Archive for the ‘Contracts’ 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

Contractual Effrontery; Not Paying Artists is a Crime!; How a Government Shutdown Will Impact US Artist Visas

Tuesday, September 26th, 2023

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

September 27, 2023 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

• Contractual Effrontery  

• Not Paying Artists Is A Crime!

• How A Government Shutdown

Will Impact US Artist Visas 

 

Legal Issue of the Month:

Contractual Effrontery  

Recently, I was contacted by an agent regarding a new artist that was joining his roster. In response to receiving a copy of the agent’s managerial contract, the artist responded with a terse missive that they found the contract to be “unfriendly.” The artist complained that they were expecting a simple, written confirmation that the parties would be working in a mutual spirit of collaboration and partnership and not, as the artist opined, a “harshly written” and “aggressive” formal document with requirements, restrictions, terms, and conditions. The agent asked me to take a look at the contract.

I took a look. Whilst not a model of light-hearted whimsy, the contract contained the typically dry and prosy terms one would expect to find in an Artist/Agent contract: how commissions are calculated and paid; the agent’s booking territory and exclusivity rights; termination provisions; etc. Was it peppered with frippery and bagatelles? No. But neither did it hurl insults at the artist nor identify the contractual parties as “Manager (hereinafter referred to “He Who Must Be Obeyed”) and Artist (hereinafter referred to as “Scum”).” In short, there was nothing to find “unfriendly” or aggressive.

Make no mistake, I find it commendable that the artist actually read the contract. Indeed, given the fact that most in our industry avoid words and contracts as if reading anything that cannot fit on a post-it note will send their eyeballs exploding out their elbows, I was delighted. What is discouraging is that the artist took the contract as a personal affront rather than what it was: the agent’s proposal of the terms, definitions, and conditions that would define the “collaboration and partnership” between them. It was nothing more than an invitation for the artist to review the contract and respond with their own questions, clarifications, and proposals for alternative terms and conditions—though, in this case, the problem seems to have stemmed from the fact that the artist was anticipating no terms or conditions of any kind, presenter a deeper existential issue.  

The very core of any successful collaboration or partnership is making sure that all the parties are, in fact, working with the same playbook. And that’s the whole, entire, and sole point of a contract: that before any work is done, engagements booked, or music composed, the parties have exhausted every effort to root out unexpressed concerns and fears, unclog misconstrued conversations, and extract hidden expectations from the crevices of unspoken assumptions.

Whenever I am asked to review a contract, the first thing I do is ask my client to express their own understanding of what has already been discussed, outlined, or orally agreed upon. Then, I can draw back the covers to see how close or far apart the parties actually are. Discovering that the other party has expectations and assumptions that are contrary to your own makes them neither nefarious nor contemptible. It just means that you and they are not yet on the same page (both literally and figuratively) and that further conversations, clarifications, and discussions will be needed to assess whether or not to proceed with the relationship. However, if at the outset any reasonable proposal or question results in the other party clutching their pearls and gasping at such brazen impertinence, that is a good indication that any collaboration or partnership is not going to go well without an intervening therapist. 

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

“Not Paying an Artist is a Crime!” 

Dear Law & Disorder:
Our company got a bad check from a non-profit venue for a performance we did. We called them and they sent us a new check, but that bounced, too. Now they won’t return our phone calls. Is there anything we can do?

I once had an artistic director of a dysfunctional non-profit tell me that, although they were unable to pay the money owed to an artist, the artist should be satisfied having already been paid ten-fold in the goodwill and joy they brought to the audience. Sadly, I have yet to find landlords and grocery stories willing to accept payment in goodwill and joy. 

Almost every state has a statute that allows a person who receives a bad check to sue the issuer of the check and not only receive two to three times the value of the check, but recover attorneys’ fees and court costs as well. In addition to suing the non-profit itself, most states will also allow you to sue the individual who signed the check even if they were acting as an officer, employee, board member, or volunteer of the non-profit. While it’s true that suing an organization that has no money is often a waste of your own time and money, it’s also a crime in most states to write a bad check. You will want to do some research on the laws in your particular state.

Regardless, your first step should never be to file a lawsuit or run to the police. Besides, both civil and criminal laws require some form of “intent” on the part of the issuer of the check. There is no liability for inadvertently writing a bad check or in situations where the check merely crossed with the available funds. If the mismanagement of a non-profit were a crime, most of the 2023/2024 season would be presented at the Rikers Island Centre for the Arts. If the non-profit is not returning your calls, try other forms of communication such as emails or even formal letters. If necessary, send letters to the Chairman of the Board or to individual board members reminding them of their potential exposure to personal as well as criminal liability. If they continue to ignore you or fail to make payment, then at least you will have written proof of their intent not to honour the check and then you can consider whether to contact a local attorney, file a claim in small claims court, or contact the local prosecutor’s office in the city or town where the venue is located. Regardless, do not, under any circumstances, post anything on social media in an effort to shame them into paying you. Whilst public shaming worked for the Puritans, it will backfire on you for a number of reasons.

 

Artist Visa News & Nausea 

• How A Government Shutdown Will Impact Artist Visas

In the fantastically remote and implausible event that the US Congress cannot cast aside the ponderous chains of party and ideological differences, sipping from the communal grail of public service thereby discarding their own personal goals and aspirations to rapturously ascend the alchemical mountain into the prima materia of the common good, and in so doing pass the spending bills necessary to keep the government open beyond midnight on October 1, 2023, then certain US government agencies will cease operations.

As USCIS is mostly funded by petition filing fees, they will continue to review visa petitions—albeit processing may slow due to outside contractors not being paid. However, depending on how long the shutdown lasts, certain US Consulates around the world could experience delays in being able to process visa applications or cease all but emergency operations. Even when the government re-opens, the resulting backlogs could see delays continue for a while. So, again, whilst an unlikely scenario in a highly functioning democracy that owes no apologies to King George III, one may want to plan for contingencies, nonetheless.

• New Edition of the I-129 Form

Starting November 1, 2023, USCIS will only accept the new 05/31/23 edition of the I-129 Form. They have made no changes to the form itself. They merely changed the date of the form. Whilst some may consider this pointless, I have found myself enjoying new depths of restful slumber cradled in the knowledge that the Department of Homeland Security is tireless in its efforts to ensure malicious hordes of foreign orchestras do not employ date compromised forms to breach our borders. Until November 1, 2023, you can continue to submit the old 11/02/22 edition, but you might as well start using the new edition now. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions. As a general rule, if you make a habit of always downloading the I-129 form directly from the USCIS website whenever you prepare a petition, you will always have the most current edition.

• Using Consultation Letters from Peer Groups instead of Unions

We have recently seen an uptick in USCIS issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) in response to petitions in which the Petitioner has provided a consultation letter from an artist peer group (such as Opera America, Fractured Atlas, or the League of American Orchestras) as opposed to the applicable performing arts labour union (such as AFM, AGMA, or AGVA). Whilst the applicable USCIS regulations allow for consultation letters to come from unions OR peer groups, not all Examiners are able to find this on their Fisher Price Lil’ Examiner Regulation Spin-a-Wheel pull toy. As a result, the petition will be put on hold until you can either present the Examiner with the citation to the regulation or get a union consultation letter. Depending upon whether you paid for standard or premium processing, this could cause a delay of 15 days to 3 months. As, in my experience, the most inane RFEs are only ever issued in response to petitions that are also the most time sensitive, in instances where you are on a short time you’re better off spending the extra money to get the union letter at the outset. The $300 consultation fee you try to save today could cost the cancellation you face without a visa being approved in time.

• Current USCIS Service Centre Processing Times:

There have been signs of slower processing times at the Vermont Service Center, though they are still faster than the oozing pace maintained at The California Service Center.

Vermont Service Centre:

Standard processing: 8 – 10 weeks

Premium processing: 9 – 10 days

California Service Centre:

Standard Processing 3 – 4 months

Premium Processing 13 – 14 days

 

Deep Thoughts

“If the wise elders of the village don’t teach the children, the village idiots will certainly do so.”

African Proverb 

 

 

 

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.

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

 

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

What Are Contracts for?; Non-Profit By-Laws Made Simple; Are Union Strikes Force Majeure events?; Artist Visa Updates

Wednesday, June 7th, 2023

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

June 7, 2023 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

• What Are Contracts For? 

• Non-Profit Laws Made Simple 

• Are Union Strikes Force Majeure Events? 

• Artist Visa Updates

 

Legal Issue of the Month:

What Are Contracts For??? 

It’s no secret that a vast expanses of artists, venues, managers, presenters, and agents prefer to have engagement contracts with all the “fun stuff” (dates, fees, travel, repertoire, etc) confirmed and signed on the front and the “terms and conditions” left alone, shunned, cold, abandoned, and forsaken on the back. Such “terms and conditions” are often dismissed as “just all the legal stuff” or “the legalese” or “stuff we had a lawyer draft for us years ago and we have no idea what it means, but we can’t change it.”

First, whether it’s the time of the sound check, 4 bags of raspberry Haribo gummy bears the Artist wants in the dressing room, or the number of comp ticket, everything put in a contract becomes “legal stuff.” Second, though, indeed, boring (even for me), the “legalese” typically addresses important issues such as whether or not the venue can make an archival recording and what they can do with it, rights and licenses, cancellation terms and conditions, who’s responsible if someone gets injured, what constitutes force majeure/Acts of God (remember how everyone suddenly started reading those for the first time during COVID?), and other issues that everyone ignores until something goes horribly wrong, at which point they all start arguing over what they assumed these terms meant.
A contract in and of itself will not protect you. Contracts are not self-enforcing. There is no scenario in which a signed paper talisman with the right magic words will allow you to sleep embraced in the amble bosom of self-delusion that everyone will do what they are supposed to do, people will not act in their own self-interest and still claim the moral high-ground, and nothing can go wrong. Signatures do not guarantee that dates will not get cancelled even if the contract specifically says it is non-cancellable or even that you will get the fee everyone agreed upon.
If a date gets cancelled or you do not get paid, your signed contract merely becomes a coupon redeemable for a lawsuit to enforce it. However, are you really going to sue anyone? Is there such a significant amount of money at stake that it’s worth the cost and time, financially as well as emotionally? Are you willing to subsidize a trial lawyer’s $11,000 Japanese NEOREST toilet just for the self-satisfaction of proving a point? Do you ever want to work with that venue or artist again?
So why bother? What are contracts for?
Contracts are for managing expectations, both your own and the other party’s, by spelling out ALL of your concerns and requirements (not just the “fun stuff”) before music is composed, airline tickets are purchased, or recordings made. Contracts are for discovering and discussing unexpressed assumptions. Contracts are for planning and assessment. Contracts are for reading and discussion. Contracts are for knowing what the other party is and is not willing or able to do, and then deciding whether you can compromise or whether you are willing to proceed and accept the risks. Contracts are for starting a conversation and ending in a relationship.
If you’re just tossing unread papers back and forth through Docusign so you or your contract administrator can tick that box off the list, don’t complain when the artist trashes the dressing room and refuses to perform upon failing to find their gummy bears. 

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

“Non-Profit By-Laws Made Simple” 

Dear Law & Disorder:
We are forming a non-profit. Can you recommend a good template for by-laws? We just want to keep it simple so we can get it set up right away and get started. We’ve already got some people willing to donate as well as serve on our board.
Aside from an outhouse erected on a popsicle stick over a tidal bore, non-profit institutions are, perhaps, the most precarious and dysfunctional of all structures ever conceived within which to conduct business. Without a strong set of by-laws, carefully and thoughtfully crafted to address your unique mission, stakeholders, goals, and challenges, your non-profit is likely to perish from such commonly fatal non-profit diseases as Foundersitis, Administrative Staff Infection, Systemic Committee Infarction, Micromanageitis, Consultant Dependency, Strategic Streptococcus, and Gangrenous Board Members.
Your by-laws are the foundation upon which your organization will be built. They determine how your non-profit is structured and managed. They will describe the roles, expectations, duties, and responsibilities of board members. It will set forth how decisions are made and conflicts resolved. At the same time, like strategic plans and business plans, by-laws are not commandments fixed in stone. They will provide a steady hand of direction within a flexible mechanism for addressing growth, challenges, and situations as they arise. In other words, whilst by-laws do not require a constitutional convention, they are also not something to be crafted with speed and indifference.
Assuming you are serious about forming a sustainable business and not merely hoping to circumvent having a viable business plan by hoping to supplement your income through a quick influx of donations and grants, you should gather as many different samples of by-laws from as many different organizations that have similar missions as yours. Analyse them to see how the successes, failures, and experiences of other organizations may apply to your own. Remember, when forming a non-profit, it is the board members who will ultimately control and run the organization, not you. So, just because someone wants to donate money does not mean they should also serve on the board. Ideally, those persons who are already willing to serve as your initial, founding board members should also be interested and committed enough to assist you in the process of crafting the by-laws.
Whether you are forming a Children’s Vuvuzela Choir or the Wilma Schiddy Centre for the Arts, simplicity kills the soul—or, in this case, a non-profit. 

 

Breaking the News!

Are Union Strikes Force Majeure Events? 

When concerts and performances started falling during COVID, it sent everyone into a delirium over whether, how, when, why, if a pandemic constituted a Force Majeure event allowing an engagement contract to be cancelled without penalty. As no one was happy with answers, everyone began re-drafting their contracts to deal with future pandemics.

Hollywood’s current Writers Guild of America strike has spotlighted yet another hidden Act of God: labour strikes. Many “standard terms and conditions” give a party the right to cancel a contract in the event of a labour strike. This means that if you are engaged to perform as a soloist with an orchestra and the orchestra goes on strike, the orchestra can terminate your engagement contract without penalty. This can apply to any situation where a union strike might impact the resources needed to fulfil a contract—such as booking an event at a university-based venue and the teacher’s union goes on strike or being booked to perform and your sets and props cannot be delivered due to a trucker’s strike. Imagine my own surprise when, as a person whose wife had to show him how to change the windshield wiper fluid in my car, I woke up one day as a member of an adjunct faculty and also found myself a member of United Auto Workers…which then went on strike!

You can read more about this issue HERE

 

Artist Visa News & Nausea 

• The Status of Proposed Petition Fee Increases.
There have been no new updates from USCIS regarding its proposed fee increases and other changes. Whilst our crystal ball remains cloudy, the runes tell us to expect “some” changes, we just don’t know when or to what degree. In the meantime, all fees remain the same and there remain no limits to the number of beneficiaries that can be listed on O-2 or P petitions.
• COVID Vaccinations Are No Longer Required To Enter The US
Effective May 12, 2023, the Biden administration lifted the requirement that non-US citizens and non-US residents have COVID vaccinations to enter the US. However, ye who enter here will continue to be required to abandon all hopes.
• No More Passport Entry Stamps
Also this month, US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) confirmed that it will be implementing “stamp-less entries” for everyone arriving in the US. This means that when you enter the US on a visa, you will no longer receive a physical stamp and handwritten notation in your passport. Instead, your date of entry, your visa status, and the date by which you must leave will hereinafter ONLY be recorded on a digital entry/exit form called an I-94 which will ONLY be available on-line at the CBP I-94 Website .
Whilst CBP has been recording entry/exit information on digital I-94 forms for several years now, CBP officers continued to stamp passports. As it was not at all uncommon for the information on the I-94 to be incorrect, having a physical stamp meant that before you left the airport you could check and confirm that all of your information was correct. Now, for example, if you have a visa that expires on June 30, but the I-94 says May 30, you will need to leave by May 30 regardless—but you won’t know that a mistake has been made in your record unless you dash to the I-94 website as soon as you leave the immigration area and make sure your I-94 is correct. If it is not, you will need to find the CBP officer lurking betwixt the Cinnabon and Chick-Fil-A and ask them to correct it.
• There Is Nothing Graceful About US Visas  
…and speaking of entries and exits, please note that there are no automatic “grace periods”—10 days or otherwise—added before or after the validity dates of a visa. There never have been. This has always been a myth—or, at least, mischaracterized. When an individual enters the US, CBP officers have the discretion to allow them up to 10 extra days to remain in the US as a tourist. However, it is the burden of the visa holder to make the request to a CBP officer upon entry to the US. The extra dates are not automatically given.
If the officer approves (and they usually do), the approved extra days MUST be reflected on the I-94. So, if you want to claim the 10 extra days: (1) You must request the extra time; (2) the CBP officer must approve the request; and (3) the additional days must be reflected on your I-94 entry/exit form. However, as discussed above, as entry/exit information will henceforth only be recorded digitally, you will need to check the I-94 website before you leave the airport to make sure the extra days are reflected on the I-94. Otherwise, even if the officer verbally approved the extra days, you will be required to leave the US by whatever date is listed on the I-94.
The better practice is that if you know you or your artist plan to hang around after your show to attend the Toadlick County Monster Truck Mash-Up and Watermelon Bake-Off, just add those extra days onto the visa petition so your visa will be valid for the full time you want to be in the US. You can always still ask for the extra days on top of that to get even more extra time.
• Current USCIS Service Centre Processing Times:
Vermont Service Centre:      Standard processing: 6 – 8 weeks
                                              Premium processing: 9 – 10 days      
California Service Centre:    Standard Processing 3 – 4 months
                                              Premium Processing 13 – 14 days

 

 

Deep Thoughts

“Try not to focus too much energy on whether you can trust someone else. When a bird lands on a branch, it doesn’t trust that the branch will never break. It trusts its ability to fly away if it does.”

Anonymous

 

 

 

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.

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

 

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 Acts of God, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Uncategorized, Unions, Visas | Comments Closed

Artist Visa Updates, Non-Compete Agreements, Manager/Agent Trust Accounts, 1st Amendment Poop Jokes

Wednesday, April 5th, 2023

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

April 6, 2023 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

• Artist Visa Updates

• Non-Compete Agreements

• Manager/Agent Trust Accounts

• Is There A Constitutional Right

To Poop Jokes?

 

Artist Visa News & Nausea 

• The Status of Proposed Petition Fee Increases

Thanks to all of you who took the time to write USCIS and the denizens of Congress to object to USCIS’s loathsome proposal to raise petition fees by 300%. A lot of people have since been asking what happens next and what to expect. It’s hard to say. Typically, when USCIS imposes new rules and policies they give 60 – 90 days advance notice. In this case, should USCIS decide to implement the fee increases, my belief is that various lawsuits will be filed to enjoin them from going into effect while they are challenged in court.

So, while you can expect nothing to change within the immediate future, beyond that is anyone’s guess. I know that the lack of certainly is going to make it hard when budgeting for 2023/2024 tours, but nothing about getting visas for artists to perform in the US has ever been a bedrock of dependability or predictability.

• DOS Increases Visa Stamp Application Fees

Speaking of fee increases, not to be upstaged by its nefarious cousins at USCIS, the US Department of State announced on March 28, 2023 that US Consulates will be raising the minimum fee for visa stamp applications from $190 to $205 effective 5/30/23. I’d like to say that this will allow them to hire additional staff to address the significant backlogs and delays that continue to plague US Consulates around the world, but I would be lying if I said that. Instead, except in rare, dire, and unusual circumstances, no one should expect to submit a visa stamp application at most US Consulates and get the visa stamp back in less than 2 – 3 weeks, or longer. In other words, whilst I do not in the least disagree with the indignant music director who sent me an email complaining about the “iniquitous absurdity” of a US Consulate refusing to accommodate his tight international performance schedule, he nonetheless still had to wrench up his big boy pants and accept the cruel slap of indifferent reality.

• Current USCIS Service Centre Processing Times:

Vermont Service Centre: Standard processing: 6 – 8 weeks

Premium processing: 9 – 10 days

California Service Centre: Standard Processing: 3 – 4 months!

Premium Processing: 13 – 14 days

If some of you have filed petitions at the California Service Centre and receive a notice that your petition is being transferred to another service centre DO NOT PANIC. To deal with backlogs, USCIS is randomly transferring petitions to other service centres.

• Request for Evidence (RFE) Alert:

In circumstances where managers/agents have filed visa petitions in which they have also signed the US engagement contracts on behalf of their artists, we have recently been seeing USCIS issuing RFEs asking for (i) proof that the artist has authorized the manager/agent to sign on their behalf and (ii) proof the both the artist and each presenter have authorized the manager/agent to be the petitioner. While you “could” just provide USCIS with copies of management/agent agreements and include petitioner appointment language in all engagement contracts, that would presume a USCIS examiner will read them much less comprehend multisyllabic words. Its simpler just to have everyone—the artist and each presenter/venue—sign a piece of paper saying “I appoint X to be the Petitioner.”

Legal Issue of the Month:

Are non-compete/non-solicitation agreements a thing of the past?

Whether it’s a management company hiring an associate or a non-profit organization hiring a development director, its not uncommon in the arts and entertainment industry for employment contracts to include non-compete provisions which generally serve to prevent employees from taking jobs with an ex-employer’s competitors or clients for a certain period of time after they leave.

On Jan. 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission released a proposed rule that would bar employers from making workers agree to non-competes. The proposed rule is based on a preliminary finding that non-competes constitute a form of unfair competition in the labour market, lowering wages, and stifling innovation, among other issues, and therefore violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The proposed rule, as written, would apply to independent contractors and unpaid interns as well as employees, and it would make companies retroactively rescind non-competes they’ve already secured.

Non-solicitation agreements, whereby employees are forbidden from soliciting existing clients, customers, or employees of their employers, as well as agreements that prevent ex-employees from using or disclosing the proprietary, non-public information of their ex-employers (such as engagement contracts, books and records, tour budgets, etc.) would continue to be valid provided they are narrow, targeted, and not silly. For example, presenter and venue contact information, or anything that could be found on its own just by asking someone else or through a google search is neither proprietary nor confidential.

As most courts will not enforce broad non-competes and non-solicitation agreements anyway, this new rule would prevent employers from bullying or threatening their employees with frivolous lawsuits by not allowing such provisions to be in a contract in the first place.

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

“Manager/Agent Trust Accounts”

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am considering working with an agent, but almost every agent I speak with wants to collect my engagement fees on my behalf. Why can’t I collect my fees and just pay the agent? If an agent collects my fees, should I ask for a separate bank account? What about statements? Is it reasonable to ask for monthly accountings? When do I get paid? What’s standard?

First, and foremost, nothing in this business is “standard.” Yes, there are penchants and preferences, but if you took a poll of 50 people in our business and ask what is “standard”, you’d get 50 difference answers—with all 50 basing their definition upon their own self-interest. So, if anyone tries to force you into an arrangement you don’t want by claiming its “standard” or “this is what everyone does”, run away! If parties truly want to work together, everything is negotiable.

All that being said, it’s not uncommon for an agent or manager to prefer to accept fees on behalf of an artist. Among the very legitimate reasons for this, it allows artists to focus on performing and not bookkeeping, especially when on tour, and allows the agent to follow up on contracts, payments, and other logistical issues on an artist’s behalf. It’s also easier for an agent to collect fees, deduct commissions, and send the balance to the artist rather the agent having to issue an invoice or chase down an artist who, again, may be on tour or simply abstains from reading any emails that contain the subject line “balance due.”

Both licensed and un-licensed agents are legally required to keep all collected money in a separate account and issue statements accounting for all money collected and held on behalf of an artist. Keeping money in a separate account not only makes booking and accountings easier, but also helps to ensure than an artist’s money doesn’t accidentally get co-mingled with the agent’s own money. Also, in the event an engagement is cancelled, a deposit may need to be returned. Having the money held in a separate account ensures that the funds are not prematurely dispensed, or used for unrelated purposes, for which both the artist and agent could be liable.

Is There a Constitutional

 

Right To Poop Jokes?

The US Supreme Court is poised to address one of the most epochal issues on everyone’s mind: is there a 1st Amendment right to tell poop jokes?

Currently before the Supreme Court is Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products wherein VIP Products, the nation’s second-largest maker of dog toys, is accused of infringing upon the whiskey maker’s trademarked bottle shape and label by manufacturing and selling squishy dog toys that resemble a bottle of Jack Daniel’s with the label showing a dog and the by-line “dropping the old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.” While traditional parody exceptions already in place would normally support VIP, Jack Daniel’s contends that the value of its trademark will be diminished if people begin to think its product makes dogs poop. So, VIP has responded by arguing that the 1st Amendment supersedes Trademark Law and allows parody to cross any lines or restrictions, regardless of how offensive or objectionable to the party being parodied—which would be a superfluous argument in most cases had not several lower federal courts agreed.

Notwithstanding the fact that so many of its customers apparently serve whiskey to their dogs that Jack Daniel’s is concerned with lost sales, should VIP prevail it would essentially eliminate trademark law when it comes to parody. It’s a classical example of an inane case brought purely because litigators are willing to litigate anything if you pay them enough, the outcome of which could have larger consequences: Does a 1st Amendment claim of parody automatically allow anyone to use another’s name, song title, or logos without restriction and under any circumstances, whether its by association with poop, porn, or politicians, regardless of the owner’s objections or concerns?

For those of you who feel so moved, you can read more about this here:

www.vox.com/politics/23650136/supreme-court-poop-jokes-jack-daniels-vip-dog-toy-trademark-lanham-act

Deep Thoughts

“With enough spizzerinctum, there’s almost nothing you can’t accomplish.”

Cynthia Bowes-Palmer

 

 

 

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.

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

 

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 Contracts, Employees, Independent Contractors, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Trademarks, Visas | Comments Closed

Artist Visa Updates, Force Majeure Clauses, Streaming Licenses, and Deep Thoughts

Thursday, December 8th, 2022

 

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

December 8, 2022

 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

> Artist Visa Updates <

> Force Majeure Clauses <

> Streaming Licenses <  

> Congratulations! <

> Deep Thoughts < 

Artist Visa Updates 

• Current USCIS Service Center Processing Times

Vermont Service Center:

Standard Processing: 4 – 6 weeks

Premium Processing: 9 – 10 days

California Service Center:

Standard Processing: 2 – 4 MONTHS!

Premium Processing: 13 – 15 days!

•  Most US Consulates continue to experience significant backlogs with regard to visa stamp appointments. Some have no interview appointments for 60 – 90 days whereas others are granting interview waivers, but with no consistency between one consulate and another. Please factor this in when making bookings and budgets. In other words, if your conductor isn’t performing in the US until April 2023, but has only set aside 2 days in early January when he can make himself available to apply for a visa, start looking for a guest conductor. Specific information for each consulate can be found on that consulate’s website…and except for citizens of certain countries, anyone can apply for a US visa stamp at any US Consulate.

•  As of August 11, 2022, USCIS no longer requires petitioners to submit a duplicate copy of Form I-129 or a duplicate copy of any supporting documentation unless USCIS specifically asks for it. (Whilst I’d like to think this was to diminish the impact of deforestation on climate change, it’s more likely due to the fact that Sauron has discontinued his policy of allowing USCIS to toss its extra paper into Mount Doom.)

•  USCIS has issued a new edition of the I-907 form. Starting January 30, 2023, USCIS will only accept the 11/03/22 edition. There are no changes. It’s the same form with a different date at the bottom. However, accomplishing this critical assurance of national security required two filibusters, three Congressional hearings, and an armed insurrection at the Golden Corral in Bent Fork, Arkansas which dared to close its Sunday buffet an hourly early.

•  Yes, it is still possible to obtain artist visas for Russians. So long as they can get to a U.S. consulate, there are no bans or restrictions on Russians. The challenge is that there are no US Consulates in Russia, some EU countries will not allow Russians to enter, and the EU won’t allow any Russian planes to fly over its airspace. So, they just need to get to a consulate. If they are already in the EU, then they get to face the same visa insanity as everyone else.

Legal Issue of the Month:

Force Majeure Is Not The Same as Cancellation

If an engagement contract contains no option for cancellation or termination, then it cannot be cancelled or terminated without mutual consent. Otherwise, whichever party cancels will be in breach and potentially owe damages to the other party. Parties can always negotiate cancellation clauses under which either party can cancel an engagement under certain circumstances and by paying cancellation fees; but, if they don’t, they remain forcibly conjoined.

However, Force Majeure/Acts of God clauses are something different. These are contract clauses which say that if something happens beyond the control of either party (typically, fire, flood, illness, royal demise, etc.) which makes it impossible for one of them to honour the contract, then that party can void the contract without owing damages or fees to the other. In other words, whereas a cancellation clause may require a party to pay bail to cancel a concert, a Force Majeure/Act of God clause is like a “get out of jail free card.”

Parties can use a contract to define exactly what constitutes Acts of God (ie: a hurricane as opposed to a backed up toilet, illnesses supported by a doctor’s note, etc.). However, because of COVID, the economy, and genera insecurity, we are seeing more and more instances of parties trying to squeeze cancellation penalties or payments into Force Majeure/Act of God clauses. Presenters are claiming that poor ticket sales or lack of funding should be considered God’s fault whereas artists are claiming that if even if the concert hall is overrun by zombies, they are entitled to non-refundable deposits and penalties if the venue cancels. While parties should take every opportunity to explore and negotiate cancellation clauses with as many draconian conditions as they could possibly want, these are not Acts of God/Force Majeure clauses.

Why is this anything other than a miniscule, legalistic subtlety? Because if a party cancels an engagement contract because of a legitimate inability to present the engagement that could not otherwise have been foreseen, a court will not enforce penalties or damages regardless of what the contract says. Moreover, most state and local municipalities (particularly colleges and universities) are prohibited by State Law from having to pay non-refundable deposits or fixed cancellation fees, regardless of the reason for the cancellation. So, like everything else, if you believe the only force that separates your orchestra from insolvency is divine intervention, you’re going to need to talk this one through.

Dear Law & Disorder:

Actual Questions we get asked and the answers people don’t want! 

Streaming Rights & Licenses

Dear Law and Disorder:

We have two questions with regard to live streaming some of our concerts and recitals. We, of course, have paid the ASCAP and BMI licenses/fees to cover the rights for live performances. Does paying those licenses for live performances also cover streaming the concert live? The other issue involves archiving the recordings of the concerts, or leaving them on the website for a time after the concert so patrons (e.g., parents of students or any other interested parties) can view the concert at a later date if they had a conflict the day of the original concert and were unable to watch it live. Would this practice also be covered by the licenses or fees we’ve already paid? Is this a grey area in which the law has not yet caught up with the technology, or would this practice be a violation of copyright?

ASCAP and BMI are two of the many Performing Rights Organizations (PROs) which issue licenses to present live performances. Whilst some licenses for live performances also cover the right to stream the concert live, others do not. As with all rights, you only get what you ask and/or pay for. So, if your license also included the right to stream live concerts, then your license covers that. On the other hand, if you only paid for live concerts, then it does not. You need to check the license terms and agreement you received from ASCAP and BMI. (However, not all composers/songwriters below to ASCAP or BMI, so you may need licenses from other PROs as well.

With regard to the issue of “archiving the recordings of the concerts”, the good news is that it is not a grey area at all. The bad news for you may be that it is not a grey area at all. Making any audio or audio/visual recording of a concert is not covered by PROs at all. Such rights must be obtained from the performers and, unless they are performing their own, original music, the right to record the music must be obtained directly from the composer/songwriter or their publisher. There is no “inherent right” to make a recording of any performance or composition at any time under any circumstances for any purpose without the permission of (a) the composer/songwriter of the music and (b) the performers themselves.

CONGRATULATIONS! 

It is with exhilarating enthusiasm that we congratulate Monica Felkel, a legendary icon of the classical music and performing arts industry, on the establishment of her own boutique management and consulting firm.

Monica Felkel Creative Partners provides Artist Management, Artistic & Strategic Consulting, and Project Management & Development.

 

“Everything we do is guided by a passion for classical music and the performing arts and a commitment to providing each artist and cultural institution with the support, guidance, expertise, and innovation they need to achieve their artistic goals and aspirations.”
Monica J. Felkel, President

We look forward to working with her and her distinguished roster of creative partners in offering her clients a comprehensive range of services and expertise unparalleled in the field.

CLICK HERE LEARN MORE ABOUT MONICA FELKEL CREATIVE PARTNERS

 

Deep Thoughts 

 

 

“Everyone seems normal, until you get to know them.”

 

 

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.

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

 

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 Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Uncategorized, Visas | Comments Closed

Backlogs at US Consulates, New USCIS forms, Contract Entirety Clauses, and Board Term Limits

Wednesday, June 15th, 2022 
LAW & DISORDER:

Performing Arts Division

June 16, 2022

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

» Backlogs at US Consulates «
» New USCIS forms «
» Contract Entirety Clauses «
» Board Term Limits «

Current USCIS Service Center Processing Times:

Vermont Service Center: 
Standard processing: 4 – 8 weeks
Premium processing: 9 – 10 days

California Service Center: 
Standard Processing 2 – 4 MONTHS! 
Premium Processing 13 – 14 days!
US Consulates Are Significantly Backlogged!
The current slow down at the California Service Centre notwithstanding, the real bad news is that many—not all, but many–U.S. Consulates continue to experience significant backlogs. Artists approved for visas are finding that it can take weeks or months to have their visa stamps issued by a U.S. Consulate. Just within the last few weeks, an artist approved for an O-1 visa found she could not get an appointment for a visa stamp at the Paris Consulate until January 2023!

Whilst some consulates have expanded their interview waiver programme, many continue to be wildly inconsistent with regard to how this is implemented, including whether to grant interview waivers at all. For example, an artist was recently informed by the U.S. Consulate in London that, though he qualified for an interview waiver, it could take “several weeks or months” before he would be able to submit the application and get his visa stamp. Others have found it has taken 3 – 4 weeks for Consulates to return passports with visa stamps. Consulates also continue to be wildly inconsistent in how they grant requests for emergency appointments, with arts visas, of course, sedimenting to the bottom of the bin.

Whilst it is still “officially” possible for anyone, regardless of citizenship, to apply for a visa at any U.S. Consulate in the world where one can get an appointment, some consulates—purportedly to manage workload—are only accepting applications from citizens or residents of the country in which the Consulate is located.

In response to manifold complaints and queries from all sectors, the U.S. Department of State has issued several urgently indeterminate statements, a synopsis of which essentially being as follows:

“Yes, we know there’s a problem. We are very sorry. We are doing our best. We have a lot on our plates rights now. We are currently implementing many solutions which, due to national security, we cannot divulge other than to re-assure you in the vaguest possible terms that these new solutions will be more effective than our previous solutions which in hindsight should have been seen as imprudent in the expectation of their efficacy. Will it help if we continue to blame COVID? We care about you. Really. Every effort is being made towards prioritizing a scheme pursuant to which visa applications will be prioritized based upon a system of discretionary prioritization. The wizard says go away!”

Devastatingly, we are increasingly encountering engagements having to be cancelled or rescheduled where visa petitions were approved, but artists could not get their visas in time to travel. As such, please take this into consideration when planning your timelines and budgets. If you are planning anything for fall 2022 which depends upon a non-US artist, you would be wise to (1) check the current application procedures and timelines for the consulate where the artist will be applying for their visa stamp and (2) seriously consider premium processing at the outset so as to get the petition approved quickly and allow for as much time as possible for the visa stamp application process.

USCIS Has Issued Updated Forms

On May 31, 2022, USCIS released new editions of Form I-129 (used to file for O and P visa Petitions) and Form I-907 (for Premium Processing). Both of these forms are identical in all respects to the prior forms, except with new dates at the bottom. Why did they bother, you say? What was the point? No point. They’re just a bunch of crazy kids.

Legal Issue of the Month:
Contract Entirety Clauses

Look out for what are sometimes called “superseding agreement” or “entirety” clauses. They appear in almost all contracts, usually buried amongst the “legalese” that no one wants to read. They usually say something like this: “This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Agreement shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in this Agreement.” It means that emails and discussions are not binding once the contract becomes binding.

So, if you had a series of emails with a presenter confirming that your artist must have a dressing room free of feather pillows, but that never made it into the final engagement contract, and the contract contains an “entirety clause”, then she’s going to need some extra-strength Zyrtec. I encountered this situation in the context of travel arrangements, but the issue is the same–and, no, sending me the chain of emails and texts did not help two days before the date! 

Dear Law and Disorder
Actual Questions We Get Asked and The Answers People Don’t Want

“BOARD TERM LIMITS”

Dear Law and Disorder:

We are a small non-profit that runs a performing arts center. In up-dating our by-laws, its been recommended that we establish term limits for our directors and officers, as well as a formal nominating committee. Do we really need such formalities? We’re very small and don’t have any other committees. Can’t the board itself select its own members and officers? And it seems a mistake to force directors to leave when they are willing to continue to serve on our board. What do you recommend to your clients?

While I am a strong advocate of fixed terms, I never recommend term limits for board members. Why? Because among the most challenging aspects of running a successful non-profit is finding and keeping healthy board members who through wealth, work, or wisdom (as opposed to whining, wasting staff time, or wrongheadedness) contribute to the success and productivity of the organization. Once you are lucky enough to find such pearls, the last thing you want to do is force them to leave! However, at the same time, you need to have a mechanism through which malignant board members can be removed. Such members, if left to metastasize, can quickly chase all the healthy ones away, burn out the staff, and poison the entire operation. Fixed terms where board members can then be re-nominated and re-elected provides you with such flexibility.

On the other hand, term limits for officers can be more appropriate. Why? Because with no term limits, even a beloved president or board chair can quickly become a feared dictator that no one wants to cross, or, just as worse, a benevolent, but ineffective leader who spurns all attempts at needed growth or change. At the end of the president’s term, they can still serve on the board, but no longer gets to wield the mace of supreme authority. Also, in my experience, I have found that those you most want to serve as board presidents or chairs will also be those who do not want to serve more than a few years year whereas those you want to avoid will be those looking to establish a hereditary fiefdom.

Deep Thoughts

“The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise and is not preceded by a period of worry and depression.”
John Harvey Jones.”
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.

 

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

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 Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Uncategorized, Visas | Comments Closed

HOW TO FIX EVERYTHING

Thursday, January 28th, 2021

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

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________

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

VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE: ggartslaw.com

 

 

__________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty or threatening email to someone, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about.

 

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

Emancipating Artists From Your Roster

Tuesday, August 6th, 2019

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Hi everyone! The issue of artists leaving a roster and re-booking themselves at a venue their manager/agent originally found for them is always an ongoing problem. I’ve been asked to re-post a blog we did on this several years ago. Here it is…..

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 legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com
All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

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

 

 

 

 

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

THE TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF A TRIBUTE BAND

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

We hope everyone had a great summer. Sorry we haven’t posted in a while, but we’ve been a bit “pre-occupied” with in the world of artist visas. It seems something changes every time Trump breaks wind. So, let’s take a break and go address two completely non-visa related questions that came in over the summer—both involving tribute bands.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am wondering if I could produce a tribute concert for some singers who are no longer alive. I am not trying to copyright anything. Would I need to get approval from the heirs or estates of the respective deceased singers?

First, let’s clarify. I presume you are producing a concert which will be a tribute “to” some dead singers as opposed to being performed “by” some dead singers as that will, indeed, require the approval of the heirs before you can dig up their dead relatives. On the other hand, if you are planning some sort of Thriller tribute performed by actual zombies, go for it.

The answer to your question depends on how you perceive a “tribute” concert. If your singers will simply be performing a concert featuring all the songs of a deceased artist without pretending to imitate or impersonate the artist or without featuring the images of the artist in the concert (or in the promotion of the concert), then so long as either you (as the producer) or the venue where the concert takes place obtains the necessary performance licenses (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) then you need nothing else. Performance licenses are all you need for a singer to perform the works of another artist, dead or alive, in concert. However, doing anything beyond “stand and sing” could require additional licenses either from the deceased artist’s publisher or the artist’s estate. Depending upon the state in which the deceased artist lived, to use the images of the deceased artist to promote your concert will involve obtaining rights of publicity and endorsement of the artist. Regardless of the state in which the artist lived, you will also need to license the images themselves from the owner of the images (which may or may not be the deceased artist’s estate.) To have your singers imitate or impersonate the deceased artist could also involve obtaining trademark and/or copyright licenses depending upon how “iconic” the artists are which are being “tributed.” (I think I just made that word up.) The key issue to remember is that calling a concert a “tribute” does not alieve you of obtaining whatever rights, permissions, and licenses that may be required.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I have a tribute show and an agent hired me to perform at the venue. I have a signed contract. I did the gig and they did pay for the expenses of my band travel and hotel transportation, but the payment of the band was to be made 3 days after the show. The next day they called me and said that the show was a piece of crap that they want their money back. What is the best way to resolve this issue? I have called them and no response? What do you recommend will be the next step for me?

To paraphrase Judge Judy (who also happens to be on my wish list for the U.S. Supreme Court): “Once you eat the steak, you have to pay for it.”

I love the fact that you have a signed contract. Too many artists don’t even have that. In this case, unless your contract made payment contingent on the venue being satisfied with your performance (which I can’t imagine as that would be insane), then the venue is paying for your services, not your quality. If you provide services and a venue accepts those services, then they have to pay regardless of how crappy your performance may or may not have been. (And there are a lot of crappy performances out there!) Even if you did not have a signed contract this would still be the case. Legally, if Person A knowingly allows Person B to perform or provide services, then this creates an “implied contract” whereby Person A is legally required to pay Person B.

The problem with any contract, signed or implied, is enforcement. Just because someone is legally obligated to do something doesn’t mean they will. That’s what a breach of contract is all about. A valid, enforceable contract merely gives you the right to go before a judge, present you case, and, if you win, have the judge enforce it. Short of that, it merely give you the right to enter into a spitting contest.

You don’t indicate in your question whether “they” refers to the agent or the venue. If the agent isn’t returning your calls, call the venue. If it’s the venue, call the agent. In these situations, you also want to do more than call. Send emails. Send letters. Send letters as attachments to emails. Do whatever it takes to make a pest out of yourself. If either the agent or the venue threatens to “ruin your reputation” or other “bad publicity”, ignore them—if either one had that kind of influence they wouldn’t have stiffed you in the first place. Threatening “bad publicity” to resolve an issue is always an act of desperation by people who are actually incapable of doing so.

Whether or not it’ worth filing a lawsuit depends on how much you are owed. Some amounts are just not worth the time and cost. Some courts offer a “small claims” option with less time and cost. Regardless, while it’s not always possible, in the future always try and negotiate a deposit or, at the very least, payment immediately after the concert.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

 

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

IS SXSW Being Opportunistic of Oblivious?

Friday, March 3rd, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

The following situation was recently brought to our attention and we felt obligated to comment:

http://www.avclub.com/article/sxsw-threatens-international-artists-deportation-p-251394?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=ShareTools&utm_campaign=default

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/mar/02/sxsw-immigration-told-slant-contract-trump-travel-ban

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sxsw-responds-to-artist-immigration-controversy-w470167

Since this issue arose, the festival’s Managing Director has issued multiple “updates” and “clarifications” that are disingenuous or, at best, ill-informed.

First, he contends that the contract provision regarding non-work visa violations is merely “telling the acts what immigration (authorities) would do if terms of their visas are violated” and is intended “to inform foreign artists that the U.S. immigration authorities have mechanisms to create trouble for artists who ignore U.S. immigration laws.” However, if this is true, much of the legal information is misleading and inaccurate. Moreover, if SXSW is, indeed, merely trying to “inform” artists and “warn” them about potential immigration consequences, then why do SXSW organizers themselves threaten to notify U.S. immigration authorities if they discover any infractions? When did SXSW become agents of ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement)?

Second, he explains that “all of the harshest penalties threatened in the contract—including notifying immigration authorities—would only be invoked if somebody did something really horrific, like disobey rules about pyrotechnics, starting a brawl, or if they killed somebody” and that this language is “intended to be, a safeguard to provide SXSW with a means to respond to an act that does something truly egregious, such as disobeying our rules about pyrotechnics on stage, starting a brawl in a club, or causing serious safety issues.” While any such actions on the part of an artist or group would most certainly warrant an immediate expulsion from SXSW, as well as untold liability issues, none of them constitute any kind of immigration violation which would warrant SXSW notifying immigration authorities—particularly when that would only result in all non-US artists at the festival coming under scrutiny of ICE.

Lastly, SXSW’s Managing Director claims that that these provisions have always been part of their agreements. Perhaps this is true. However, if that is the case, then not only were these contractual terms poorly and sloppily drafted. And given the current political madness, now was certainly the time to update and amend them.

While it’s easy to presume that SXSW is using the current immigration situation to coerce artists into not performing any unauthorized SXSW performances, it’s far more likely that they are one of many presenters, venues, and festivals who are only too eager to dispense expertise on issues they actually know nothing about. The complexities of immigration issues for non-US artists are confusing and frustrating enough without adding to the melee with misinformation, however well-intentioned, which only causes more confusion.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other 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. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

 

 

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

« Older Entries