Archive for the ‘Copyrights’ Category

« Older Entries

• A National Ban on Performance Exclusivity Clauses   • Posting Recordings on Websites • Artist Visa News, Nausea & Updates  • Your Contract Playlist    

Monday, June 24th, 2024

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

June 25, 2024  

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

• A National Ban on Performance Exclusivity Clauses  

• Posting Recordings on Websites

• Artist Visa News, Nausea & Updates 

• Your Contract Playlist    

 

Legal Issue of the Month:

Will a New National Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Also Apply to Performance Exclusivity Clauses? 

 

 

You may recall (or not, that’s ok, too) that in our last newsletter we discussed that on April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a nation-wide ruling banning non-compete clauses in all employment contracts, regardless whether an individual is hired as an actual “employee” or as an independent contractor, paid or unpaid, an intern, or a sub-contractor hired to provide service to another party’s client or customer. You can read the announcement HERE.

Further review and analysis have shown that this new ruling, should it go into effect, will also prohibit venues and presenters from including any language in their engagement agreements restricting or prohibiting where an artist can perform before or after an artist’s performance. In other words, should the Grunion Run Performing Arts Center engage the Willy Tugger Jazz Band, they could not prohibit the band from performing two days later at the Annual Grunion Run Mayonnaise Festival where admission is free. Of course, regardless of the future contractual enforceability of a performance exclusivity clause, any artist who actually did this would be hammering a nail deep into the coffin of their touring career. 

Whilst the official effective date has yet to be announced, unless the new regulation is pre-empted by a lawsuit or other judicial action, then the ruling will likely go into effect sometime in Fall 2024.

 

 

 

Dear Law and Disorder:

Actual questions we get asked and the answers people actually don’t want

“With thanks, your friendly, neighbourhood car thief”

Dear Law & Disorder:

I want to post a video on my website that I found on the internet that would be perfect for my new project. I will give full credit to the musician, including the musician’s original link, would this be legal? And can you please specify on what full credit means.

A “copyright” is literally the right to make copies. A copyright “infringement” is when you make a copy of something without the owner’s permission. Almost everything you can find on the internet (photos, images, videos, text, etc.) is someone else’s property. Part of the challenge of understanding digital rights is that the ease with which we can download and copy materials on the internet tends to make us forget that copying any materials without permission is still copyright infringement. Without question, many people post pictures, videos, and other materials and are more than happy to have others repost and share them; but that decision is entirely up to the person who owns the materials. In other words, just because a car is parked on the street, doesn’t mean it’s free for the taking. As for giving “full credit,” that’s like stealing a car, but leaving a thank you note on the owner’s door. It doesn’t make it any less a crime.

If you want to get actual permission to post a video, photograph, or any other copyrighted material on your website, then you need to get permission (aka “a license”) from the owner—which may or may not be the artist. The better option would be for you to post a link to the video rather than post the video itself. In other words, you would be inviting your readers to go to YouTube or the artist’s own website to view the video. This way, the owner can control whether or not they want the video to be shared.

And now, the part you’ve all been waiting for……

Artist Visa News, Nausea

& Updates

 

Most of you know by now that between December 2023 and April 2024, USCIS implemented a number of new filing fees and policies purportedly designed to “maintain adequate service.” Please Note: I did not make that part up. This is direct quote from the preamble to the Final Rule issued by USCIS on January 31, 2024 in which it sets out the goals of its new rules and policies: Not to “improve service” or even “increase processing times,” but to aspire to the lofty and inspired goal of “maintain adequate service.” You can read it for yourself HERE. That’s only slightly less disingenuous than a mobile service touting a 6G upgrade of two tin cans and piece of string.

USCIS, far from its delusions of adequacy, instead has taken an already broken system, smashed it into more pieces, glued it back together with spit and crushed graham crackers, and tossed it into a soggy carboard box of berserk cane toads. After two months in the toad box, here’s where we are:

 

1. Standard Processing Times Are Getting Slower 

Processing times are getting longer, slower, and more intense, which is good news only for those of you who fantasize about USCIS visa examiners. Though we have seen a few instances of standard processed petitions taking 4 months or longer, most seem to be taking 2 – 4 months from the date of filing. Whilst the Vermont Service Center appears to be processing more quickly than the California Service, as USCIS is no longer assigning petitions to service centers based on jurisdiction, there is no way to know where your petition will wind up or exactly how long it will take to be processed.

Premium Processing appears to be taking 7 – 15 business days, with, again, Vermont processing more quickly than California.

2. USCIS Is Losing P Petitions

For those of you unfortunately forced to file multiple P petition to cover large groups, such as four P-1 Petitions to cover an orchestra of 80 musicians, USCIS is splitting them up and sending them to different service centers who adjudicate them at different times. Even when a single P-1 Petition is filed concurrently with a single P-1S Petition or an O-1 Petition is filed with an O-2 Petition, USCIS is splitting them up and sending them to different examiners at different service centers. In the interest of further proving that they aren’t even competent enough to trust with scissors, USCIS is also losing a few along the way. In one particular case, three P-1 Petitions for a large group were filed concurrently with premium processing. USCIS approved 2 and lost 1. Eventually, they found it 30 days after it had been filed, emailed the receipt notice with a thoughtful note saying, “thanks for your patience,” and approved it 2 days later. (Yes, USCIS has to refund the premium processing fee for that one.) So, allow even more time when filing petitions for large groups.

TIP: If you do not receive an I-979 Receipt Notice for a filed petition, then go to your bank and see if USCIS cashed the filing fee check. If so, on the back of the cancelled check will be the receipt number for the petition. You can then use this to deride them when they try to claim it was never filed. 

3. USCIS Is Improperly Rejecting Petitions

There have been numerous instances reported of USCIS rejecting petitions for incorrect filing fees even where the filing fees were correct. This appears to be due to the fact the separating the total filing fee of a petition into multiple different fees based on the business status of the petitioner has not worked as seamlessly as they had hoped. USCIS reports that this is a “training issue,” which presumably means this will improve with rolled newspaper and better treats.

TIP: If you are a non-profit of an employer of 1 – 25 employees, then be sure to address this in your cover letter and explain why you qualify for a reduced fee. Also remember to provide the appropriate documentation of your status.

REMINDER: To qualify as a “small employer” you must have at least 1 full-time employee on a payroll and from whose pay checks taxes are withheld. Otherwise, you are a “small business” or “self-employed” and must pay the maximum filing fees.

4. USCIS Is Issuing Barmier RFEs

USCIS has always been renowned for issuing tragically comical Requests for Evidence (RFEs) when it comes to displays of their obliviousness of anything that occurs on a stage—which, of course, always raises the question of whose idea it was to give them the final say on the casting and booking decisions of major opera companies, theatres, and presenters in the first place. Nonetheless, unattended USCIS Examiners have recently been burrowing into new depths of obtusity in their soiled sand box and issuing more preposterous RFEs. In particular, we have seen a disturbing increase in RFEs for P-1S (Essential Support Staff) Petitions in which they are asking for individual employment contracts for each person with specific employment terms and conditions, more information on why the services provided are necessary for a performance, and why the group can’t just hire US workers to do the same thing. To pluck just a few pearls:

  • What do stage managers do and why are they necessary for a performance?
  • Why can’t an orchestra engage a US-based Orchestra Manager to manage their orchestra when they perform in the US?
  • If the group is performing in New York City, will the group’s lighting designer and stage technicians be providing their services at the same venue at the same time?

Other notable RFE’s we have seen over the last few months include USCIS contending that:

  • An “audience prize” given to an artist at a competition does not count as an “award” because he was selected by the audience and not by experts, critics, or judges in his field.
  • Competitions for “Young Artists” do not count as significant awards or competitions because young artists are only competing against other young artists. For such an award to be “significant”, the competition must include older artists.
  • An opera conductor is not in the same field as an orchestral conductor because one conducts orchestras and one conducts operas, thereby requiring two union consultation letters.
  • An artist performing at a festival cannot be a “lead and starring artist” if there are other artists also performing at the same festival. To be a “lead and starring artist,” the artist must be the only artist performing at the festival.

And my personal favourite: a request for “independent, third-party proof” of the formal name and full street address of Carnegie Hall, as well as proof that, just because the artist has been engaged to perform at Carnegie Hall they will physically be performing on-site.

Fortunately, all of these petitions were ultimately approved, but not without extra expense, lost time, and digging ever deeper into the repository of linguistic condescension in responding to the RFEs—including printing out Google Maps driving directions from the address of the California Service Center to the front door of Carnegie Hall.

TIP: Trying to explain or induce USCIS to appreciate the impact of their ineptness on the Performing Arts will produce only slightly less meaningful results than a zip log bag of toenail clippings. Rather, work around them. Know that they are extraordinarily paranoid, as well as painfully literal. Never explain or make them think. Give them what they want to know, regardless of how stupid or rudimentary it may seem, and in the simplest of terms possible. If what they want doesn’t exist, draft simple, specific documents just for USCIS that addresses the specific things they want to know.

 

Want To Listen To More About Contracts?

 

My friend and longtime client, Laura Colby, a performing arts manager based in New York City, hosts a podcast entitled The Middle Woman. In The Middle Woman, Laura discusses best practices for managing, touring, and presenting the performing arts from the lens of a working artist and shares her collected learnings with the new generation of performing arts professionals.

She recently invited me to join her in a discussion about contracts in the performing arts.

Here are the links to access the episode on Spotify, Amazon Music, Audible, and Apple Podcast.

Whilst it may or may not be the best thing to listen to before going to bed, it was a great discussion.

 

 

 

Deep Thoughts

 

“Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others. The same applies when you are stupid.”

― Ricky Gervais

 

Send Us Your Questions! 

Let us know what you’d like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.

OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!

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

Don’t Toss A Banana To A Monkey If You Don’t Want The Monkey To Eat It

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

So, it seems we have ourselves a bit of questionable “inspiration” on our hands. The inventive work of one of our roster artists uses overhead projectors, multiple screens, puppets, actors, live feed cameras, multi-channel sound design, and a live music ensemble, to create shows. And, this technique has been popping up in other artists’ shows after the copy-cat artists have either attended one of our group’s shows or participated in one of their workshops. One person in particular attended a workshop and has now created her own show where she admits that she learned her techniques at one of our workshops. How do we prevent this kind of theft of intellectual property? Do they have any recourse to put a stop to (at a minimum) what seems to be straight-up plagiarism?

So if I understand this correctly, the group is holding workshops where they teach others their techniques, but want to make sure that those techniques are never used. They have two options: (1) make everyone who attends one of their workshops sign a contract that they will immediately forget everything they are taught; or (2) if they don’t want people copying their techniques, stop teaching workshops on how to copy their techniques! That’s like tossing a banana into a cage full of monkeys and expecting them not to eat it!

While copyright infringement is illegal, plagiarism is not. Plagiarism is an academic concept most of us are taught in school and is all about citing sources and giving credit. Plagiarism is not about copying; its about giving attribution to your sources. While similar, copyright infringement means that someone has copied an artist’s specific words, images, pictures, music, or other creative material without permission to do so. (Merely giving credit or attribution is insufficient.) The important concept here is that it’s the “material” being copied, and not the ideas or concepts behind the material.

Copyright infringement requires direct copying of actual scripts, images, pictures, music, etc. Copyright does not protect or prohibit the copying of ideas or concepts. Merely being inspired by another’s work or employing similar techniques and styles is not direct copying. In fact, the copyright laws are designed to discourage copying, but encourage imitation. So, for example, if I see a dance group performing to the music of Phillip Glass while dressed as pigeons, I can create the exact same routine for my own company—provided I do not copy the specific choreography or costumes of the other group. I would have to design my own pigeon costume (and, of course, get my own dramatic license from Mr. Glass’s publisher.) Similarly, if I see a show using overhead projectors, multiple screens, puppets, actors, live feed cameras, multi-channel sound design, and a live music ensemble, I can use the except same concepts and techniques to create my own shows—especially if I was taught how to do so by the original company. I just cannot copy the specific images, sounds, designs, or scripts of the original company. In short, your group cannot be the only one on in the world the uses overhead projectors, multiple screens, puppets, actors, live feed cameras, multi-channel sound design, and a live music ensemble. Your group can be the best. It can be the first. It can be the originator. But it cannot be the “only.”

I would certainly recommend that the group register copyrights for both its scripts and videos of its productions as that would make them easier to protect in the event of an instance of direct copying. That and stop encouraging imitating by teaching others how to imitate!

_________________________________________________________________

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 Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing | Comments Closed

Who Has To Pay The Likes of ASCAP, BMI, Etc?

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

I haven’t found an example that matches the situation of a 501(c)(3) I am familiar with. They throw a once-yearly art festival that spans a weekend (2days). They don’t charge the public any admittance. They raise money by charging fees for booth (10×10) spaces for (visual) arts vendors to sell their merchandise. They raise money for: their operating expenses, student art scholarships, member art scholarships, honoraria for program presenters at meetings, a fund for a permanent “home” for the 501c3 where they can hold meetings and store various gear for the meetings between times. They also have an open air music stage at that festival where local musicians perform. The musicians are paid under $150.00 for a 2 hour performance that includes 5 minutes each for set-up, a break, and stage clear-off. Most, but not all of the pieces performed are written by the performers. The “audience” is anyone who wanders by and stays to listen for a while. So, who, if anyone, has to pay fees to the likes of ASCAP, BMI, etc.?

It sounds like the 501(c)(3) organization in your scenario is trying to raise money for some very admirable and worthy goals: art scholarships, arts education, and even providing a place for local musicians to perform. In fact, these goals sound so worthy that I’m sure you wouldn’t object to the organization using your house for meetings or taking your car whenever they needed it to transport students to art classes, all without your permission and without paying you any fees. While you might be more than willing to donate your home or car on occasion, my suspicion is that you’d at least like to be asked first. As a general rule, the involuntary donation of other’s property without their permission—even if it’s for a really good cause—is also called “stealing.”

A musical composition—just like a home or a car—is considered property. It is no less valuable—indeed, I would argue, it is of greater value—than anything else you are required to pay for that has a physical price tag attached. A musical composition belongs to the composer who wrote it and/or the composer’s publishing company. Under U.S. Copyright Law, whoever owns a musical composition also has the absolute right to control and determine all uses of the property—this includes the right to perform the music live, record the music, play a recording of the music for the public, change the lyrics, make arrangements, or just about anything else you can think of to do with music; including the right to determine whether or not to donate the use of the composition for a worthy cause or project.

This means that any time a musical composition is performed live or a recording of the composition is played—whether it’s at a theater, concert hall, or out-door street festival (for-profit or non-profit)—“someone” needs to obtain the composer’s permission and, in most cases, pay a usage fee called a “Performance License.” ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are not roving bands of brigands waiting to pounce on unsuspecting non-profits who are merely trying to promote the arts. Rather, these organizations are trying to promote the arts too—primarily by reminding people (including other artists) not to take music for granted as a valueless commodity. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are organizations that represent composers, issuing performance licenses and collecting fees on their behalf.

If musicians are performing original music they composed themselves, then they can certainly agree to perform their own music for free. That can be a condition of hiring them to perform in the first place. However, if a musician or band is playing (“covering”) music composed by others, then just because the musicians agree to perform for a reduced fee, or even for free, doesn’t mean that the composers have allowed their music to be performed for free as well. A performance requires a performance license.

As for whose responsibility it is to obtain the necessary license, its legally everyone’s responsibility. If an unlicensed song is performed at a festival (even a free festival), then the U.S Copyright Act allows all the parties involved in arranging the performance—the artist as well as the venue or festival, and sometimes even the promoter, producer, or booking agent—to be liable for copyright infringement. So, while you could require the musicians to obtain their own licenses with regard to any music they are performing which they have not composed themselves, in my opinion that is a foolish policy. Why? Because most musicians will simply not bother and elect to take the risk of not getting caught. However, if they do get caught, it is the venue or festival who will be liable as well. It doesn’t matter that the festival may have required another party to obtain the license. That simply entitles the festival to sue the other party. The festival itself will remain liable to the composer.

So, in your case, while there are a number of factors that can determine the cost of obtaining performance licenses—the size of the venue, the price of tickets (or lack thereof), the number of performances, etc.–ultimately, it’s in the festival’s or organization’s best interest to ensure that the necessary permissions and licenses are obtained. While it might be tempting to proceed under the expectation that no one will get caught or the publishers and copyright owners will not sue small artists or struggling non-profits, that’s the same as robbing a bank and hoping the police won’t find you. Not to mention, in an industry where so many purport to operate under the noble purpose of promoting the value of art and artists, I can’t imagine the rationalization of stealing it for any purpose, regardless of how noble.

__________________________________________________________________

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 Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Venues | Comments Closed

Press “Pause” On That Recording

Thursday, October 29th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

In reviewing an engagement contract for one of my artists, I was surprised to see that the presenter wants the right to record the artist’s performance as a “work-for-hire”. The Presenter says that this is a standard requirement and also that its reasonable because my artist is protected by language in the contract that says: “In no event shall Producer have the right to exploit the recordings and/or an audiovisual program in connection therewith in any other manner other than non-commercial, educational and/or charitable uses or exhibitions without Artist’s prior written approval and without a separate agreement, negotiated in good faith with respect to any such uses or exploitation thereof.” Is this standard these days? Should I advise the artist to agree to this?

Standard for whom? As I have said, and will keep repeating until someone listens, no terms are “standard”—not recording rights, nor commissions, nor exclusivity restrictions, nor unilateral cancellation rights, nor any other nonsense which parties like to throw at one another under the banner of “standard.”

While, ultimately, it’s your artist’s decision, not yours, you should advise your artist not to agree to the language the presenter has proposed. The proposed language reflects a common mistaken belief within the performing arts part of the entertainment industry that so long as you don’t sell a recording, then all other uses are inherently “non-commercial.” However, particularly in the classical world where a classical recording hasn’t actually generated a profit since the release of “Fantasia”, no one really “sells” recordings anymore—at least, not for a profit. This means that, except in limited situations, there really are no practical uses or exhibitions for recordings other than “non-commercial, educational and/or charitable uses or exhibitions.” This further means that if you were to agree to the proposed terms, the presenter could do just about anything they wanted with your artist’s recording. Their proposed “protection” is meaningless.

Just because a recording isn’t sold, is unprofitable, is used for education, or is used by a non-profit organization does not make it inherently “non-commercial” or valueless. A recording still has value. Using a recording to promote the presenter or further a presenter’s mission provides value to the presenter which the presenter has not paid for. Otherwise, why does the presenter want it in the first place? Presenters need to stop believing that just because they engage an artist and pay for the artist’s performance then that also includes the right to record the artist’s performance and “own” the recording. In the real world, you only get what you pay for. When you buy a car, does it come with a chauffeur? It’s not merely presumptuous, but it completely demeans the value of the artist’s work—which, quite frankly, happens all too often these days by the same parties who should know better.

In addition, an artist always needs to be able to control how the artist is seen and heard. A poor recording of a brilliant performance could have devastating impact on an artist—particular a young or developing artist. Even a good recording, if released in its entirety, could limit an artist’s ability to release a recording of the same work in the future if it has already been made available for free.

While I generally have no objection to a recording being made, it’s the uses of and rights to the recording that need to clearly defined—and limited. First and foremost, unless the engagement fee includes an additional fee for “ownership” of the recording or the opportunity to perform with a particularly presenter is of such magnitude as to provide additional value to the artist, then the whole concept of a “work for hire” should be off the table. Instead, if anything, the presenter should only be able to use limited excerpts of the recording for limited purposes. Just as importantly, the artist should be always able to approve any recording to make sure that the artist is pleased both with her performance as well as with the quality of the recording itself. Third, whatever rights are granted to the presenter in an artist’s recording, should be granted to the artist as well. If the presenter gets the right to make and use a recording, then the artist should get a copy for the artist’s own promotional and marketing purposes as well. Any restrictions or approvals should be mutual.

__________________________________________________________________

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, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Music Rights, Recordings | Comments Closed

A Tribute To Copyright Infringement

Wednesday, September 16th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

Could you please advise how a copyright application would be filed for a tribute musical of deceased popular singer? The show would consist of all of his songs. Would it be better to file it as a compilation or concert? Can all the songs be included in one application? Thank you

Is this, by any chance, the long awaited musical “Indian Love Call”, a tribute to the intoxicating sounds of Slim Whitman? I heard there’s a lost studio recording somewhere featuring Slim Whitman, Tiny Tim, Axl Rose, and Celine Dion performing a cover of “Total Eclipse of the Heart.” It would make a great Act I finale.

For most musicals, a copyright registration application would include the book, music, and lyrics written by the authors. However, tribute musicals such as Mamma Mia, Jersey Boys, All Shook Up and Beautiful, which are also known as “jukebox” musicals, are different in that they typically feature works which has been previously performed and composed by others. The authors and creators of such musicals must license all the music from the original composer or composers. This gives them the rights to use the music and lyrics in the musical, and usually to record a cast album, but gives the creators of the musical no ownership rights in the individual works themselves. You cannot claim copyright ownership, or file a copyright registration, with regard to any material that is not original or which you do not either own or create yourself.

Producing a tribute musical about a singer can pose a number of additional challenges in that, unless the singer also wrote the music he sang, you would need to obtain licenses from the publishers and composers of the songs the singer performed. In addition, the name, appearance, or costume of the deceased singer might be considered trademarks controlled by his estate.

If your production is a scripted musical (ie: with a story, plot and characters), as opposed to a concert, then you could claim a copyright in the book and spoken dialogue, and, perhaps, the order in which the music was performed, but not in the music and lyrics themselves. Even arrangements or orchestrations would need to be licensed from the original composers and could not be included in your copyright registration unless your license agreement permitted you to do so.  If your production is actually more of a tribute concert, then there may actually be very little you can copyright or own.

The whole point of registering a copyright is to claim ownership and stop others from copying or infringing your work. However, in the field of tribute performances, there may actually be more the publishers or composers of the music and the estate of a deceased singer can do to stop you than you can do to stop others. Remember, a “tribute” is not a magic word that means “copyright or license free.” The entertainment field is littered with the carcasses of concerts and performances that were stopped because the subject of a tribute did not like, want, or approve the gesture. In any artistic venture, before investing the time, talent, and energy it takes to create and protect your work, you first want to make sure you are not improperly using the time, talent, and energy of other artists that came before you.

___________________________________________________________________

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.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 Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Trademarks | 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

Don’t Be Shy About BMI

Wednesday, March 25th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

Hypothetical: A theatrical production company would like to produce a tribute musical production to a songwriter using only the songwriter’s music being performed by the cast of the production. The production would be held at a community theater which is not licensed by ASCAP or any licensing authority. The production company is unsure of its legal standing in carrying out this this production, and would like some general guidance. Where could they go to determine the requirements, if any.

If any? There are always requirements. I don’t know anything that doesn’t require something in return.

The production company has no legal standing to carry out this production without first obtaining the necessary licenses. If the songs are being performed as part of a “concert” style performance—that is, being sung without props or costumes and not as part of any plot, story, or narrative—then the producer would merely need to get a performance license from whichever one of the three major performance license agencies the songwriter belongs to: ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. If the songwriter doesn’t belong to one of these (which is unlikely, but possible), then the licenses would need to be obtained from the songwriter directly.

It doesn’t matter whether or not the performance is being held at a community theater or whether or not the community theater holds a license with ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. Performance licenses must still be obtained and either you (hypothetically, of course) or the theater must obtain them. There is no legal requirement that the venue be the one to obtain performance licenses. While its probably easier for the venue to obtain the licenses, it is the responsibility of all of the parties involved in a production—from the producer and performers to the venues and agents—to ensure that someone obtains the necessary licenses. Otherwise, everyone will be held responsible and, hypothetically, you don’t want that. Also, if this is a production which the production company envisions producing elsewhere, then it probably makes more sense for the production company to get the licenses itself.

If the production company wants to obtain the licenses, it would simply contact ASCAP, BMI, or SESEC directly. However, there are a few additional issues that could quickly change the simple to the sublimely complex:

1) If what you are “hypothetically” envisioning is not so much a concert “tribute”, but, rather, a “juke box musical” where the songs of one composer are used as the score of an actual musical drama or to tell a story (ie: Mamma Mia, Jersey Boys or Beautiful), then neither ASCAP, BMI or SESAC can help you. You will need dramatic licenses, not performance licenses. Dramatic licenses must be obtained directly from the songwriter or the songwriter’s publisher. If this is the case, you should be prepared for a resounding and thunderous “no.”

2) Even if you are planning a more traditional concert tribute such as Side-by-Side-by-Sondheim or An Evening of Andrew Lloyd Webber, many musical theater and other composers have restrictions preventing more than a specific number of their works from being performed as part of the same concert without obtaining additional rights directly from the publisher.

Nevertheless, contacting ASCAP, BMI and/or SESAC is always the best place to start on any licensing journey. Don’t be shy. They want to have their artists’ works get performed as much as you want to perform them. However, they also want to make sure their artists get paid, just like you do. Assuming, of course, that the production company expects to sell tickets, if any.

__________________________________________________________________

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 Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Venues | Comments Closed

How Is Copyright Infringement Like An Ugly Car?

Thursday, November 20th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

What rights does a translator have? I translated a non-English script into English. All of the prior translations were very bad, which is why I did my own.  Everyone agrees mine is the best, even the original author. However, now that I am getting offers to produce my English version, the author and his publisher are insisting that, if I want to proceed, then they will own the translation and just pay me royalties for English productions using my translation. That doesn’t seem fair. The translation is all my work. I thought translators own the copyrights in their translations, so, don’t I already own it?

Robyn always tells me I never met an analogy I didn’t like, and I feel one coming on now.

Let’s assume I own a car which drives well, but is a hideous colour of besmirched baby blue (which, as it happens, was, in fact, the hideous colour of the first car I ever owned—a ’72 Buick Skylark which had belong to my grandfather, but I digress). You believe that you can re-paint my car and make it look like a Ferrari and offer to do so. Assuming I accept your offer, just because you paint my car doesn’t mean you now own the car or have any rights to drive it. I might owe you for your time and materials, but even if you make the car look better, the car itself still belongs to me. More importantly, let’s assume that I decline your offer, but you break into my garage and paint my car anyway. Even if you were somehow successful in turning my Buick into a Ferrari, you would still not have any ownership rights or control. You’d also be guilty of trespassing. (Incidentally, my mother did this very thing, erroneously believing that I would be touched and delighted with her thoughtfulness in having my car repainted, without my knowledge, from besmirched baby blue to her choice of vibrant puce. I was not.)

A copyright is like a car. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to determine who uses it and how—including the rights to edit it, make copies of it, perform it, record it, re-arrange it, re-orchestrate it, translate it, or create derivative works from it. A “derivative” work is anything that “derives” from the original work, such as a play or novel made into a film, a composition used to create a toy music box, etc. In short, there is nothing you can do without the owner’s permission and, in exchange for such permission, the owner can set any terms, reasonable or unreasonable, that the owner wants—including the right to refuse permission entirely. (Ok, there are one two minor exceptions, but they don’t apply to your question.)

If you want to translate someone else’s work, you must have the original author’s permission. If you don’t like the terms of the author’s permission, don’t do the translation and move on to another project. You are correct that, if translations contain a sufficient amount of creativity (as opposed to, say, a Google translation), then the translation is, itself, subject to its own copyright owned by the translator. However—and this is a BIG “however”—if you didn’t have the original author’s permission to make the translation in the first place, then your copyright is meaningless. It doesn’t matter how artistically nuanced, sensitive, or authentic it may be. As an unauthorized translation, any use of the translation would constitute an infringement of the original author’s copyright. Owning the copyright in the translation merely gives you the right to stop others, including the original author, from using it, but it doesn’t give you any right to use it without the original author’s permission.

Learn from my Mother—step away from the car!

_________________________________________________________________

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 Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing | Comments Closed

When Is A “Work For Hire” Not A “Work For Hire”?

Thursday, July 10th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

An orchestra commissioned one of our artists to make an arrangement of a work for them to perform. We agreed that it would be a “work for hire.” Now, the orchestra wants to record their performance of the arrangement and has come to us asking for the artist’s permission. It was my understanding that a “work for hire” meant that the orchestra owned it. Is that not the case? If they own it, why are they asking us for permission? If they record it, can the composer still ask for royalties even though the commission agreement stated it was a “work for hire?” What am I missing?  

You’re not missing anything. You are absolutely correct that when a commission agreement expressly states that the commissioned work will be a “work for hire”, then the commissioner owns it. In which case, the composer isn’t entitled to anything beyond the commission fee.

Apparently, however, the orchestra doesn’t understand what a “work for hire” means. The orchestra was either using a commission agreement template they didn’t understand or believed that the term “work for hire” meant they were hiring someone to do work. Regardless, playing with templates and “legalese” is like self-medicating—someone always winds up in the ER.

If the orchestra has come to you of its own volition asking for the artist’s permission, then I would offer to grant permission in exchange for a mechanical license or other appropriate royalty. If they agree, then you have just obtained royalties for your artist that he or she would not otherwise be entitled to. Just because the orchestra legally owns the arrangement doesn’t mean that it can’t make a subsequent and legally binding agreement to pay royalties to your artist even though they are currently under no obligation to do so. Would you be taking advantage of the orchestra’s misunderstanding if the rights it already has? Perhaps, but I would submit that keeping any royalty to the statutory minimum and allowing the artist to obtain what should have been negotiated in the first place mitigates the karmic debt. Besides, rationalization and self-delusion are among the vital cornerstones of the arts industry.

________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Recordings | Comments Closed

The Lost Art of Negotiation

Thursday, June 12th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

A longtime friend who is also a very successful artist who I greatly respect, asked me to do a project with him. He sent me a contract, but it doesn’t cover things like when and how I get paid. I want to mark up the contract and suggest some language, but I also don’t want to offend him and have him think I am being too difficult to work with and ungrateful for this opportunity. Is there some specific language I can put in the contract that he won’t find offensive, but will still protect me?   

I had a client of mine call me today about a contract she had sent to a promoter who then struck out a specific term that my client needed and sent the contract back to her. Frustrated and desperate to make the deal happen, she wanted me to suggest another way to phrase the term in such a way that the promoter would agree to it. Both you and my client are asking very legitimate questions, but the answers have little to do with contracts and everything to do with business and negotiation skills.

Contracts exist to memorialize an agreement. You can’t memorialize something that doesn’t exist yet. That’s like trying to take a photograph of a place you’ve never been. Before a contract can be properly drafted, much less signed, the parties have to discuss all of the key terms. While you can certainly use a contract to begin the discussion, you can’t avoid the discussion by simply crossing out terms you don’t like and inserting the ones you do. More importantly, there are no magic words, standard terms, or compelling phrases that will take the place of the need to discuss and negotiate.

Too many people in our industry try to use a contract to avoid negotiation—most often for the very reasons you mention: they are too scared of offending the other party, of not getting the terms they need, or of losing a deal or opportunity they really want. However, if you approach a negotiation as a game of deception in which the goal is to use illusive or even deceptively simplistic language or aggressive tactics to cajole the other party into agreeing to something unreasonable or something to your advantage which they would not otherwise agree to (ie: Lawyering 101), then you most certainly should expect the other side to be offended and deserve to lose the deal. On the other hand, if the other party is offended by a legitimate expression of your concerns, sincere questions about a specific term, or proposals that would clarify something you find confusing, then its probably either a deal you don’t want in the first place or a party you don’t want to work with. Just as importantly, if someone doesn’t agree with a term you want, they are not going to agree no matter how you phrase it. Phrasing the same thing in a different way isn’t going to help either. Even if you manage to word it in such a way that they can’t tell what they are agreeing to (what a lot of people refer to as “legalese”), then you’ll have to sue them to enforce it. Instead, you’ll either need to negotiate a compromise or evaluate whether or not the deal is equally advantageous to you without that term.

I have been to many purported lectures on negotiation at arts conferences, only to find that the lecture was really just about how to get presenters to book artists. That’s important, of course, but the real art of negotiation involves far more than discussing date, time and fee. Whether it is a commission, a booking, a production, or a recording, you must discuss and negotiate not just the artistic and logistical elements, but all of those nasty and boring business elements as well—such as liability, insurance, rights, licenses, approvals, exclusivity, taxes, visas, etc. If you are unfamiliar with the necessary business elements of a deal, the time to learn them is before you negotiate, not during the process.

A negotiation does not mean you will get what you want. Rather, a negotiation is a process that allows you to evaluate whether or not you will get what you need. Some opportunities are just that—opportunities—and a good opportunity may require you to accept some risk. But without taking the time to talk and discuss, you won’t have the information you need to access that risk properly. In other words, the negotiation process will save you from disappointment and frustration later on.

As for an answer to your specific question, I would say: Protect you from what? If your “longtime friend who is also a very successful artist who [you] greatly respect” breaches your contract, are you prepared to sue him? I thought not. I suggest you call your friend and ask him when and how you get paid. Don’t ever be scared to ask a legitimate question—especially when dealing with a friend. In the bi-polar cocktail of simultaneous love and resentment we call the arts world, doing business with friends demands an even higher degree of mindful discussion than doing business with strangers.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Taxes, Touring, Venues, Visas | Comments Closed

« Older Entries