Archive for the ‘Recordings’ Category

« Older Entries

HOW TO FIX EVERYTHING

Thursday, January 28th, 2021

EXPLORING NEW BUSINESS MODELS AND PRACTICES IN THE PERFORMING ARTS IN A POST-COVID WORLD

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

Aside from thwarting a clown car coup, 2021 is certainly not off to the auspicious start we all had hoped for. Nonetheless, it is with trepidatious optimism that we find ourselves crawling out from our burrows like traumatized cicadas as we look towards re-establishing and re-building the world of live performing arts.

We have lost treasured venues, ensembles, businesses, and colleagues. Much, if not most, of the scorched earth we find will be attributable to the ravages of COVID. However, much will also be due to old and outdated business models and practices that were just waiting for an unperceivable pufflet of wind to topple them, much less the ravaging hurricane of a global pandemic. As we survey the damage, now is the time to consider rebuilding and reimagining those business models and practices. There’s nothing like the opportunity of a disaster to build a toppled house back on a better and stronger foundation than that on which it was built before.

As such, it was with the greatest enthusiasm and exhilarating gratification that I have of late been asked to weigh-in on numerous proposals from various groups and interests within the performing arts industry wanting to change the way business is done. This has quickly been followed by the resounding despair and blinding dismay of having repeatedly found myself reviewing not imaginative and daring visions of the future, but attempts to re-clothe and re-animate the cadavers of the past. Proposal after proposal has been premised upon the belief that changing the business “model” in the performing arts industry means finding a way in which various parties—presenters, venues, artists, managers, producers, promoters, labels—can come together to agree upon common practices and contractual terms so that we can all go back to “business as usual.” There have been cries of “we need to change the way the business works” and “we need to get everyone together and implement new industry standards and practices to which the vast majority of people would agree to implement.”

 The prevailing thought appears to be that if we can all just agree on “standard” terms for things such as insurance, cancellations, minimum booking fees and formulas, recording rights, and even timing for issuing and returning contracts, then everyone can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go back to negotiating and focusing only on fees, dates, planning, and repertoire—in other words, the more inspiring and fulfilling parts of the business.  I’ve read proposals that include such suggestions as “all engagements should provide for deposits and rehearsal fees” (I agree) to “there should be standard media terms that would automatically allow for streaming rights and recordings” (I do not agree) to finding new Force Majeure language that would “…make sure future pandemic events are not cause for cancellation” (Seriously?).

None of these proposals focus on the true crisis before us: the exploration of whether or not the business structures, plans, and methodologies upon which venues, presenters, producers, managers, agents, labels, etc. are run and managed need to be re-thought and re-imagined for a new age and new realities. Instead, what I have seen thus far is not unlike neighbors in a beach community finding their homes devastated by a hurricane and deciding not to rebuild on stronger foundations further away from the shore, but to put everything back exactly the way it was before, except, this time, mutually agreeing to paint their shutters all the same colour.

These concept of implementing standards and practices that everyone will agree upon arises from the long-cherished delusion that there exists a legendary grimoire of industry standards and practices that merely needs to be dusted off, amended, and updated for the 21st century. If everyone merely agrees to abide by this book, then peace will be restored to the kingdom. The trouble is…no such book exists…and no such book has ever existed. The only industry standards in the performing arts industry are that there are NO standards! To be sure, there are opinions. Strong opinions. We’ve all encountered comments such as “this is how the opera world does it” and “this is not how we do it in jazz” and “that’s not how commissions work.” However, if you polled a cross section of any segment of the performing arts about any given topic, you will find a significant divergence of opinion as to what is and what is not “standard.” What any one person believes to be standard may simply be based on their own limited experience in their own tiny corner of the industry.

To be sure, there are ways to structure some deals and transactions that are more common than others, and there is no reason to reinvent wheels where others have already figured out reasonable ways to build them, but there will always be circumstances warranting different arrangements for different organizations, individuals, projects, and budgets. More often than not, the term “industry standard” is thrown about in lieu of admitting “this works for me and I’d rather not change.” Worse, it’s often employed as a form of peer pressure to circumvent negotiation or compromise by making the other party feel that they are either too ill-informed or ill-experienced to realize the absurdity of whatever very reasonable proposal they may have just made.

So, if there are no industry standards, why can’t we all just get together and create some? If enough people agree on common contract terms and procedures, then wouldn’t that compel everyone else to fall in line and do it the same way? If everyone agrees to abide by what we all agree is fair, doesn’t that take away the risk of anything being unfair?

First, there are the practical challenges of defining even sub-segments of an industry as diverse as the performing arts, much less getting them all together and mutually agree upon  common procedures for how anything works: bookings, recordings, commissions, rehearsals, etc. There are large and small venues and presenters. For-profits and non-profits. There are different genres. Different audiences. Different goals and missions. Commercial and non-commercial producers. Etc. Etc.

Second, but by no means least, in most countries this is also illegal.

Let’s say that we all agree amongst ourselves that artists should be paid deposits (which, again for the record, I agree with—if you can’t hire a wedding caterer or a building contractor without a deposit, why are artists expected to be paid only after work is done?) What if a huge, prestigious producer or orchestra offers an engagement, but refuses to pay a deposit? Are you going to walk away and refuse to accept the date? Probably not. The reality, of course, is that unless an artist has enough prestige and clout to demand their own terms, then there are always more artists than there are venues and presenters. This, naturally, gives stronger negotiating power to presenters, producers, and venues. This is also called “Show Business.” But what if all the artists or their representatives get together and agree that they will all demand the same terms for all artists? If all the artists and their representatives stick together, then venues and presenters will be forced to comply, right? Not so fast. If a group within any industry unifies to set standard terms and practices with which all members of the group will be required to abide and with the purpose of coercing or compelling other businesses to agree to such terms and practices or else be excluded, this is called “collective bargaining.” In the United States, at least, only authorized unions or organizations are allowed to do that. In addition, any group of businesses within an industry that teams up or forms a monopoly in order to set the terms and conditions within that industry can be held to be in violation of various anti-monopoly and trade practices laws. In the U.S., for arcane historical reasons, these are called anti-trust laws.

So, does this mean we all just throw our hands up and surrender ourselves to a world of unfettered, Darwinian capitalism where ticket sales and popularity alone determines the future of the performing arts? Absolutely not! It is and will always be critical for the various groups and interests that comprise the performing arts world to come together to discuss mutual concerns and issues and how best to address them collaboratively. However, in any business enterprise, whether it exists within the performing arts or any other business sector, exploring new business models means looking inward to how you currently conduct your own business—not someone else’s. What services do you provide or offer? Is there a demand for those services? What are those services worth? What are your streams of income and revenue? Are you too reliant on either passive or active income? Who is your competition? What is your sustainability? What makes you unique? Are you over staffed or understaffed? Do you need to learn new skills? Are there better ways to fulfill your mission, goals, or creative aspirations?

Exploring a new business model is not a group activity. It is purely an inward journey. An act of self-introspection and challenge that cannot be done by committee. It is done in the depths of the night, alone, often with Slipsmith gin and two olives. Any business facing an existential challenge of survival does not address the problem by reaching out to other businesses with suggestions of what they should be doing to help the field or make your life easier. Rather, what are YOU doing that may need to be changed, rethought, or reimagined and what can YOU do to help yourself? Are there treasured customs, practices, presumptions, and assumptions that you are loathe to give up? Perhaps it is YOU who needs to turn away from industry standards (whatever you believe them to be) and try something different. For example, are the traditional roles and services of agents and managers still relevant? Do we need to continue planning concerts and performances around a fixed “season?” Does an artist really need a label to release and promote a recording? Are there other ways to monetize and promote artistic and creative services to create more diverse streams of income for artists as well as venues, theaters, and producers? Are performing arts unions today advocates or hindrances for their artists? Is there a role for more immersive experiences in theatre and concerts? Does the commission model continue to make sense for artists and their representatives? Is there a continued role for booking conferences? Are you still sending out paper press releases? Are you ignoring the role of social media and other interactive technologies? Are there diverse faces and voices in your audiences or on your stages? Are there more ways for popular and less popular genres to collaborate? Should dysfunctional non-profit organizations continue to be the default business structure for certain artistic genres? Do all classical concert and recital halls have to be an anesthetizing mélange of browns and beiges? Perhaps the time has also come to bridge the ancient abyss between arts and entertainment and explore aspects of entrepreneurialism that can be borrowed to further the sustainability of our highest artistic standards and endeavors.

There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. In fact, these are all questions that have long been proposed, discussed, tossed about, disputed, debated, and then dismissed into the rubbish bin to be addressed another day. However, that day has come. This is it. The tide of COVID has swept our businesses off their foundation. Do we build them back better and stronger than before, or build them back the same, but with colour-coordinated shutters?

_________________________________________________

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE: ggartslaw.com

 

 

__________________________________________________

THE 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 nasty or threatening email to someone, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about.

 

Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, For Profits, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Publishing, Recordings, Unions, 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

When Is A Plumber Worth More Than A Violinist?

Thursday, July 9th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

We spent a lot of money making a CD to promote our orchestra. Now the composer’s publisher wants mechanical royalties. I just don’t understand why I have to pay mechanical royalties for a CD I am not selling, just giving to donors. Doesn’t the Composer want people to listen to his music?

Does your orchestra sell tickets to its concerts? Why? Don’t you want people to come and listen to the music?

While everyone in the performing arts end of the entertainment industry appreciates the importance of music, not as many appreciate or understand its value. In fact, many don’t like discussing commercial or business concepts like “value” at all. However, an artist’s time and talent is the artist’s service. It’s no less of a commodity that any other service like a plumber or electrician. While many would argue, and I would agree, that an artist is worth even more, when a pipe once burst in my house in the middle of the night, I was far more relieved to see a plumber show up than a violinist!

Whether a musician’s performance is enjoyed live or on a recording, the musician needs to be paid for providing his or her talent. Musicians have bills to pay just like everyone else. For the same reason, when a composer’s composition is performed, either live or on a recording, he or she needs to be paid for providing his or her talent in creating the composition in the first place. While it’s true that some composers receive commissions to create a work, not all do, and a commission fee only pays for the creation of the work itself. Just like an author gets a royalty every time her book is sold and a playwright gets a royalty every time his play is produced, a composer gets a royalty every time her music is performed or a recording made of the performance. When a composition is performed, the performer must pay a performance royalty, most often by obtaining a performance license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. When a composition is recorded, the performer must pay a “mechanical royalty” (an outdated term for a “recording royalty”) directly to the composer or the composer’s publisher. The mechanical royalty is based on the length of the composition and how many copies are made of the recording of the performance of the composition.

I appreciate your frustration in having to pay mechanical royalties for CDs that are given away, but that’s like saying that musicians should be paid less if a concert is free or only based on the number of tickets sold. Whether or not you choose to sell the recordings does not change the fact that you recorded a performance of the composer’s composition. Just because you want to purchase a television to donate to an orphanage doesn’t mean that Best Buy is going to let you walk out of the store with it for free.  While many artists do graciously give freely of their time and talents in promoting the performing arts, that decision is not yours to make for them. Largesse and munificence should be offered, never presumed. If yours is the first recording of this particular work and the composer is not already widely performed and listed to, I bet the composer would consider receiving a number of free CDs in lieu of mechanical royalties.

__________________________________________________________________

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 Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings | 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

Hypothetically Speaking About Liability

Thursday, May 1st, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

If a hypothetical rental company is hired, either by a venue or by the client using a venue, to supply the sound and/or video system for a corporate, non-profit or association event; and this hypothetical rental company is asked to provide “top 40” music to be used during “walk in”, dinner, award winner walks up to the stage, etc. where in the liability chain would this rental company be? What if the end client hands the hypothetical rental company a stack of CD’s or worse, a drive full of MP3’s and requests/insists that they be played? If “ultimately” the owner of the venue is responsible of verifying that proper licensing has been obtained but “everyone involved” is at risk of being named in a lawsuit if proper licensing has not been obtained, how does the vendor in the middle point to either the venue or the end client as the responsible parties?  Is it enough to spell out specific language in the rental agreement? <sarcasm> I know that you are, no doubt, shocked to hear that this scenario might be possible.  However, IF it were to become “common practice” among rental companies to happily play whatever they and/or their client wanted without so much as a hesitation, it would be difficult for any hypothetical rental company to compete if they were the one’s constantly harping on usage rights with their clients. </sarcasm> 

In truth, I’m less shocked by the possibility of the scenario you propose than astonished—nay, agog—by your desire to be proactive about it—even hypothetically. It’s a welcome reprieve from the “let’s not call GG Arts Law until we’ve actually been sued by Disney” approach we are more familiar with.

Merely being named in a lawsuit doesn’t mean that you will necessarily be found responsible—or, as lawyers like to say “liable.” Liability requires that you had a duty to do, or not do, something which you did or did not do. In your hypothetical, its not entirely accurate to say that “ultimately the owner of the venue is responsible for verifying that the proper licensing has been obtained.” Rather, if licensing is required, everyone involved in the performance has a duty to make sure that the proper licenses are obtained—not just the owner of the venue, but the hypothetical rental company and the rental company’s client. Its more accurate to say that, while, ultimately, the owner of the venue is more likely to get sued, everyone involved could be held responsible.

However, you are correct that the hypothetical rental company can put language in its rental agreement that says that whomever is hiring the company (either the venue itself or the person renting the venue, or both) agrees to obtain all necessary licenses and, in the event the rental company is sued and found to be liable for copyright infringement, will cover all of its legal costs and expenses, as well as any damages it might be ordered to pay. The technical term for such a clause is “indemnification and hold harmless”, but there’s no need to use magic legal terms so long as the meaning is clear. While having such a clause in its rental agreement will neither protect the hypothetical rental company from getting sued nor protect it from being liable, it will give the company a contractual basis to turn to the party that signed the rental agreement and say “you agreed to take care of this problem. Fix it!”

Even with an indemnification and hold harmless clause in its pocket, whether or not the hypothetical rental company can happily play whatever it and/or its hypothetical client wanted without so much as a hesitation really depends on the venue where the company has been hired to provide services and where such venue lies on what I call the Risk-O-Meter.  On the low end of the meter lies most for-profit venues (hotels, rental halls, restaurants, conference centers, etc) which more often than not will have obtained the necessary blanket licenses from the major performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) to permit that stack of CD’s or a drive full of MP3’s to be played. So, no worries. On the high end you will find the non-profit venues, schools, community centers, and social halls which either don’t know they are supposed to get performance licenses or incorrectly believe that because they are non-profit they are also non-commercial and are exempt from the statutes, rules, laws, and other social orders by which the rest of us must abide. (While not all commercial venues are non-profit, almost all non-profit venues are also commercial.) Your need to harp on usage rights is directly proportionate to where you lie on the Risk-O-Meter—hypothetically speaking, of course.

__________________________________________________________________

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

How Much Is That Artist In The Window?

Thursday, April 24th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

My ensemble has been approached by a composer/musician who would like them to do two days of recording for music that she is composing for a theater company. My understanding is that this theater company does quite a bit of touring. Do musicians typically get royalties each time the recording is performed or would this just be a buyout situation with the composer?

As, typically, most musicians rarely get paid what they deserve, I’d rather find a better standard.

We don’t often like to think of performing artists as a commodity, but it situations such as this that remind us why show business is a “business.” Like pricing any other product or service, it always comes down to how badly the buyer wants what you’re selling and how badly you want to sell it to them. In this case, you’ve got two things to sell: (1) the time and talent of the artists to show up for two days and perform whilst being recorded and (2) the right to use the recording of their performance. You can sell them together or separately. You can sell all of the rights or only some of the rights. You can also include any restrictions, limitations, or conditions that you feel might be beneficial to the ensemble. Unlike selling used cars, there’s no Blue Book where you can look up pre-determined values.  Nothing is standard.  Figuring out what to charge and how to charge ultimately depends on an analysis of the specific circumstances of how the recording will be used:

Will the recording be used as background music or as a featured part of the theater company’s production? Will there be other recordings by other prominent artists used during the same performances or as part of the same production? Will the theater company be using the recording for performances at commercial venues or PACs? What is the commercial potential of the production? Do they intend to use the recording to produce and sell a soundtrack or just use the recording for performances? Does being associated with this particular composer or the theater company bring any value or heightened exposure to your ensemble? Is your ensemble more interested in the exposure or the money? Would the recording be something the ensemble would like to use for its own purposes?

Personally, some of the terms I’ve negotiated myself in similar situations as yours have included:

  • Granting the rights to use the recording only for live stage performances, but not for soundtracks, CDs, or digital downloads, each of which would require additional fees and payments.
  • Granting the rights to use the recording for live stage performances except for Broadway, Off-Broadway, or 1st class runs.
  • Granting the rights to use the recording only for a specific period of time, after which, if they wanted to continue using it, they have to re-negotiate.
  • Granting the rights to use the recording in exchange for booking the artists to perform live for a specific number of performances.

Such arrangements can include, where warranted, flat fees or royalties, or a combination of both, or even a percentage of box office from each performance. You can also request that the ensemble be credited in all programs or liner notes, or request that the ensemble get the rights to use the recording for its own promotional purposes. Like any negotiation, the other side may refuse, or propose its own terms, but you need to start somewhere–and, like any good auctioneer, you never want to start the bidding too low.

While it’s certainly tempting to keep things simple and just do a buyout where you charge a flat fee consisting of the engagement fee for the performance and a fee for the rights to the recording, you may be missing out on an opportunity to get creative and explore the possibilities to look beyond the fees and maximize the potential of the entire project to benefit your ensemble.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

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

Gosh, That Sounds Familiar!

Thursday, February 6th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

A composer has been commissioned to write an ‘original’ work for a particular soloist or specific chamber ensemble. The commission agreement stipulates that the performing artist is granted exclusivity, giving the artist a certain period of time in which he/she has the sole right to perform the new work for a specified length of time. During that period, the composer has an opportunity to expand the work, making certain modifications and reconfiguring the piece for a different and larger group, such as a chamber orchestra or full orchestra. Can the new work, although based on the originally commissioned score, be considered sufficiently different in its new configuration, to be exempt from the exclusivity requirements, outlined in the original commission?

One of the cornerstones of English Common Law is the principal that: Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. However, this presumes that with such freedom comes the wisdom to discern that everything which is permitted is not necessarily advisable. For example, the fact that we are legally entitled to eat as many deep fried twinkies as we wish, does not necessarily mean that we should.

As we’ve discussed before in this blog, when a composer is commissioned to write a new work the mere act of paying for the work to be composed does not in and of itself convey anything to the commissioner—other than the pleasure and fulfillment of facilitating the act of creation. If the commissioner wants the rights to perform or record the work, or wants a specific artist to be able to perform or record the work, such rights must be specified in the commission agreement. Otherwise, all rights to the commissioned work are exclusively owned and controlled by the composer—including the rights to modify, amend, re-arrange, re-configure, re-orchestrate, and do anything else with the work the composer chooses.

If the commission agreement includes the right for a soloist or ensemble to perform the work for a certain period of time, then the commission agreement must also specify exactly what rights are being conveyed. Anything not specified, belongs to the composer. For example, does the soloist or ensemble have the exclusive right to perform the work as titled or can the composer grant permission for other artists to perform it under a different title? More importantly, how is the word “work” defined? Does the artist’s right to perform the “work” include the right to perform modifications, changes, edits, re-orchestrations, re-configurations, or other variations of the work? Can the artist make such changes herself or only with the composer’s permission? Even if the artist has no rights to such changes or variations, does the artist’s rights of exclusivity prohibit the composer from composing variations and re-orchestrations and permitting other artists and ensembles to perform them? It all depends on what is in the commission agreement.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that the commission agreement in your “hypothetical” lacks any specific definition of “exclusivity.” Given the almost visceral fear in the arts industry of any contractual terms longer than a postage stamp, this is a reasonable assumption. That being the case, then the artist or ensemble only has exclusivity with regard to the work exactly as written and the composer is free to make re-orchestrations, variations, derivations, and arrangements and allow other artists to perform them. However, the fact that the composer is free to do so, does not necessarily mean that it is advisable.

It’s an equally reasonable assumption that the commissioner, rightly or wrongly, presumed that the exclusive right for the artist or ensemble to perform the work inherently included anything that sounded like the work. Admittedly, the commissioner should never have entered into a contract, much less allowed money to change hands, based on a presumption. However, taking advantage of either a misplaced presumption or even a contractual oversight or will not only serve to poison the composer’s reputation for future commissions, but add a significant debt to the composer’s karma bank. In short, my contractual analysis notwithstanding, I would strongly urge the composer to discuss his opportunity to expand the work with the artist and the commissioner before he or she starts heading for the twinkie stand.

________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

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

What Do You Mean I Need To PAY For Music?

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Greetings,

I have recently been contacted by ASCAP asking for fees based on music played by live musicians. Are we required to pay if we do not pay the musicians? Any musician who plays at the location is not compensated for their efforts.

Is anyone else who works at or for your location compensated for their “efforts”? Waiters? Staff? Vendors or suppliers? Do you have to pay for liquor if you give it away? Who pays for the electricity or the heat? People can always agree to donate goods and services, and many do. However, as a general rule, society discourages the involuntary donation of other’s property without their permission—even if it’s for a really good cause.

A musical composition—just like a computer, a watch, 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 US 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. Any location where music is performed—whether it’s a theater, concert hall, or other venue (for-profit or non-profit) where music is performed live or whether it’s a restaurant or store that plays recorded music for their patrons’ listening pleasure whilst shopping or eating—needs to obtain the composer’s permission and, in most cases, pay a usage fee called a “Performance License.”

ASCAP, like BMI and SESAC, is an organization that represents composers and helps them by issuing performance licenses and collecting fees on behalf of the composer. It helps locations, too, because, rather than having to contact every composer individually, you can purchase a performance license from ASCAP to cover all of the composers they represent. It’s like one-stop shopping. However, as they don’t represent every composer, most locations need to purchase licenses from BMI and SESAC, as well.

If your musicians are performing original music they composed themselves, then they can certainly agree to perform their own music for free. However, if they are playing (“covering”) music composed by other artists, then just because the musicians agree to perform for free doesn’t mean that the composers have allowed their music to be performed for free as well. If ASCAP contacted you, it’s because music is being performed in your location and ASCAP is trying to ensure that you have obtained permission from each composer they represent to have their music performed. While there are a number of factors that can determine the cost of obtaining performance licenses—the size of your venue, the price of tickets, the number of performances, etc.–ultimately, it’s your responsibility to ensure that the necessary permissions and licenses are obtained.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

 

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

Is The Term “Work-For-Hire” A Magic Phrase?

Thursday, December 12th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

An orchestra wants to commission a composer we represent to create an arrangement of a piece they want to perform. We were hoping that our composer would retain ownership of the arrangement so that in the future if the orchestra, or anyone else, ever wanted to play his arrangement, he would get a royalty. However, the most important thing is that we want the composer get credit for the arrangement whenever it is performed. In the commission agreement they sent us it says that the orchestra will get the right to perform the arrangement for one year, but it also says that: “Artist agrees that this work stated above shall not generate further monetary remuneration to the Artist (ie: a “work for hire”).” This doesn’t make any sense. If we agree to this, would our composer at least get credit ever time his arrangement is performed?

You’re correct. The commission agreement contains conflicting terms. It’s bad enough when attorneys use “legalese”, but when normal people try to use legal phraseology that they do not understand–or, worse, that they “think” they understand—chaos, rather than clarity, often ensues.

As a general rule, the person who creates something automatically owns it and controls all rights. The mere fact that you pay someone for their services does not inherently mean that you own the work they produce or have any rights to the work. For example, paying someone to design your website does not mean you also purchase ownership of the design or have any rights to use the design. Similarly, commissioning someone to provide creative services (such as composing music) does not mean that you own the material they create or have any rights to perform the composition. All rights remain with the author of the work unless either there is an agreement between the parties specifying rights and ownership or the work constitutes a “work for hire.”

A “work-for-hire” means that the person who paid for the work is considered to be the author and owns all rights to the work. However, under U.S. copyright law, a “work-for-hire” occurs in only one of two very specific scenarios:

1)         When an employee creates material for an employer within the scope of the employee’s employment, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author and the employer automatically holds the copyright. The employee gets nothing but a pay check; or

2)         A work is specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work; a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; a translation; a supplementary work; a compilation; an instructional text; a test; answer material for a test; or an atlas AND the parties expressly agree in a written contract signed by both parties that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

In your case, I am sure that the orchestra believe that merely using the magic words “work for hire” will automatically transfer all rights and ownership in the arrangement to them. It does not. Why? Because although there is a written contract, the arrangement will not be used as a contribution to a collective work; as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; a translation; a supplementary work; a compilation; an instructional text; a test; answer material for a test; or an atlas. (Yes, this is a very odd and restrictive list. Blame Congress…while you’re at it, blame the lobbyists for the motion picture industry, text book industry, etc.) Unless both elements are present, it does not create a “work for hire.” If the orchestra wanted to own the arrangement, the commission agreement would need to include an assignment of copyright and a grant of all rights and title. As it doesn’t, if you were to sign the agreement, the orchestra would, in fact, have no rights to the arrangement. However, you’d also be taking advantage of the orchestra’s obvious lack of knowledge of copyright law as, clearly, they believe they would be owning the arrangement. Should they ever attempt to assert their rights, your composer would need to bring a lawsuit to assert his ownership and nullify their claims. This would not only result in needless legal expenses, but probably make any other orchestra think twice about commissioning your composer.

Rather than engage in legal games, if your composer is not willing to transfer ownership to the orchestra, I would strongly advise you to bring that to the orchestra’s attention and discuss the matter. If the orchestra insists on owning the arrangement, then you can decide whether or not to decline the commission or edit the commission agreement to specify the parties’ intentions. Should your composer decide to assign ownership to the orchestra, the parties can always agree that your composer would be given credit as the composer. However, that must also be specified in the contract! Preferably, in English.

__________________________________________________________________

 

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

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

« Older Entries