the children’s table—and which, as of today, President Trump has proposed to eliminate entirely.

Nevertheless, for many years festivals, presenters, venues, schools, and others have expanded and relied upon the narrow “audition” or “showcase” exception by providing artists with a letter asserting that an artist is entering to perform an “audition” or “showcase”, is not being paid, and that the audience is restricted only to industry professionals. With only the rarest of exceptions, this usually worked. To be fair, it probably shouldn’t have worked as often as it did, but no harm no foul.

Then came President Trump.

Without having to amend or change any existing laws, the recent Executive Orders have imposed immediate “heightened scrutiny” and “extreme vetting” at all levels of the immigration process by mandating strict enforcement of laws and regulations already in place. (Sadly, these particular directives are not amongst those subject to the recent judicial restraining orders and stays.) As a result, we have entered a new era whereby all immigration officers, examiners, and other officials have now been instructed to “believe none” and “suspect all.”

For those of us in the arts and entertainment field, this means that artists who have hitherto had little trouble entering and performing either on a visitor visas or through visa waiver/ESTA—even in those instances where they were never supposed to do so—are now being stopped, questioned, and turned away. Just as bad, artists such as authors, painters, and designers who are legitimately entering the United States as visitors to attend conferences or to attend performances or exhibitions of works they created entirely outside of the US are now at a greater risk of being turned away merely by admitting that they are artists and do not have an artist visas.

As I was once taught by a senior attorney whom, in retrospect, should never really have been mentoring anyone in the first place, solving any problem first requires the assessment of blame. In this case, as frustrating as it is, it is not entirely appropriate to blame immigration or consular officers who, however aggressively, are being instructed to enforce laws that have always been there to enforce. Nor is it reasonable to presume a vast conspiracy focused on artists from specific countries. Rather, a more reasonable assessment of culpability would be as follows:

(1) The immigration laws and regulations that have always been unreasonable and unduly burdensome for decades with regard to artists, but which have gone unchallenged and mostly unnoticed because they were unenforced without any degree of consistency.

(2) The venues, record labels, managers, and others who offhandedly give artists bad advice with the air of authority, but without the burden of accuracy.

(3) The artists who are all too willing to accept without challenge the venues, record labels, and managers so long as they are being told what they want to hear.

(4) The United States government which, as opposed to targeting artists with the explicit intention of thwarting efforts to promote tolerance and understanding through artistic exchange, is oblivious that the arts exist in the first place, much less serve any purpose.

(5) The White House for boastfully implementing a new paradigm whereby all are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Aside from continuing to shout, scream, and protest through every available platform, what’s to be done?

(1) Whether you believe an artist requires a visa or not, if it is at all possible for an artist to obtain a visa, do so.

  • Having an O or P visa does not guaranty entry as both consulate officers and immigration offers have the unrestricted authority to deny visas or deny entry at any time for any reason. However, having an actual O or P visa in an artist’s passport will go a long way towards ameliorating the immediate presumption of an immigration officer that an artist arriving as a visitor is doing purely to threaten our way of life.

(2) If an artist legitimately meets the narrow “audition” or “showcase” exception, then the artist needs to be properly briefed and prepared as to what to expect and how best to answer invasive and probing questions in an atmosphere of stress and intimidation

  • This means that, in addition to providing a letter from the festival, presenter, or venue, the artist should also be armed with documentation about the booking conference or audition itself—such as a list of attendees, information about the production or entity for whom the artist is auditioning, etc.
  • Make sure there are no press releases, announcements, or other information on either the artist’s or venue’s website (or anywhere on the internet for that matter) suggesting or announcing that that artist is “touring” or “appearing” in the United States, much less providing a schedule of US engagements—particularly since, legally, there can be no US engagements!
  • The artist should have return tickets already booked to establish that the artist will only be staying in the United States for the time necessary to arrive, audition, and leave.

(3) Review an artist’s prior travel to the United States to make sure they have not previously engaged in any un-authorized performances and, if so, be prepared to address this.

(4) Make sure an artist has at least a few materials (such as reviews or CDs) establishing that the artist is, in fact, an artist.

(5) Whether you’re dealing with immigration, royalties, contracts, or licensing, Artists need to be at the forefront of their own business. Don’t presume the people advising you are knowledgeable or even have your best interest in mind. At the end of the day, if you have to cancel a performance or, worse, get deported, the festival, venue, or manager will move on. Its YOUR career on the line!

(6) Lastly, if an artist does get stopped, pulled aside, and faces the possibility of a refused admission, the artist should voluntarily request to withdraw his or her request to enter the United States and voluntarily offer to return home. Voluntarily withdrawing a request to enter does not count as a “denied entry” and will not blemish an artist’s immigration record for future travel. On the other hand, insisting on entry and then being “denied entry” and forcibly returned can have serious implications on future travel.

We are all on a roller coaster that shows no signs of slowing down. As we continue to hold on to the bar, we also continue to recommend that everyone consistently check with reliable sources (ie: not chat rooms or random google searches) for updates and developments before making any travel decisions, applying for visas, booking foreign artists, or entering to perform on visitor visas or through the visa waiver/ESTA program. We recommend:

1) www.artistsfromabroad.org

2) The USCIS website: www.uscis.gov

3) The US Department of State website: www.travel.state.gov

4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov

5) The American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.aila.org)  

And we will continue to update on our blogs, social media, and newsletters as changes occur.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media, 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. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. 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, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

International Touring: More Tales From The Front Lines

Thursday, December 10th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

I realize there are other equally important issues out there than visas and international touring. However, in the wake of the recent terrorist attack in California, and as U.S. politicians and political candidates roll out a “Keep the Hate Alive” campaign, we are constantly receiving alarming updates from clients as well as from the American Immigration Lawyers Association of artists encountering new obstacles and challenges. Here are the latest changes and challenges you need to be aware of:

1.  A Visa Cannot Be Valid Beyond The Dates In The Approved Visa Petition

When a visa petition is approved by USCIS, it is approved for a specific classification period. When an artist then goes to a U.S. Consulate to apply for her or her visa, the visa issued is supposed to reflect the classification period of the approved petition. For example, if a violinist is approved for an O-1 classification period of August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, then the O-1 visa stamped into her passport should reflect an expiration date of July 31, 2016. If you examine an O or P visa, you will most often see the letters “PED” followed by a date. “PED” refers to the “Petition Expiration Date.” The PED date “should” coincide with the expiration date of the visa itself.

Unfortunately, some U.S. Consulates have erroneously been issuing O-1 visas that expire beyond the classification period of the approved petition—in some cases, O-1 visas have been issued for with a validity period of up to five years in the future! If this happens, your artist has not won the immigration jackpot! Under U.S. law, the maximum validity period of an O-1 visa for an artist cannot exceed three years. Moreover, it cannot exceed the classification period of the approved petition.

Recently, a prominent artist was turned away because she attempted to enter the U.S. under just such circumstances. A visa petition had been filed for her in 2014 and the petition was approved for an O-1 classification period of 8 months. However, the U.S. Consulate issued her an O-1 visa that did not expire until 2019. She and her management reasonably presumed that this meant she was free to use her O-1 visa until 2019 and no further visa petitions were required. Indeed, until recently, she had been entering the U.S. on the visa ever since 2014 without any trouble. Her past entries were the result of luck and inadvertence on the part of U.S. Immigration Officers at the port of entry. This will no longer be the case. All U.S. Immigration Officers will be scrutinizing all visas far more closely.

When USCIS approves a visa petition, it issues an I-797 Approval Notice with the specific dates of the approved visa classification period. If you or your artist ever receives a visa from a U.S. Consulate that expires beyond the dates of the classification period or beyond the PED date on the visa, ignore all dates beyond the PED date! Assume the visa expires on the PED date and do not use it for any work or travel beyond that date.

(For those of you who are actually interested in legal minutiae, there ARE, in fact, legitimate categories of 5 year O and P visas—they just don’t apply to artist categories. This is why the consulates can get easily confused.)

2.  All Artists Should Travel With A Copy of Their I-797 Petition Approval Notice

Another artist was recently detained at a U.S. airport for attempting to enter the U.S. on an erroneous “5-year O-1 visa.” Ultimately, he was permitted to enter only because he happened to have a copy of his I-797 O-1 Petition Approval Notice indicating that his upcoming U.S. engagement was within the approved classification period. However, he was reminded not to travel on his O-1 visa after the expiration date of the classification period.

Earlier this week, an artist was actually refused entry on his P visa because a U.S. Immigration Officer claimed that he needed to have a copy of his I-797 approval notice. The U.S. Immigration Officer was wrong. The artist had to fly home and be booked on a return flight to the U.S. the next day. Aggravatingly, but not surprisingly, when the artist flew back to the U.S. the next day with a copy of his approval notice, the U.S. Immigration Officer on that occasion didn’t even ask for a copy of the approval notice and the artist was admitted without any questions.

Also this week, a Canadian artist arrived in the U.S. with a copy of her I-797 approval notice (which is all that is required for Canadians) and was refused entry because the U.S. Immigration Officer claimed that she needed to have the original I-797 approval notice. The U.S. Immigration Officer was wrong on this occasion as well. Fortunately, a supervising officer was able to step in and resolve the matter so that the artist was ultimately able to enter.

Except for Canadians, artists and others are not required to travel with a copy of their I-797 petition approval notices—much less the original I-797 approval notice itself. Nonetheless, given that U.S. Immigration Officers have been placed on high alert (without always knowing exactly what they are looking for), we are recommending that all artists travel with a copy of their I-797 approval notice. Should any artist be asked for an “original” approval notice, he or she should calmly and politely ask to speak with a supervising immigration officer. More often than not, the supervising officers are better trained than the officers assigned to the inspection desks.

3.  Changes To The ESTA/Visa Waiver Program

Congress is in the process of adding additional restrictions to the Visa Waiver Program—the program which permits citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States for business or tourism for stays of up to 90 days without a visa. This is often erroneously referred to as an “ESTA visa.” The term “ESTA” stands for “Electronic System For Travel Authorization” and is merely the registration process through which an individual indicates their intent to enter the U.S. without a visa. It is not a visa. This is important because artists are required to have a visa whenever they enter the U.S. to perform—even if they perform for free; even if no tickets are sold; even if they are performing for a non-profit; even if they are performing for a festival; or even if they are performing for a college or university. In short, performers can never enter the U.S. to “perform” under the Visa Waiver Program.

While most of the propose changes to the Visa Waiver Program should not have any impact on artists (unless the artist is from or has ever travelled to certain counties in the past 5 years), United States Customs and Border Patrol has already begun significantly seeking out artists who may be registering for ESTA and attempting to enter the U.S. on the visa waiver program with the intention of performing. We are getting almost daily reports of artists being stopped, refused entry, and having their ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges revoked for life!

I cannot emphasize this enough: any artist who attempts to enter the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program for any purposes that involves actually performing does so at his or her own peril!

The only limited exceptions—and they are very narrowly construed—are competitions, auditions (including non-public showcases at arts conferences) and speaking (but not performing) at a college or university.

4.  There Continue To Be Significant Delays In Processing Visa Petitions  

USCIS is presently taking a minimum of 8 – 10 weeks to process visa petitions at both the Vermont and California Service Centers and there appears to be no end in sight to these delays. This means that, as of today, if you need to have an artist enter the U.S. any earlier than March 2016, you need to pay the additional $1225 for premium processing. (The official visa processing times that USCIS posts on its website have always been purely propaganda and should always be disregarded as such.)

On the bright side, dealing with international touring at the moment makes all those other topics we write about–cancellations, copyright infringement, taxes, commission disputes–a little less daunting.

__________________________________________________________________

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

International Touring: A Report From The Front Lines

Thursday, November 19th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

As the U.S. Legal Advisor to the International Artist Managers’ Association (IAMA), I’ve been asked to prepare an update on a variety of current issues involving international touring at the next membership meeting in London on November 27, 2015. Not only do I adore IAMA, but as this would provide a lovely excuse for my wife and I to avoid having to spend Thanksgiving with either of our families, I was more than happy to agree. Robyn Guilliams and prepared this report, I thought I would share it with all of you…

Visa Stercus

1.  USCIS is presently taking a minimum of 8 – 10 weeks to process visa petitions at both the Vermont and California Service Centers. This means that, as of today, if you need to have an artist enter the U.S. any earlier than March 2016, you need to pay the additional $1225 for premium processing. (The official visa processing times that USCIS posts on its website have always been purely propaganda and should always be disregarded as such.)

    • As a reminder, visa petitions can be filed up to one year in advance of the performance date.

2.  For those of you who have Canadian musicians eligible for P-2 visas, we are receiving reports that Canadian AFM is experiencing a backlog in preparing filing petitions. This is in addition to the current USCIS processing time of 8 – 10 weeks.

3.  I’ve said this before, but the message not getting through, so its worth repeating. ARTISTS CANNOT DO ANYTHING IN THE U.S. ON A TOURIST VISA OR ESTA (Visa waiver) STATUS!!  Please stop listening to the colleges, universities, and festivals that tell you otherwise. They have nothing to lose other than perhaps having to find a replacement artist. On the other hand, I have recently learned of two artists—one from Germany and the other from Spain—who have had their ESTA status permanently revoked because they tried to enter the U.S. in ESTA status to perform in the U.S. Both artists had entered multiple times in the past and one were merely entering to “perform” a master class.

    •  It doesn’t matter whether an artist is paid or unpaid, whether the concert is free, or whether the performance is for educational purposes. They must have an appropriate visa—most often an O or P visa. United States Immigration Officers are taking this very seriously.

4.  In preparing visa petitions, please start collecting and providing the evidence USCIS wants as opposed to giving them what you have lying around in your press package. The days of being able to supply a bio and a few press articles are long gone and we are seeing more and more visa denials and delays because of this.

    •  I recently, and with much regret and sadness, had to advise a client to re-cast a role because the artist’s European management was simply refusing to cooperate in our efforts to obtain a visa for the artist. (In case that manager is reading this…no, USCIS will not “just google the artist to find out how famous he is!”)

Tax Stercus

1.  For those of you waiting to receive a refund check from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a non-U.S. artist who has had 30% withheld from their gross engagements fees and are due a tax refund, please be advised: the check is NOT in the mail, and won’t be for the foreseeable future. The IRS has added an extra layer of scrutiny to nonresident tax returns involving refunds. Aside from the usual 2 to 3 month processing time, there is a second review to be sure that everything on the 1042-S form is accurate and complete.  If the IRS senses ANYTHING off, the taxpayer will receive a letter asking for more info. To be fair, the IRS has announced that it will be paying interest on all overdue refund checks. To be practical, it doesn’t matter how much interest they offer to pay if, in fact, they never issue the refund.

    • Bottom Line: There is currently a very good chance that if 30% is withheld from an artist’s engagement fee, the artist will not get that money back…or, at least, not for the foreseeable future. Please plan cash flow accordingly.

2.  A Central Withholding Agreement (CWA) is still the best way of avoiding or reducing the mandatory 30% withholding required from all engagement fees for non-U.S. artists. To be eligible for a CWA, among other requirements, an artist must have filed a U.S. tax return for each prior year in which they have ever performed in the U.S.– even where no tax was owned. If an artist has not filed past U.S. tax returns, he or she will be required to file them as a prerequisite to obtaining a CWA. Unfortunately, we are seeing a sharp increase in the instances where filing such past tax returns is triggering an IRS audit in which they are requesting documents and records from the artist’s world-wide income.

    • In this one particular area, the IRS has displayed a remarkable degree of efficiency in identifying artists who have simultaneously made the least amount of money and kept the least amount of records to prove it.

3.  Obtaining Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and Individual Tax Payer Identification Numbers (ITINs) continue to be a challenge. While SSSs are not any easier for an artist to obtain, they have not become harder. ITINs, on the other hand, have become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get. Despite both staffing and budget cutbacks, the IRS has been requested to scrutinize ITIN requests more closely—particularly with regard to proof of identity. For most non-US residents, the most obvious and best proof of identity is a copy of their passport. However, the IRS lacks the resources and training to evaluate how to tell legitimate passports from forged ones. As a result, the IRS is now only accepting copies of passports that have been certified by the actual agency that issued the passport. However, even when this is provided, we are seeing the IRS send notices requesting that the actual, physical passport be sent to them instead. DO NOT DO THIS! You will never see that passport again!

    • There IS one option for some Europeans:  There are IRS offices located in the U.S. Consulates in Paris and London. One can go to these offices and request an ITIN in person (with an original passport, which the IRS will review and return on the spot.)  HOWEVER – one can obtain an ITIN only if one has an “immediate tax need”, such as filing a return. So, if requesting an ITIN in the Paris or London Consulates, one must also bring a completed tax return in hand, ready to file.

4.  We are seeing a large number of U.S. presenters–especially those based at colleges and universities—insisting that non-U.S. artists are legally required to have either a SSN or ITIN in order to perform or get paid in the U.S. Please be advised: There is no such law! While such numbers may make book keeping and accounting easier for the presenter, there is no law that requires an artist to have either one. Not only are SSNs and ITINs not proof of work authorization, but as we addressed above, many artists will be unable to get them in advance—if ever.

5.  Canada requires 15% withholding for gross engagement fees of non-Canadian performers performing there (similar to the 30% withholding requirement in the U,S.) Canada Revenue allows performers to file a waiver/reduction request to reduce/waive the withholding (an R-105 request). On their website, Canada Revenue indicates that the deadline for filing such a request is 30 days prior to the first payment due.  However, it’s taking them MUCH longer to process the requests. So, we are recommending that you file your request with them AT LEAST 60 days prior, or earlier, if possible.

General Travel Stercus 

1.  There is nothing new to report with regard to the ban on bringing musical instruments into the U.S. that contain ivory or other protected materials. United States Customs and Border Patrol isn’t strictly enforcing this with any degree of regularity. However, if any orchestras are touring and don’t want to take the risk, we are recommending that they contact Heather Noonan (hnoonan@americanorchestras.org) at the League of American Orchestras (http://americanorchestras.org) who is among the leading and most effective legislative arts advocates in the U.S. and is happy to talk to them about the “Instrument Passport” process.

    • The League and others are continuing to lobby for specific amendments, including exemptions to the rules for “personal effects” (which would include carry-on musical instruments).

2.  There has been some recent concern about Amtrak, the U.S.’s ersatz rail service, implementing a new policy requiring additional seats to be purchased for oversize musical instruments which cannot fit into overhead compartments. To date, this policy has been posted, but not enforced. We are recommending that artists and ensembles that intend to use Amtrak to travel to engagements within the U.S. check with an Amtrak representative in advance of the tour…and then be prepared for whatever they are told in advance to then be either incorrect or disputed by Amtrak at the actual time of travel.

Other Stercus

1.  When negotiating fees for U.S. engagements, please remember to specify the currency in which the artist is to be paid, including exactly how and when the exchange rate is to be calculated. We are seeing an increased number of misunderstandings over this point.

    • At the same time, use this as an opportunity to clarify any other costs or deductions (such as taxes, visas costs, hotel, travel, etc.) which either are or are not to be included as part of the engagement fee.

2.  Too many people are still relying on general, vague, boilerplate, or unspecific contractual language to take the place of actual negotiation. Do not rely on the misguided belief that there are standard legal terms and procedures that magically govern engagements and bookings when words fail. If you want something, or don’t want something, say something—or, preferably, write it down.

3.  When dealing with performances of new works or contemporary music, bear in mind that licensing laws differ. What’s in the public domain in Europe may not be in the United States. Even a re-arrangement or re-orchestration may not be permissible in certain countries.

__________________________________________________________________

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, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Taxes, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Understanding Legalese

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

Every time someone sends us a contract, its always a lengthy document with lots of legalese that no one understands. Is there anything wrong with having a simple, one page agreement that everyone can easily understand and will sign?

A lot of people mistake “legalese” for language and terms they either don’t understand or haven’t considered. They see words on a page and immediately assume they can’t possible understand them.

This is legalese:

The party of the first part, which party has previously and hereinafter shall continue to be referred to as the Presenting Party, in and for the mutual obligations, conveyances, and other considerations contained herein, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does for itself and on behalf of its officers, directors, employees, agents, and assigns (hereinafter the “Presenting Parties”), which the Presenting Party does herein attest, warrant, and represent that it has the authority so to represent and bind under the terms of this agreement, does herein and hereby concur, agree, and consent to prohibit, prevent, proscribe and preclude, so the best of its reasonable ability, the degree and extent of such “reasonability” to be determined herein as the term “reasonable” is defined in this Agreement hereunder, the recording and/or memorialization through any and all visual and/or audio and/or audio-visual means and methodologies now existing or hereinafter discovered, invented, or devised, including, but not limited to photography, analog and digital sound recordings, videotaping, screen captures, and any other human or machine-readable medium, the performance of the party of the second part, which party has previously and hereinafter shall continue to be referred to as the Performing Party, including, but not limited to, the performance or any portion of the performance of the Performing Party, including, but not limited to, excerpts, samplings, moments, movements, scenes, rehearsals, outtakes, or other manifestations of the performance or any portion of the performance of the Performing Party, for any purposes of any kind or nature, including, but not limited to…well, you get the idea.   

 This is not:

The Presenter agrees to prevent any unauthorized broadcasting, photographing, recording, or any other transmission or reproduction of any performance(s) or residency activity of the Artist, or any part thereof, by any means or media now known or hereafter invented, including, but not limited to audio, visual, or audio-visual means, and including any “archival” recordings, unless the express prior written consent of the Artist has been obtained.

The difference is that the first example uses unnecessary verbiage, poor grammar, and confusing structure. The second example just has a lot of detail. Don’t confuse “legalese” with “detail.” Whereas you don’t want legalese, you do want detail. Why? Because the whole point of a written document memorializing the terms of an agreement (also known as a “written contract”) is to convey information—not just to have a piece of paper that everyone signs.

Too many people want contracts that are “simple” and “brief” so that the parties will sign them, but that’s pointless. Merely having a signed contract does not mean that an engagement won’t get canceled, that commissions will get paid, artists won’t leave, or that any number of nasty things won’t happen to you. Signed contracts are not self-enforcing. If a dispute arises that cannot otherwise be resolved, the only way to enforce the terms of a contract is with a lawsuit. Lawsuits, as you know, achieve nothing other than making trial lawyers ecstatically happy and wealthy. No one in the performing arts can afford that, either personally or professionally. You don’t want to wait until a dispute arises to find out that you and the other party had vastly different assumptions about what was and was not expected and allowed. Instead, you want to make sure that everyone understands all of the aspects of a project or engagement at the outset and, hopefully, can discuss and evaluate the risks, challenges, advantages, obligations, and expectations of the relationship before they agree to it. In other words, you use a contract to educate, not to enforce.

What determines the length of a contract is the complexity of the project or engagement itself. An agreement for a single artist to perform a single recital is going to be shorter than an agreement for an orchestra to perform a world tour. Similarly, an assignment or transfer of all rights is going to be less complex than a recording agreement or an agreement to re-orchestrate an existing work.

Our industry is blessed with amazingly creative and dynamic professionals who are second to none when it comes to creating imaginative collaborations and engaging performances. However, they become slightly less than stellar when it comes to understanding the business and legal arrangements necessary to effectuate these plans. It’s one thing to discuss dates, repertoire, scheduling, and fees. It’s quite another to consider all of the various details, challenges, and misunderstandings that might come into play: will music or other copyrighted materials need to be licensed? If so, whose responsibility is this? Can either party cancel? Under what circumstances? What if someone gets sick or there is a fire at the venue? Who bears the loss of expenses cannot be recovered? Who is responsible if an artist is injured? Who is responsible for someone in the audience gets hurt? Who is responsible if an artist or crew member damages property of the venue? Who is responsible if someone from the venue damages property of the artist or show? Will visas be required for any artist? Whose responsibility is this? Is the engagement fee to be paid in dollars, pound sterling, euros, or other currency? Which exchange rate will apply? Who is responsible for taxes? Are deposits non-refundable?

This is where a contract comes into play. Yes, it takes time to create and read all of this detail. However, a detailed contract can be filled with all sorts of interesting and mutually beneficial revelations. For example, when recently negotiating the terms of an engagement for one of our own artists, I presented our engagement contract to the presenter—which contains a clause, much like the one above, prohibiting any recordings, including archival recordings. The presenter wanted to make an archival recording and assumed, incorrectly, that these were always permitted. We were able to find a workable solution and adjusted the contract accordingly. We also discovered that while the presenter had not factored in meals and transportation into the budget, we had misunderstood when the presenter actually wanted the artist to arrive. We were able to adjust all of these issues, none of which would have been discovered had we not taken the time to think through all of the various details. In the end, it didn’t matter whether or not the contract was even signed because going through the process itself allowed the presenter and I to discuss all of the details. The contract served its purpose.

In short, a more detailed contract that makes people stop and say “wait, I didn’t agree to that” or “what exactly do you mean by this?” is far better than an artificially simplistic one that everyone signs now and then squabbles about later whilst lashing out such cherished and time-worn drivel as “but that’s industry standard” or “that’s the way its always done.”

_________________________________________________________________

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 Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Touring, 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

The Damaging Truth About Cancellation Damages

Thursday, March 12th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

A presenter wants to breach our engagement contract by cancelling. Our cancellation clause says that, in the event of cancellation, we get 50% of the engagement fee or actual damages. They are offering 50%, but at this stage want the full fee.

If you have an engagement contract that has a cancellation clause, and a presenter cancels, then the presenter is not breaching your contract. A contract breach only occurs when someone fails to do something the contract requires (such as pay a deposit) or does something the contract does not permit (such as record a performance). In this case, if your contract has a cancellation clause, then you have given the presenter the right to cancel. So long as the presenter complies with the terms of your cancellation clause, then they are not in breach. They are merely exercising the right you gave them to cancel. If you don’t want them to cancel, don’t give them the right to do so.

According to your cancellation clause, if a presenter elects to cancel, they have to pay you either 50% of the engagement fee or actual damages. However, your actual damages may or may not be the full engagement fee. To determine whether or not you are entitled to the full engagement fee, you first have to calculate your “actual damages.” Actual damages are simply that: your actual out-of-pocket losses from the cancellation of that particular engagement. No more. No less. Calculating “actual damages” involves taking the full engagement fee and subtracting any costs or amounts you saved or did not incur as a result of not having to perform.

In some instances, the “full engagement fee” might include the performance fee as well as other costs, such as the value of travel and/or hotel that the presenter was covering. However, for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that the full engagement fee was $5000, of which you needed $2000 to cover costs such as travel and equipment, leaving $3000 for profit. If by cancelling, you did not have to incur the travel and equipment costs, that means you saved $2000, and your “actual damages” are $3000. You would only be entitled to the full fee of $5000 if the engagement were cancelled too late for you to save or recoup any of your costs.

However, “actual damages” can never exceed the total value of the full engagement fee. As we all know, sometimes a single cancellation in a larger tour can also have residual implications. What if you were counting on the travel and hotel from a larger presenter to “underwrite” the costs of a smaller engagement fee from another presenter or run-out? If the larger engagement gets cancelled, that may necessitate the cancellation of the smaller one as well, or even the entire tour. Sadly, those losses are not “actual damages.” That’s just called bad planning.

Just because you were counting on something to make an entire tour break even, does make the loss “actual damages.” If the loss of a single engagement will trigger a domino effect, such as the cancellation of the entire tour, then, in addition to “actual damages”, you have suffered “consequential damages.” I know, that doesn’t make sense, but lawyers came up with these concepts hundreds of years ago and contracts still use the same broken terminology. This is the risk inherent in using contractual language you copy from someone else or don’t fully understand. You may inadvertently be using language that makes sense to you, but has a different legal meaning. The solution is simple: use English and be specific—even if it means (perish the thought!) using more words. For example, rather than write “we get 50% or actual damages” write what you mean:

If you cancel the contract, we get either a minimum of 50% of the engagement fee or all of the damages we actual incur as a result of the cancellation, including the cancellation of other engagements and/or any additional costs we must incur for travel, hotel, or other tour expenses, whichever is greater.

Wordier? Yes. Clearer? Indeed. An even clearer solution? Specify at the outset that the engagement is non-cancellable.

__________________________________________________________________

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 Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Presenters, Touring | 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

Avoiding A Visa Interview…Sometimes…Maybe…

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I had a really interesting conversation with a consular officer at a U.S. consulate where we were having one of our groups apply for P visas. Our group has toured the U.S. many times and the officer mentioned that P class petitioners do not need to come back in for interviews if they renew their visas within 48 months of their last visa. They can just mail them in through a courier service associated with a local bank. She said that this was true in other countries as well, though the specifics are slightly different in other countries. Are you familiar with this?

Yes, I am familiar with this. What the officer is talking about is a discretionary policy whereby certain individuals under certain circumstances may not be required to have a visa interview at the U.S. consulate if they are applying for a visa in the same category as a visa previously issued to such person. However, before you get too excited, remember that nothing in the tortured realm of U.S. immigration policies and procedures is ever as simple or as straightforward as it may first seem. There are several pitfalls to be aware of.

First, this has nothing to do with avoiding the petition process. Regardless of how many O or P visas an artist may have previously held, all new O and P visas require a visa petition to be filed with and approved by USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.) The policy at issue here is whether or not, after approval, an artist may be able to avoid physically appearing at a U.S. Consulate in order for the visa to be issued.

Second, the “interview waiver” policy is determined on a consulate-by-consulate basis and it is by no means a uniform policy at all U.S. consulates. Some consulates may allow this for O and P visas, while others may allow this only for O visas, and still others may allow this for O-1 and P-1 visas, but not O-2 or P-1S visas. And others may not allow this at all. Even where it is available, a consulate might still require citizens of certain countries to come in for an interview anyway. The only way to determine which consulates do and do not allow for visa interviews to be waived under certain circumstances and, if available, the specific process for obtaining a visa without an interview, is to check the website of the specific consulate where the artist will be applying for the visa.

Third, unless there is enough time to deal with glitches and delays, I always encourage artists to appear personally even if they qualify for an interview waiver. Why? Read on…

A pianist who had multiple O-1 visas in the past did not, understandably, want to go to yet another interview at a U.S. Consulate. So, you can imagine her joy when, upon completing her DS-160 (visa application) form on the website of the U.S. Consulate, she learned that she qualified for an interview waiver. She ecstatically selected the interview waiver option on the DS-160, mailed in her passport using the courier service…and her passport never arrived at the consulate. It was lost. Ultimately, she had to obtain a new passport and apply in person, causing a delay of several weeks and the cancellation of several engagements on her tour.

Similarly, another artist who also met the qualifications for an interview waiver, mailed in his passport and, after three weeks of waiting, was informed that he was being required to schedule an interview anyway. Even where an artist meets the requirements for an interview waiver, a consulate always retains the discretion to require a personal interview under any circumstances. Unfortunately, there’s no particular requirement that they inform you of this in a timely fashion.

As fond as I am of sweeping generalizations, they are never applicable in all circumstances. For every tale of problems or delays, there are just as many positive experiences. Nonetheless, its always safe to assume that when dealing with any situation—immigration related or otherwise—in which the outcome you seek will ultimately depend upon a harmonic convergence of timing, competency, and karma, assume otherwise and plan accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

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

« Older Entries