Archive for the ‘Presenters’ 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

Termination For Convenience

Thursday, April 28th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

 

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

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

Dodging A Bullet With A Contract

Thursday, March 31st, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

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

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

It’s Time To Set Your People Free!

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

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

Paying By the Numbers

Thursday, October 15th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

A presenter is refusing to pay one of our artists who has an O-1 visa, but does not have a Social Security Number. Does a foreign artist who is performing in the U.S. under an O-1 also have to get a Social Security number in order to get paid?

Many presenters and venues—particularly those affiliated with university or other academic institutions—have an affinity for imposing arbitrary policies and procedures and insisting that they are legal requirements. To be fair, many of those presenters and venues are merely passing along edicts that have been dictated to them by other departments and offices within their labyrinthine institutions who are more familiar with hiring snow plow services than with engaging non-U.S. artists.

Non-U.S. artists are not required to obtain anything other than an appropriate artist visa (usually, but not always, either an O or a P visa) in order to be authorized to perform legally in the U.S. Whilst it is not uncommon for presenters and venues to insist that a non-U.S. artist have either a Social Security Number (“SSN”) or the SSN’s evil twin, an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (“ITIN”), as an additional condition for an artist to be paid, that is not a legal requirement. More often than not, it is merely a requirement of the presenter or venue’s finance department or booking software which cannot physically write a check without having either a SSN or ITIN. Provided the artist has an appropriate artist visa, he or she is legally permitted to be paid and, unless there is an express contractual provision to the contrary, the presenter is legally required to honor an engagement contract and to pay the artist for services performed.

SSNs and ITINs have absolutely nothing to do with work authorization or immigration law. Rather, they are creatures affiliated with U.S. tax obligations and tax returns. An artist will need either an SSN or an ITIN to file a U.S. tax return, which artists are required to do—especially if they want a refund of any engagement fees that might have been subject to 30% withholding. However, if the artist elects not to file a U.S. return and just let the IRS keep their money, that’s entirely at the discretion of the artist. The failure or an artist to have a SSN or ITIN cannot be used as an excuse by a presenter or venue to pay the artist or otherwise honor a valid engagement contract.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

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

Are You Being Served?

Thursday, June 11th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

You frequently mention that the artists are our clients, but aren’t the presenters our clients, too? If an artist is acting unreasonably or is going to do something which we know will negatively impact the presenter, we can’t afford to alienate or lose a relationship with the presenter over one artist. We will need to work with them in the future.

No one can serve two masters. The artists are your clients. The presenters are your customers. When you are in the business of representing others—whether its in real estate, law, insurance, investment, business transactions, or the performing arts—this is an important distinction to understand: while you need to be polite and professional to your customers, you owe allegiance to your clients.

Think of it this way: I have a friend who manages one of the perfume counters at Saks in New York. He works directly for the perfume distributor and, as such, his job is to sell as much of his products as he can. He knows his product line, represents it well, and offers impeccable customer service. If a shopper wanders by, his job is to turn the shopper into a customer by enticing them with the signs, smells, and quality of his products. However, what if the shopper doesn’t want or like his brand? What if they are allergic to the smell of Eggplant Noir or they find the name “Evening in Hoboken” is less than enticing? My friend smiles and lets them wander over to Guerlain or Jo Malone. He remains true to his products even if it means losing a customer.

As managers and agents, it is in everyone’s interest—both yours and your artist’s—to provide the best customer service possible to presenters and venues. First and foremost, it makes good business sense. A manager’s or agent’s professional relationships are among the most valuable asset he or she provides to an artist. Second, the arts community is quite small and the shoe you step on today may be the one you have to lick tomorrow. Nevertheless, as an artist manager or agent, you legally owe a duty to the artists you represent to act only in the artist’s best interest, not your own, and to take no actions that would advance your own interests at the expense of your artist. These, among other duties—such as fiduciary duties and duties of care—are legally implied in every manager/agent relationship with an artist—even where no formal contract exist. In fact, the law considers these duties so important, that any attempt to have artists waive them in a contract are considered void and unenforceable.

Admittedly, this can often pose some frustrating conundrums for managers and agents—especially in situations where an artist directs you to withhold important information from a presenter or directs you to take action that you know could harm the presenter and harm your own relationship with the presenter. This can include anything from performing without the necessary licenses or visas to intending to skip out on a residency activity they didn’t want to do in the first place by feigning illness. Should such circumstances arise, then your duty is to advise your artist against the foolishness of his or her plans. However, if the artist persists, and you believe that your own professional relationship with the presenter would be imperiled, then your only legal course of action is to drop the artist from your roster. Anything else—such as giving the presenter a “head’s up”—would be a legal breach of duty. If you would prefer a role where you are legally allowed to act in your own best interest at the expense of all others, start a record label or become a producer.

__________________________________________________________________

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, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Presenters | Comments Closed

Understanding Legalese

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

This is legalese:

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

 This is not:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

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

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

Thursday, April 9th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

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

« Older Entries