Posts Tagged ‘contract’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Hogwarts School of Contracting and Wizardry

Thursday, May 15th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

I had a signed agreement with a promoter to present my artist. The contract provided for two deposits and a final payment on the day of the performance. I worked for over a year with this promoter to put this deal together. Not only did he not pay either of the deposits, but one month before the performance, he called to say he hadn’t sold enough tickets and that it was no longer economically feasible. And he is refusing to pay the money he owes. What am I supposed to do? Sue him? Why should I have to spend the time and money to sue him when we have a signed contract? What’s the point of having a contract in the first place if its not going to protect me?

For many years now I have been climbing the stairs to my secret laboratory trying to create the self-enforcing contract. Upon anyone breaching the terms of such a contract, a magical enforcement beast will materialize, forcing the breaching party into compliance. Sadly, my efforts thus far have proven unsuccessful, resulting only in a few sparks, a bit of ectoplasm still dripping from the ceiling, and a hapless paralegal I may have inadvertently turned into a newt. Until I perfect my spells and enchantments, you’ll have to settle for the fact that contracts are only as valuable as the time, effort, and common sense that goes into them. They do not exist in a vacuum. They do not self-enforce.

The point of a contract is not to get signatures on some form or template littered with extraneous terms that everyone believes are “industry standard”, but no one really reads or understands, in the hopes that it will somehow, in and of itself, stalwartly protect you from the other party cancelling your engagement, refusing to pay, or performing any other courser of unpleasantness. Rather, the point of a contract is the opportunity it creates for you to enter into deals, negotiations, collaborations, engagements, and other relationships knowingly and intelligently. Among other things, it allows you to make sure everyone is on the same page (ie: Do you define net profits the same way I define net profits? Can I cancel if I don’t sell enough tickets?). It allows you to create benchmarks by which you can judge performance and good will (ie: Did the other party pay the deposit on time? Did the check clear?). It allows you to “test the waters” before jumping into a new relationship by first seeing if you and the other party can work together to resolve differences and challenges in the creation of the relationship in the first place.

Sometimes, having a contract can also provide you with leverage. If you can point out that the other party clearly did or didn’t do something which they clearly agreed to do or not do, that pressure alone can often be enough to force compliance. However, if the leverage doesn’t work, you are ultimately left with the sobering fact that the only way to enforce a breached contract is though a lawsuit (or arbitration, if your contract provided for that.) Even then, if you win a lawsuit, you still have to collect the money. A judgment does not automatically guarantee payment. (I’m working on a self-paying judgment, too, as soon as figure out how to change lead into gold.)

The key is not to let the situation get to the enforcement stage in the first place. While some contractual breaches are unavoidable, most are the result of one the parties ignoring warning signs or not taking advantage of the contractual process. For example, a recent client of mine negotiated the terms of an engagement which included the standard items such as dates, time, repertoire, and fees. Everyone agreed. However, when she sent the contract to the presenter, the presenter discovered that the artist expected additional costs to be paid for transportation. My client, on the other hand, discovered that the presenter wanted the artist to obtain insurance to cover all the members of his orchestra. Neither of these topics had been discovered during the initial discussions. Fortunately, both my client and the presenter took the time to read the contract. Even more fortunately, both parties scheduled a time to talk about their respective concerns, worked out compromises, re-drafted the contract, and everything worked out great. Similarly, I was recently negotiation a recording contract on behalf of an artist. When I tried to discuss certain contractual discrepancies and concerns with the other party, rather than engage in solutions, they merely insisted I should trust them and enter into the deal based on “good faith.” That made me trust them even less. My artist really wanted this deal, but I convinced them not to take the risk. In the end, we wound up finding a better deal.

In your case, if your contract provided for two deposits, and the promoter didn’t pay either one, at what point did you not realize that this train was going to jump the tracks? That’s like sending off a contract, not getting a response back from the presenter or manager, having the other party  ignore your phone calls and emails, and the pretending to be shocked to find out the deal is being cancelled…you can’t cancel what was never a deal in the first place. At the time the deadline for the first deposit came and went, that was your time to stop and evaluate whether or not to proceed. If, your professional judgment, it was worth waiting until the second deposit was due, great. However, by the time the second deposit deadline came, that should have been the time to bail. If you decided to rely solely on the contract to protect you, then you were also accepting the fact that if the presenter didn’t pay or cancelled at the last minute, you would have to enforce payment by filing a lawsuit. There are many times that rolling the dice makes legitimate business sense, but you have to accept that for what it is—gambling. Unless you want to incur legal fees and court costs, not to mention lost time, if you gamble and lose, move on.

This is inherently a risky business. Contracts allow you evaluate and, in some instances, minimalize risk, but never eliminate it. Only you can protect you. You and a little pixie dust.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

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

The Invasion of the Visa Examiner Body Snatchers Continues! (aka “The Day The Visa Process Stood Still”)

Thursday, May 8th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

I recently received an RFE for a group touring the US this summer. The group is represented by a European manager who books their dates, but our US management company has previously filed petitions for them in the past, all of which have been approved without a problem. The RFE claims that I need to prove that we are not only the agent for the artists, but for each of venues on their tour. I provided an itinerary, a letter of agreement between us and the group where we are agreeing to serve as their US representatives, as well as engagement contracts confirming all the dates, including fees. This is what I have always given them before. What do they want?

For those of you who have been lucky enough not to be following along, about four months ago, the US government agency that reviews and approves visa petitions for artists, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), was invaded by aliens…and, by that, I do not mean non-US citizens, but something non-human. It began at the USCIS Vermont Service Center where reports indicate that in early February 2014 the bodies of several unsuspecting USCIS visa examiners spontaneously exploded into a burst of tentacles, multiple glowing eyes, and gaping orifices of dripping fangs. Shortly thereafter, their seedlings were able to infiltrate deliveries of pico de gallo sent to the USCIS California Service Center where they quickly replicated themselves, consuming the bodies of helpless visa examiners there as well. Ever since, these insidious creatures have taken over the review of O and P petitions, resulting in flurry of spurious RFE’s or Requests for Evidence (ie: prove that Lincoln Center is a distinguished venue!) and re-imagined interpretations of regulatory language and requirements (ie: for a role in a production to constitute a “lead or starring role” it must also be performed by an artist whose name alone will demonstrably increase ticket sales!)

Whether these beings are the evil spawn of a far-away galaxy offended by interpretive dance or whether they come from a death star of Blue Meanies, we don’t know. What we do know is that, among other things, USCIS has been seriously scrutinizing petitions filed by agents and managers, as well as itineraries. On a recent national conference call with USCIS representatives, there was a considerable amount of talk about concerns over “speculative” employment and making sure that artists had “confirmed engagements” and were not merely asking for visas in anticipation of future work.

As a result, agents and managers are being asked with greater frequency to provide proof of the agency relationship, including proof that they are authorized to represent both the artist as well as the presenters/venues. This can be either a written (and signed) agency or management agreement with the artists or a letter or other statement signed by the artist confirming that the artist has “appointed” the agent or manager to represent them in the United States. If the agent/manager has also booked all of the engagements (ie: the agent/manager’s name appears on each of the contracts or engagement confirmations), then such a letter of appointment appears to be appeasing the visa beasts…at least for now. However, many times either the artist has booked their own engagements directly with the presenter/venue or the engagements have been booked by a non-US agency and the US agent or manager is merely serving as the petitioner for purposes of filing the visa petition. In such cases, which appears to be your situation, USCIS is asking for proof that the US petitioner has been authorized to file the petition by the artist (or the artist’s non-US agent) as well as by the artist’s non-US agent and, in some cases, by each of the presenters/venues on the artist’s itinerary.

Based on a strict regulatory analysis, I cannot say that this is inappropriate. Rather, its just a very literal reading of certain regulations which have never been strictly enforced until now. Regardless, unless you have booked each of the artist’s engagements yourself, if there are any engagements booked directly between the artist and the venue/presenter, then you also need to include an “appointment form” from those presenters/venues authorizing you to include their engagement on the petition. If the artist has a non-US agent or manager, then you will need (1) proof of the relationship between the artist and the non-US agent and (2) proof that you have been authorized by the non-US agent to file the petition for the artist and on behalf of the engagements booked by the non-US agent. If there are any engagements booked directly by the artists, you will also need proof from the presenter/venue that you are authorized to include their date on your petition. The good news, such as it is, is that such “appointment form” does not need to be anything more elaborate that: “I have engaged [Artist] to perform for me. I hereby appoint [Petitioner] to include this engagement on the visa petition.” That’s it.

We’ve actually been doing this for a while. Whenever our management division acts as petitioner, we include appointment forms from everyone—our theory being: the more paperwork we throw into a petition, the more there’s bound to be something in there a US examiner is looking far. We apply this same theory to reviews, programs, and all other evidence as well. So far, this has worked.

As I mentioned, I have participated on several recent national conference calls with USCIS officials and, on each occasion, they have declared no knowledge of any new practices, rules, requirements, or regulatory interpretations designed to frustrate or scrutinize the O and P visa process. Instead, they claim to have helpfully appointed a panel of “performing arts experts”—three, to be exact, who, near as I can tell, have little, if any, actual practical familiarity with what we do—to help come up with suggestions to solve problems they claim do not exist. In other words, to translate this into government-speak:

There is no problem, but if there is a problem, we have appointed a panel of experts unfamiliar with the problem to help come up with solutions to address the non-existent problem which doesn’t need addressing, because there is no problem, but we promise we will make it better by focusing on fixing things that were not broken in the first place…until they were broken…but not by us.  

On second thought, perhaps these invaders aren’t from another planet after all.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

 

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

Beware of Easy Solutions

Thursday, April 17th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

A conductor we manage has been invited to conduct one of the orchestras of a University in the United States later this year. He has worked there once before when he conducted performances when he had a J-1 visa. On this occasion however due to the short length of the engagement (6 days), they have suggested that he should apply for a B-1/WB Business Status. The advantages of this is that the artist can do it himself, online, up to 72 hours before his departure and that the cost is approximately $4. The person I am dealing with at the University sent me “guidelines” which say that a person can enter the US on B-1/WB Business Status Visa, and receive an honorarium, as well as be reimbursed for travel and a per diem, if they will be a “lecturer or speaker” at a university or academic institution. They also told me that because our conductor is a citizen of a country that participates in the visa waiver program, he doesn’t even need to apply for such a visa and that it will be granted at the airport when he arrives. All he needs to do is register online for ESTA. This sounds too good to be true! I am very worried that this will not work. Otherwise, the university says we will need to get another J-1 visa.

Unfortunately…or, fortunately…your instincts are correct. The process for getting artists approved to perform in the United States can be so daunting to some that it is understandable that they look for easy or simple answers. With any legal issues—not just visas, but taxes, licenses, contracts, insurance, etc.—if something sounds too good to be true, that’s often the case.

B-1/WB Business Status (which, more accurately, is simply referred to as a B-1/B-2) is just the more formal name for “visitor status.” A B-1/B-2 (“visitor”) visa allows individuals to enter to the United States for visitor activities (touring, shopping, etc.) as well as certain business activities (meetings and conferences). B-1/B-2 status also permits an individual to be a lecturer or speaker at a university or academic institution, and receive an honorarium as well as travel reimbursement and a per diem.

A B-1/B-2 (“visitor”) visa can only be issued by a US Consulate. However, if an individual is a citizen of a country that participates in the Visa Waiver Program, then, by registering on-line with ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization), he or she does not need to obtain an actual visa and are allowed to enter the US as visitors with only a valid passport. All of the restrictions applicable to visitors will apply—including the too often overlooked fact that an artist can never perform in visitor status, regardless of whether or not the artist is paid or unpaid.

Contrary to the “guidelines” you were provided by the university, your conductor is NOT a “lecturer or speaker.” If he is being engaged to conduct an orchestra then that is considered a “performance”, not a lecture or speech, and he is required to have an O-1 visa. The school is also wrong about the J-1 visa. This is not applicable. That is for an “exchange” program, which is also inapplicable in the case. Your conductor needs to obtain an O-1 visa.

 

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal 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, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

What’s The New Normal In Contract Practice?

Thursday, March 20th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

What’s the new “normal” in reviewing and exchanging contracts? We are receiving an increasing number of contracts that had been issued as PDF files coming back as word files or even revised PDF files which means I have to read every single line of the agreement (along with an original version open beside it) in order to approve what is essentially a new version of the instrument we painstakingly crafted. Isn’t the presenter obligated to sign what we send or at least tell us they are amending our contract? We scratching our heads trying to understand what constitutes the “new normal” in contract practice.

I am the last person to proclaim what is and what is not “normal”. Normal is boring. Normal lacks imagination. Normal is not what the arts are all about. Nonetheless, when it comes to contract practice, many people in our industry continue to look for rigidity in a process that is intended to be quite fluid.

When you send a contract to another party, regardless of how brilliantly or painstakingly crafted the contract may be, you are sending them a “proposal” of the terms for their review. After all, unless you’re working within the structure of a pre-negotiated collective bargaining agreement, negotiating the terms of an engagement is not merely about agreeing on the date, time, and fee.   Everything about the engagement is negotiable as well: insurance, force majeure terms, technical requirements, warranties, licenses, recording rights, approvals, publicity restrictions, exclusivity, cancellation, taxes, visas, etc.

While, as a general rule, a contract should never be presented until both sides have at least agreed to all of the most important terms, there are bound to be additional terms and requirements that were not discussed—and even if they were discussed, chances are the wording or phraseology in the contract may or may not comport with a party’s understanding of what was agreed upon. The contract is the way to present and memorialize all of the additional terms that are important to the engagement, but may not have been clearly discussed at the outset. Many people call all of these additional term “legalese” or “boilerplate” terms, but, remember, nothing is standard…everything is negotiable. Even if you find yourself in the enviable position of being able to say “take it or leave it”, no one is ever obligated to agree to anything. As a result, unless you have somehow managed to discuss and agree upon each and every term ahead of time, the presentation of a contract is often how the negotiation continues, not ends.

Both professional courtesy and common sense would suggest that, before anyone starts making contractual amendments, the party proposing or requesting such changes should bring them to the other party’s attention either by highlighting them or discussing them ahead of time. While marking up a contract with handwritten comments has long been the practice, technology makes it relatively easy to take a PDF, format it into an editable word document, and make changes. However, most word processing programs also allow you to “compare” two documents. So, rather than having to painstakingly read every single line of an agreement, you can just as easily ask your word processing program to compare the old and new versions and it will automatically highlight all of the changes for you.

Personally, because my handwriting often looks like a headless chicken ran through a puddle of ink, I love being able to make changes and edits directly to the text of a contract. However, I then use my word processing program to compare the old version with my version, rename the document, and send it to the other party with all of my proposed changes clearly marked. I also like to add a watermark that says “draft” on each page. Its only when all the terms have been agreed upon by all the parties that is time to remove the watermark, PDF the document, and get everyone to sign it.

________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal 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, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

US VISA WARNING: Beware of the Vermont Service Center! Abandon All Hope Ye Who File There!

Thursday, March 6th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

We filed P-1 and P-1S visa petitions at the Vermont Service Center for a group we have been touring regularly for the past 5 years. This would have been their sixth P-1 visa. Last year, we were getting petitions approved in about week. This time, after waiting 4 weeks, we got a notice asking us for a copy of our contract with the group, among other items. We’re the agent and never had to provide this before. They also wanted our contract with the group’s tour manager. We don’t have a contract with the group’s tour manager. We explained that and the P-1S petition got denied. But this same tour manager was approved last year and we supplied the same evidence this time that we did last year. What’s going on?

I wish I knew. After a period of uncharacteristic, but welcome, efficiency and competency for almost a year, the USCIS Vermont Service Center has imploded. Whether they were hit by a radioactive meteor, unearthed a demonic spirit living beneath the mail room, or were attacked by brain-eating zombies (who doubtlessly left disappointed and hungry), we may never know. What we do know is that we have been receiving multiple reports from all sectors of the performing arts reporting major problems with the Vermont Service Center, including significant processing delays, inane RFEs (Requests for Evidence), and even outright denials for O and P artists who have previously been approved for O and P visas.

The League of American Orchestras, in collaboration with the broader performing arts community, is submitting a formal complaint, as is AILA (the American Immigration Lawyers Association). In the meantime, here is a list of some of the most serious problems we have encountered and some suggestions on how to address them:

1. Processing Delays.

As many of you may recall, USCIS entered into a voluntary commitment to improve processing times for artist visas and, as recently as December 2013, regular processing times for O and P visa petitions were averaging 2 weeks or less. For the last year, our clients rarely had to pay the extra $1225 for premium processing. However, as most of you know all too well, the problem with anything “voluntary” is that you can’t force a volunteer to do anything. While the USCIS website continues to list an average timeframe of 14 days for regular processing of O and P visa petitions, the reality is that it is currently taking 30 days or longer. In some instances, VSC has taken over two weeks just to issue a receipt notice.

SOLUTION: Do not rely on the projected processing times listed on the USCIS website! File petitions as far in advance as possible or seriously consider premium processing any petition where the artist needs to arrive in less than 2 months from the date of filing.

2. RFEs Asking For What Seems Obvious.  

For example, orchestras have reported receiving RFEs on petitions filed for internationally known conductors (many of whom have been approved for prior O-1 visas) where USCIS asked for further evidence on how a conductor is critical or plays a lead role in an orchestra. USCIS has also been issuing RFEs asking for an explanation of why an Executive Director provides “essential support” to a group on tour or asking for a list of the duties of a Stage Manager or Lighting Designer.

SOLUTION: We have always recommended that, when it comes to preparing visa petitions, never assume that the USCIS examiner has any familiarity with the performing arts. This seems to be the case now more than ever. Always err on the side of over-explaining everything—What does a Concert Master do? Why is a specific award important? Covent Garden is an opera house, not a plant nursery. Etc. USCIS seems to be particularly focused on petitions for P-1S and O-2 support personal. As such, it is no longer sufficient simply to list the names and jobs of support personnel. Provide a brief biography for each person, along with a short, but specific explanation of their duties and experience working with the O-1 artist or P-1 group.

3. RFEs Asking For Employment Contracts For Support Personnel.

In yet a further attempt to thwart O-2 and P-1S petitions, USCIS has been issuing RFEs asking for evidence of who will be employing each support person. For example, if your petition includes engagement letters or contracts from presenters booking the O-1 artist or P-1 group, USCIS also wants to see the employment terms for each O-2 or P-1S support person.

SOLUTION: Provide either a statement from the O-1 artist or P-1 group explaining who will be paying the fees or salaries of each support person or provide a very basic deal memo or term sheet for each O-2 or P-1S support person outlining the fees they will be receiving and who will be paying them.

4. Unsigned Contracts

USCIS has recently been rejecting blank or unsigned contracts. USCIS wants either a signed engagement contract or written summary of the terms of an engagement.

SOLUTION: Do not send USCIS anything with a signature line on it which is not signed, especially contracts. If you have an unsigned contract, either get it signed or don’t send it. Instead, submit a copy of an email confirming the engagement terms, a written summary of the engagement terms, a letter to or from a venue confirming the engagement terms and signed by the sender, or a deal memo listing all the terms, but with no place for anyone to sign anything.

5. Truncated Classification Periods. 

In the past, USCIS has been willing to approve visa petitions to cover additional time before and after a performance to accommodate rehearsals, extra performances, and unanticipated activities. More recently, however, USCIS has been issuing approval notices only for the specific time reflected in the engagement contracts or confirmations. For example, if your petition asks for a classification period of March 1, 2014 through February 28, 2015, but the performance contracts only reflect performances between March 11, 2014 and February 20, 2015, USCIS is issuing the approval notice only for March 11, 2014 through February 20, 2015.

SOLUTION: Make sure that the contracts and written confirmations you supply in support of your classification period reflect the actual dates you need. For example, if the performance is on March 11, 2014, but the artist or group wants to enter on March 6, 2014, make sure that the contract or written confirmation reflects that the artist is required to enter the US on March 6, 2014.

While the bulk of this madness seems to be coming from the Vermont Service Center, there is every reason to believe that the California Service Center will not be far behind. Until this sorts itself out, file early, provide as much supporting documentation and details as you can, and continue to check www.artistsfromabroad.org as well as our own website for further updates.

__________________________________________________________________

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

Rattle Sabers, Not Contracts

Thursday, February 27th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

We recently had a presenter call us and cancel an engagement “due to inclement weather” because the company’s flight was canceled and they could not arrive the day before the performance as required. The company offered to fly the next day and arrive on the afternoon of the performance.  However, the presenter expressed that they were not comfortable with this because they felt the company would not arrive at the theater in time to run a tech with their team and also had the fear that the company would not arrive in time to perform. The engagement contract has a Force Majeure clause that says:

In the event that the performance of any of the covenants of this agreement on the part of the Company or the Presenter shall be prevented by…act of God, illness, physical disability, acts or regulations of public authorities or labor unions, labor difficulties, strike, war, epidemic, interruption or delay of transportation service, or any other causes beyond the reasonable control of such party, such party shall be relieved of its obligations thereunder with respect to the Performance(s) so prevented on account of such cause.  If the Performance(s) shall be prevented due to a Force Majeure event, neither the Company nor the Presenter shall be under any obligation to present the Performance at a different time, except that if the Performance(s) shall be prevented for any of the foregoing causes, the Presenter shall use its best efforts to re-engage the Company within a twenty-four (24) month period on the same terms and conditions set forth herein, subject however to Company’s availability…In the event that the performance is cancelled due to Force Majeure on the Artist’s behalf, all deposit monies will be returned to Presenter. In the event that the Presenter cancels the performance for any reason other than those described in the preceding paragraph, then the Presenter is responsible for the full fee.

Do we have to return the deposit since the company was willing to fly in the next day, but Presenter decided to cancel anyway? Can we ask for the full fee? We have not yet spoken to the Presenter, but wanted to be forearmed before we do so we can stand our ground.

“Forearmed” for what? Has the Presenter asked for the deposit back? Are you planning on initiating this “battle”? A contract is a tool, not a weapon to be rattled like a sabre. If you approach this as a “battle”, here’s how it will likely play out:

Presenter: Great to see you at APAP. Thanks for the drinks. I’m afraid we’re going to need the deposit back because the artists couldn’t get here due to weather. The force majeur was theirs.

Manager: But they were willing and able to come the next day. You didn’t want to take that risk. So, you cancelled. In fact, you owe us the rest of the performance fee. And, thanks for the birthday card. That cat was adorable.

Presenter: It’s industry standard for the deposit to be returned when there is a cancellation due to weather.

Manager:  But you cancelled and its industry standard that the artist gets paid if the presenter cancels.

Presenter: The company’s flight was cancelled because of the snow. That’s a force majeur.

Manager: The weather prevented the artist from arriving the day before the concert. They could have arrived on the day of the performance. You didn’t want them, so you cancelled and the contract says if you cancel we get to keep the deposit and you owe the full fee.

Presenter: But that’s not industry standard

Manager: It’s what’s in the contract.

Presenter: We were forced to cancel the performance and refund the tickets, which didn’t sell that well anyway. I just didn’t want to say anything about that earlier because of our good relationship. We can’t take those kinds of losses. We are a non-profit.

Manager: The artist had losses, too.  And if you weren’t selling tickets, then you should have told me sooner so I could help with the marketing. If you had marketed better, the show sells itself.

Presenter: No show sells itself. Did I mention we are a non-profit?

Manager: We can’t give the deposit back and the company can’t afford to take a loss on this tour. It’s not their fault it snowed.

Presenter: It’s not our fault either, which is why we need the deposit back.

Manager: I spoke with an attorney and we will have to turn this over to legal counsel if we have to. It not personal.

Presenter: I understand. This isn’t personal on my end either, but we have a free attorney on our board and they will sue you to get our money back…and I won’t ever hire any artist on your roster again.

Manager: Fine

Presenter: Fine

…and scene…

Unless you are dealing with the cancellation of the road tour of “Spiderman”, neither of the parties will…or should…be willing to spend the money, time, and energy necessary to sue each other, so they will just stew over this, avoid each other at conferences, and write nasty things about each other on social platforms.

The point of having an engagement agreement, or any contract, much less as force majeure clause, is to identify problems ahead of time and articulate in advance how disputes will be resolved. In your case, based on the engagement agreement, both parties knew that, in the event of snow or other unforeseeable issues, either could be facing losses they might not be able to recover. A force majeure operates like an “excuse.” It gives each party the right to cancel under certain conditions without having such cancellation become a breach. However, because it isn’t a breach, neither party is going to emerge unscathed. Someone is either going to have lost out-of-pocket costs they can’t recover, or a deposit they can’t get back, or both. However, knowing this, hopefully, allows you to budget and plan for various eventualities.

In this scenario, the phrase “due to Force Majeure on the Artist’s behalf” isn’t really defined. However, a reasonable interpretation is that the cancellation of the artist’s flight constituted a force majeur event on the part of the artists—in other words, it was their flight that was cancelled. The fact that the artists were willing to travel on the day of the performance was a reasonable solution, but it was just as reasonable for the presenter not to want to take that risk. The more important issue is that the engagement agreement requires the presenter to use its “best efforts” to try and re-book the date within the next two years. That’s the first place to start. If you can find a mutually agreeable date, problem solved—you keep the deposit and they presenter pays the balance of the fee after the next performance date. (No, you can’t ask for a higher fee if it’s the same performance!) If you can’t find a date within the next two years, then its reasonable for the artist to keep the deposit, but the presenter not to have to pay the remaining fee. “Reasonable” doesn’t mean that everyone will agree or be happy. “Reasonable” usually means that everyone walks away with less than what they wanted, but more than there were probably entitled to, which, for me, is a much better solution any day than mutually assured self-destruction.

_________________________________________________________________

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, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Presenters, Touring, Venues | 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

Who Needs Legalese?

Thursday, January 30th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

 

Dear Law and Disorder:

I need to add language to a contract that says that if we have to reschedule due to snow, we have the right to do so. What language do I need?

You need language that says: “If we have to reschedule due to snow, we have the right to do so”

Seriously, you don’t need legalese. You only need English. There are many people who believe that drafting a contract involves taking something simple, adding a lawyer, and producing something no one can understand. In truth, most legalese is really just bad writing. On the other hand, what people often mistake as “legalese” is really additional details and specificity that they may not have thought of. Whereas lawyers tend to take simple concepts and mangle them into undecipherable run-on sentences and tortured verbiage, normal people, in an effort to avoid legalese, all too often over-simplify complex concepts, leave important terms undefined, or exclude critical clarifications.

The sole point of a contract is to convey the terms that will govern a relationship as accurately and completely as possible so that all the parties can have an opportunity to review and evaluate all the various aspects of their relationship—ideally, before agreeing to enter into the relationship. This should include explanations of nuances and details. Too often, its not help with the language people need, but help sorting through the details. Such details, however, need not be buried beneath piles of arcane and confusing terminology. Rather, they just need to be spelled out.  For example, in your case, do only you have the right to cancel due to snow? What if the other party is snowed in? Can they reschedule, too? Is this limited to snow? What if the problem is ice, not snow? Or a flood or storm? Who gets to decide the reschedule date? What if the other party already is booked to do something else on that date? What if you have already booking a flight and will incur a fee to change it? An equally simple way of phrasing your right to reschedule, but which addresses all of these details, might be as follows: “Either party shall have the right to cancel due to inclement weather. In such case, the parties agree to reschedule on a next mutually available date. Each party will bear its own expenses incurred in the event of such rescheduling.”

__________________________________________________________________

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 Acts of God, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division | 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

Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam….

Wednesday, November 6th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

If I am doing a fee split, am I entitled to the emails of the people who purchase tickets? Our group booked a show at a venue where we are supposed to be getting a portion of the ticket sales. We have asked for the names and email addresses of everyone who purchases a ticket, but the presenter says that this is against the law because it’s the presenter’s confidential, proprietary information. But if people are buying tickets to our shows, why aren’t we entitled to their names and contact info?  

Always start with the contract. What does it say? Do you even have one? If the engagement contract states that you are entitled to receive the names and contact information of everyone who purchases a ticket to your performance, then the presenter is contractually required to give it to you. Case closed.

However, assuming that your contract is silent on the subject, then the presenter may be giving you the correct answer, but for the wrong reason. A lot of people toss around the words “confidential” and “proprietary” without really having any idea what they mean. If your interest in having the names and emails is so that you can send out announcements of your future shows (ie: spam), the presenter has a legitimate concern that this may violate the CAN-SPAM Act–which has nothing to do with confidential or proprietary information.

The CAN-SPAM Act is a federal law that governs the sending of unsolicited commercial emails. This law states that anyone who receives an unsolicited commercial email has the right to request that he or she be removed from future mailings and places a number specific requirements on those who send such emails, including requiring the sender to provide an opt-out mechanism, a physical address, and to remove anyone who requests to be removed from the mailing list. It covers all commercial messages, which the law defines as “any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service.” Under the CAN-SPAM Act, anytime you ask someone to “buy” something or spend money, its considered “commercial.” Sending emails to promote an artist or an ensemble is just as “commercial” as sending emails soliciting donations or promoting a concert, a fundraising event, or any program where tickets are sold. (The law makes no exceptions for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations.) As a result, any individual or organization that sends a commercial email to someone who has specifically asked not to be contacted, or sends such emails and fails to provide an opt-out mechanism and/or to remove someone from its email list upon request, can be prosecuted for violating CAN-SPAM.

Individuals and organizations can also violate the CAN-SPAM Act by providing email addresses and contact information to third parties. Very often presenters and venues collect email information for purposes of contacting patrons to verify ticket purchases or to inform them of cancellations, but these same patrons may “opt-out” of receiving solicitations or commercial emails. If the presenter were to disclose such email addresses to a third party knowing that the third party intends to send unsolicited commercial emails, then the presenter would itself be liable for violating the CAN-SPAM Act.

In this case, if the presenter were to give you the data you want, and you violate the CAN-SPAM act, then the presenter could be liable. However, given their inarticulate basis for refusing your request, I don’t believe for a minute that your presenter is actually even aware of the CAN-SPAM act. More likely than not, your presenter simply doesn’t want you to have the ticket list because the presenter wants the names and emails all to itself to promote its own future seasons, subscriptions, donations, etc. Regardless, the bottom line remains the same: without a contract entitling you to this information, you’re at the mercy of the presenter. When performing at a venue, there is neither an inherent nor implicit right to patron names and addresses just because you are the performer and people purchases tickets to your show.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal 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, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »