Archive for the ‘Presenters’ Category

Licensing May Not Be Music To Your Ears

Wednesday, August 7th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: Since ASCAP does not cover dance or theatrical performances, how does a dance group go about getting the appropriate permissions/ copyright releases needed for their performance? Another word for “permission” or “copyright release” is “license.” Dance performances, like theatrical performances such as opera or theater, as well as any other performance of music other than a concert, most often require two types of licenses for their performances: (1) a “Performance License” which is required for music to be performed (either live or via a recording) and (2) a “Dramatic License” for the music to be interpreted dramatically either through choreography or by performing the music as part of a play, musical, or opera. While ASCAP (as well as BMI and SESAC) does not issue dramatic licenses, they do issue performance licenses. Typically, most venues, theaters, presenters, etc. will obtain yearly blanket performance licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC which allow the music in the ASCAP, BMI and SESAC catalogs to be performed in the venue. In such cases, that means you would only be required to get dramatic licenses for your group’s performances. However, not every venue obtains ASCAP, BMI and SESAC blanket performance licenses. Some erroneously believe that non-profits are somehow exempt from such licenses. Others believe it is the artist’s responsibility while others simply hope they won’t get caught. There are also instances where the music you want to dance to may not be represented by ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. Regardless of the reason, in instances where either the venue doesn’t have a performance license or the performance license doesn’t cover the music you need, you will be required to obtain both performance licenses as well as dramatic licenses. As for how your group actually obtains the necessary licenses, you would need to identify the composer or publisher of each musical work you want to use in your performance and contact the composer or publisher directly. Identifying composers and publishers isn’t actually that hard. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC maintain free, searchable databases, as does the Copyright Office website. You can also search the databases of other licensing organizations such as the Harry Fox Agency (which issues mechanical licenses.) You may have to be persistent and allow for lots of time. Not every composer or publisher will respond right away—or even respond at all. You may need to make repeated requests. If you don’t’ get a response, assume the answer is “no” and select different music. “Silence” is never golden which it comes to licensing. Also, just because you request a license doesn’t mean the composer or publisher will agree. And even if they agree, they can charge whatever they want. Composers and/publishers are free to be as arbitrary as they want when it comes to issuing licenses and setting fees. As I frequently remind everyone, there is no such thing as “industry standard.” If all of this seems daunting, keep in mind that, more often than not, you will be able to get the licenses you need provided you invest the necessary time and attention. Do not leave the licensing process to the last minute and do not assign this task to a volunteer intern helping out at your office. Also, bear in mind that the same rules that may seem to thwart your ability to use the music you want also protect you when it comes to controlling the ability of other dance groups to copy and perform works that you create and control. If all else fails, consider supporting a composer and commissioning your own music. _________________________________________________________________ For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org. All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously. __________________________________________________________________ THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

A Manager’s Deposit of Trouble

Wednesday, July 17th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: We are a small classical music presenter. Several months ago, I booked an artist for a performance this fall. Recently, I received a phone call from the artist’s manager asking for a deposit. Usually, we don’t pay deposits, although, sometimes we will if it’s an artist or manager with whom we have never worked before. However, we’ve worked with this manager before and she’s never asked for a deposit before. When I asked her about it, she said that she (the manager) was having a slow summer and that she needed the money to give her some cash flow to “tide her over” until the fall. She threatened to cancel if I didn’t agree. Is this legal? As a general rule, I’m a big fan of deposits. They provide artists with some “leverage” in the event of a cancellation and they provide presenters with some assurance that an artist has, in fact, been “booked.” However, once all key terms have been negotiated and agreed upon, whether or not a written booking agreement has been signed, then a manager cannot retroactively “require” a deposit. The requirement of a deposit is a key term which needs to be discussed, negotiated, and agreed upon at the outset of discussions. If the artist were to cancel because you refused to pay a deposit you never agreed to pay in the first place, then the artist would be in breach of the booking agreement. But that’s not really the problem here. The problem is that the manager volunteered that she was asking for the deposit not for the benefit of the artist, but for the benefit of the manager herself. It would be different if the manager wanted the deposit to reserve airline tickets or advance costs to cover the artist’s out-of-pocket expenses. However, according to you, that’s not what the manager said. She said she wanted it to “tide her over” for the manager’s own cash flow purposes. Based on that statement, and her subsequent threat to cancel if you refused to pay the deposit, the manager’s actions are not only unethical and unprofessional, in my opinion, but, more importantly, highly illegal. Managers and agents are legally bound to act only on behalf of and in the best interest of their client (the artist) and not on behalf of themselves or anyone else. In legal terms, these obligations are called “fiduciary duties.” Managers and agents can take no actions which are not authorized by the artist and most certainly cannot treat the artist’s money as if it were their own—including asking for and using deposits to float themselves loans to cover their own cash flow needs. This is why, among other reasons, managers and agents are supposed to keep their own, personal operating accounts separate from their client’s (artist’s) accounts. This should not be confused with legitimate situations where managers and agents sometimes ask presenters to split an engagement fee into two payments and pay a commission fee directly to the manager or agent and the balance to the artist. While I find this to be an ill-advised and awkward business practice, it’s neither illegal nor unethical. While I suppose its entirely possible that, in this case, the manager was acting with her artist’s knowledge and authority, I seriously doubt it. This means that the manager was acting out of her own self-interest and not in the best interest of her artist, is in breach of her fiduciary duties, is no longer acting in her legal capacity as a representative of the artist, and, in the event of a cancellation, would be personally liable for the return of the deposit and any damages. Given the manager’s self-admitted cash flow problems, that’s probably a risk you don’t want to take. I’d like to think that the manager is acting out of a genuine confusion over the duties agents and managers owe to their artists. Sadly, this issue continues to confuse even experienced managers and agents who believe that their artists work for them and not the other way around. Regardless, in terms of red flags, this one is ten feet tall and on fire. Run away! __________________________________________________________________ For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org. All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously. __________________________________________________________________ THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Who’s Responsible For Performance Licenses?

Wednesday, June 26th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: In all of my artist’s booking contracts, the presenters are required to obtain ASCAP, BMI and SESAC licenses. I recently received a contract back from a venue in which they crossed out that language. They told me that their policy is not to get these licenses and that the artist is responsible for obtaining them. It was my understanding that it was always the venue’s or presenter’s responsibility to obtain the performance licenses from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. Am I wrong? You’re not wrong, but you’re not entirely correct either. The truth is that it is the legal responsibility of all parties to make sure that the proper licenses have been obtained for a performance. Which party actually obtains them and who bears the costs is a matter for negotiation. Whether it’s a festival, a school, a nightclub, or a large performing arts center, non-profit or for-profit, it’s the legal responsibility of the owner/operator of a performance space/venue to ensure that the necessary rights and licenses have been obtained with respect to all copyrighted music which is performed at that venue. (Actually, this legal responsibility is not limited to performance rights, but extends to dramatic rights, synchronization rights, broadcast rights, and all other required rights and licenses which pertain to music, images, trademarks, recordings, images, or other protected rights or materials which are used as part of the performance.) However, it’s equally the legal responsibility of the artist, and in some cases, the producer and promoter, to ensure that they have all of the required rights and licenses, including performance licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Why? Because if an unlicensed song is performed at a venue, then the US Copyright Act allows all the parties involved in the performance—the artist as well as the venue/presenter, the producer, the promoter, and anyone else involved in the performance—to be sued by the publisher or copyright owner. Stealing a song is like robbing a bank: the entire gang is arrested; regardless of who broke open the safe, who drove the get away car, or who simply served as look out, they all participated in the robbery. I am familiar with many venues which do not want to be burdened with the perceived cost and difficulty of obtaining performance licenses (which, depending upon the specific circumstances, may be neither costly nor particularly difficult), refuse to do so, and insist on the artist obtaining the licenses. However, in my opinion, for reasons I have written about in earlier blogs, this is a foolish policy. In practice, it’s simple easier for venues and presenters to obtain ASCAP, BMI and SESAC licenses than the artist. The venue can purchase a blanket license from each organization that permits all of the music in their catalogs to be performed by any artist at the venue during the license period. These licenses can cover an entire year or just a specific festival or event, and are priced based on numerous factors, including number of performances, ticket prices, size of the venue, etc. With the blanket licenses in place, the artist simply needs to show up. If a venue or presenter prefers not to obtain such licenses, then the artist or performer can certainly do so themselves. However, if no one obtains the licenses, then everyone is liable. Quite simply, whether the venue/presenter requires the artist to obtain the performance licenses or the artist insists that the venue/presenter obtains the performance licenses, passing the responsibility on to another party will not relieve either party from ultimate responsibility if the other party fails to do so. In other words, there is no contract, release, or any other document which will protect you from liability should the necessary licenses not be obtained. This is why, among other reasons, if I operated a venue, I would much rather rely on myself to obtain the licenses than depend upon another party to do so. In your case, if the venue refuses to obtain the ASCAP, BMI or SESAC licenses, then you and your artist have two options: either the artist agrees to obtain the licenses or the artist refuses to perform. Electing to proceed under the expectation that no one will get caught or the publishers and copyright owners will not sue small artists or struggling non-profits is not an option; that’s the same as robbing a bank and hoping the police won’t find you. Not to mention, in an industry where so many purport to operate under the noble purpose of promoting the value of art and artists, I can’t imagine the rationalization of stealing it for any purpose, regardless of how noble. _________________________________________________________________ “Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division” will be taking a break between July 1 – July 14. Our next post will be on July 17. _________________________________________________________________ For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org. All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously. __________________________________________________________________ THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Your Move or Mine?

Wednesday, June 19th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: If I am booking an artist, whose job is it to draft the contract? Some venues ask me to send them my contract, but other venues seem to have their own. What’s the normal practice? Since you asked for the “normal” practice, I shall tell you: the normal practice is that some venues will ask you to send them your contract and other venues will have their own. It all depends on the circumstances and the venue. You should always have a basic engagement contract that you can tailor for each artist and send to a venue who wants your contract. However, you should expect larger venues to prefer to use their own contracts just as most venues understand and expect that major artists will insist on using the artist’s contract. It really doesn’t matter as both parties will need to review the proposed contract and, if necessary, proposed changes, additions, and amendments. Its unrealistic to presume that the venue’s contract will address all the issues important to the artist and that artist’s contract will address all the issues important to the venue. Negotiation is not just about date, time, and fee. Negotiations include ALL of the terms which will be in the final contract. What you want to avoid at all costs is a situation where, in lieu of taking the time to review and negotiate a single contract, the manger or agent just attaches the artist’s contract as a rider to the venue’s contract (or visa versa) and the parties proceed. Almost always the two contracts will have conflicting terms which will operate to negate the entire contract, making neither one legally enforceable. (And, no, it doesn’t help to use a rubber stamp that says “in the event of a conflict, mine governs.” That only benefits the folks who sell rubber stamps.) Even more important, regardless of who goes first, is to never ever ever ever ever send anyone a signed contract at the outset. The contract should be signed only after all parties have had a chance to review, make comments, propose changes, attach riders, and agree upon a final version. Otherwise, the party receiving the signed contract will simply strike out or amend the language they don’t like…or, worse, attach a rider…sign it, and return it…which, legally, constitutes a counter-offer and not an enforceable contract. (Actually, it “could” be enforceable, but this gets into complex legal issues which could all be avoided if everyone just sent one another blank contracts and waited until all issues had been resolved before anyone signed anything!) I realize that it takes time to review, negotiate, and amend every contract. However, that’s what contracts are for. It gives each party a chance to make sure that all important issues have been addressed and that there will be no unstated expectations or assumptions. Contracts are not about enforcement…they are about avoiding conflicts and disappointment. Without question, life would be easier if there were standard contracts and terms that worked for every engagement. However, we work in the arts. Nothing is normal and nothing is customary. If you are looking for consistency, go work in a bank. Otherwise, learn to embrace the chaos. __________________________________________________________________ For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org. All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously. __________________________________________________________________ THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Accommodating Audience Members

Wednesday, June 12th, 2013

By Robyn Guilliams Dear Law and Disorder, I run a small nonprofit presenting organization. We recently received an email from a patron who wanted to attend a particular performance, and he asked if we provide accommodations for the deaf.  He indicated that either an American Sign Language interpreter or some sort of close captioning system would suffice.  We responded and told him that we did not provide those sorts of accommodations because we can’t afford it.  We suggested that he reserve a seat towards the front of the venue to enhance his ability to see the performance without any interference.  He then wrote back, stating that he was making a request for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and asking that we respond with accommodation specifications within 48 hours. I don’t believe that this is a reasonable request for a nonprofit organization.  We don’t have the capability for close captioning, and we would be required to spend $500 to $800 on a sign interpreter.  How should I respond?? You should respond that your organization would be happy to provide a sign interpreter for this gentleman! The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires that all “public accommodations” – that is, virtually any facility that is open to the public – provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication access to their deaf and hearing-impaired patrons and customers.  This applies to for-profit businesses and nonprofits, both large and small!  For a theater or other performing arts venue, the most appropriate auxiliary aids usually are sign language interpreters and real-time close captioning devices. The idea behind the ADA is to ensure that no one with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than others because of barriers or the absence of auxiliary aids. While the cost of a sign interpreter may seem daunting to small organizations, consider it a cost of doing business (yes, nonprofits – you are “doing business” by presenting performing arts presentations to the public!) and factor that cost into your budget. The ADA does provide an exception to the auxiliary aids requirement if providing these aids would result in an “undue burden” (i.e., “significant difficulty or expense”) to the business.  However, this “burden” must be truly significant for the exception to apply. Must every venue install high-tech close-captioning technology to accommodate the deaf and hearing impaired?  No.  Nor must a venue hire an ASL interpreter for every performance.  A patron who arrives at a performance and demands an auxiliary aid with no advance notice may be out of luck.  However, when a patron makes a timely request for a sign language interpreter, the venue must make its best efforts to fulfill that request. A few other notes to keep in mind: The “reasonable accommodations” (e.g., the sign language interpreter) must be paid for by the place of public accommodation. The costs cannot be passed on to the individual with a disability! A place of public accommodation must provide services in an “integrated” setting.  This means that the deaf or hearing-impaired patron cannot be excluded from enjoying a performance along with the rest of the audience.  As an example, it’s not acceptable to set up a close-captioned television feed in an area separate and apart from where the performance is happening.  If close-captioning is offered, it must allow the hearing-impaired patron to enjoy the performance in the same space as the rest of the audience. The deaf or hearing-impaired patron has the choice of which accommodation best fits his or her communication needs; however, an equally effective substitute may be provided if the original request is unreasonable or unfillable. In theory, the ADA codifies what should already be pervasive throughout the performing arts: an embrace of inclusivity. More practically, whether or not you agree with the ADA, the cost of ADA compliance is far less than the costs of non-compliance, which can be excessive. There are grants and foundations which may available to help you offset the costs of accommodating your disabled patrons. This may also be a good time to use this occasion to review your ADA policies and procedures, including how your staff and volunteers respond to ADA compliance requests and patrons with special needs. An insensitive response can send an embarrassed or angry patron directly to an attorney. As with any issue, it’s always easier to address problems and complaints before they arise. ________________________________________________________________ For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org. All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously. __________________________________________________________________ THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

“Fair Use” Just Isn’t Fair!

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: I have read your clearly stated articles about mechanical use and rights.  What about “fair use”? Aren’t there specific scenarios where permission is not needed to use a recording of someone else’s music? Beware of what you ask. You are about to open a box whereupon a thousand nasties will fly out! Now that you have been duly warned…. Copyright Law gives the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to perform, edit, arrange, or reproduce a protected work in copies or recordings, as well as the exclusive right to authorize others to do so. Anyone who copies, performs, or records a protected work without the copyright owner’s permission, even including small excerpts, is guilty of copyright infringement. Fair Use is a legal doctrine whereby certain usages of a particular work “may” be considered permissible without the copyright owner’s permission, if the purpose for which the work was used is determined to be “fair”, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and parody. As the U.S. Copyright Act is intended, albeit arguably, to afford the maximum protection of copyright owners and the creators of protected works, it does not set forth specific usages that are inherently “fair.” Rather, the analysis and determination of what constitutes Fair Use is left entirely to a judge to decide in her or her sole discretion. In other words, should you decide to use any portion of a protected work without the owner’s permission, you won’t know whether your use is a permissible Fair Use or a prohibited infringement until after the copyright owner files a lawsuit claiming an infringement and everyone goes to court, makes arguments, and the judge decides. The only guidance given by the U.S. Copyright Act is the following four-part test which judges use in making the Fair Use analysis and determining whether or not a particular use is “fair”: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. As you may imagine, the application of these factors is both highly fact specific and highly subjective. Any one factor can tip the balance for or against Fair Use. More significantly, just because one judge determines a specific usage to be Fair Use within a specific scenario does not mean that a different judge will determine that a similar usage will be Fair Use in a similar scenario. Determinations can, and do, change from judge to judge. Case law is filled with conflicting examples of recordings where one judge ruled that a specific usage of a melody was a parody (Fair Use) and another judge in another state said a similar use of a different melody was satire (not Fair Use). Similarly, judges have ruled the use of as little as thirty seconds to be an infringement and usage of entire works to be Fair Use. Essentially, this means that Fair Use is an exception, or defense, to a claim of infringement, not a right in and of itself. To be fair, there are many legal scholars who would argue, correctly, that Fair Use is not a mere defense, but is, in fact, an important right that balances copyright law with the First Amendment and that the current system gives far too much power to wealthy copyright owners who can use the mere threat of lawsuits to quash any usage of their works, even usage that might legitimately constitute Fair Use. I don’t necessarily disagree with this position. However, it’s more aspirational than reflective of the current realities that you and I have to deal with. Until Congress comes up with better guidelines (and the likelihood that Congress can “come up” with much of anything these days is slim), we are stuck with the current system and all its inherent flaws and inconsistencies. Despite the distinctions between Fair Use and infringement being uncertain and difficult to define, there are, nonetheless, a few certainties which you can depend upon: There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledgement of the source of the copyrighted material does not constitute Fair Use and is not a substitute for obtaining permission where permission is required. Just because something is used by a non-profit and/or used for “education” does not mean its “fair.” Materials you find on the Internet is neither inherently public domain nor Fair Use. Just because you do not sell anything, does not make your use of someone else’s work Fair Use. At the very least, when determining whether or not using someone else’s work without permission might be Fair Use, take only the smallest amount of a copyrighted work necessary to accomplish your goal of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and/or parody. As a general rule, the more you take, the less likely your use will be considered “fair.” It is also reasonable to assume that if you are using any part of a copyrighted work for promoting or marketing your services or performances, or your organization’s services or performances, even if no copies are being sold, it probably IS NOT fair use. Of course, the safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. __________________________________________________________________ For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org. All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously. __________________________________________________________________ THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

When To Negotiate A Contract

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

A successful duo I represent has recorded a CD which is being released by a record company. Although the artist made attempts to obtain a contract, because of time restraints, according to the record company, it was only possible to give a contract AFTER the recording was made. The terms include exclusivity universally for several-year options, and although the company paid for the recording and manufacture of the cd, these costs will come out of the royalties.  The company controls the cd universally with power of attorney from the artists. To obtain copies, the artists buy the cd at a reduced price.  The company insists these are normal terms which are standard practice and always given after the recording is made.  This is news to me.  Can this be true?

In my ideal world, among other things on my wish list, every artist, manager, agent, presenter, producer, arts lawyer, and arts administrator would have a sign above their desks stating: “Nothing is Standard!” While it is true that there are many terms and practices which are more common than others and while it is also true that certain financial arrangements and commitments will necessarily lend themselves to certain expectations in return, everything is negotiable. This does not, of course, mean that you will get everything you want. Rather, depending on the negotiating strengths of the parties, everyone is free to ask and propose whatever they want. Think outside the box. Get creative.

However, while creative proposals may be limitless, the time to propose them is not. The time to negotiate is before services are rendered, significant time is spent, or money changes hands. Thus, the real issue at the heart of your question is your comment that “because of time restraints, according to the record company, it was only possible to give a contract after the recording was made.” In my experience, I have yet to encounter a situation that was so dire and immediate that at least some basic understandings of key terms could not be mutually agreed upon ahead of time.

Sadly, it’s not uncommon in the arts and entertainment world for the artistic aspects of a project to proceed on a completely separate track and pace from the administrative and business details. New works are created or composed before the commission agreements are in place. Recordings are made before the recording contracts are signed. Engagements are scheduled and sometimes even performed with no engagement agreements. I’ve even known artists to collaborate with one another and then try, almost always unsuccessfully, to negotiate a collaboration agreement after the work has been optioned for production.

Of course, some of this is understandable. Contractual terms can be confusing, especially when the parties are unfamiliar with business practices and terminology. Also, it can take such considerable effort just to coordinate the funding, schedules, and parties that no time is left for negotiating contractual terms. Also, its not uncommon for different individuals and departments within a large organization or institution to address artistic planning and scheduling separate and apart from contractual and business planning without communicating or coordinating with one another. But, whatever the reason, this phenomenon is unfortunate because it makes it much harder to negotiate favorable terms or, at the very least, to manage expectations, avoid potential conflicts, and make informed decisions.

The biggest—and, often, only—power an artist has in a negotiation is the power of “no”—that is, the power to say: “I’d rather pause for a moment, even it means losing the deal or opportunity, than enter blindly into a relationship where I may have no control over my creative services.” Of course, it can be equally bad for record companies, producers, and presenters who can find themselves investing both time and money without getting the rights or return they anticipated. While saying “no” or “stop” can sometimes cause a lost opportunity, the alternative is a bad or unfavorable deal that, ultimately, could prove worse.

Without a doubt, legitimate practicalities, including artist availability and opportunity costs, can often make it difficult for a formal contract to be drafted up in advance of every occasion. However, there is rarely a legitimate reason why parties cannot at least mutually agree upon basic terms, with a more formal agreement to follow. Remember, a contract is a written memorialization of an existing agreement. Until an agreement exists, there is nothing to memorialize. Without terms agreed upon ahead of time, there is no contract to draft.

In any situation, if time is of the essence, never wait for the other party to provide a contract or propose terms. You may need to make the first move. In your situation, if the record company refused to provide a contract, then your artists could have proposed their own terms or set out their own requirements for proceeding with the recording. If your artists are truly as “successful” as you indicate then chances are the record company would have agreed to an outline of reasonable terms. When you say that your artists “made attempts”, that should have included writing:

“Dear Record Company, while we are very excited about the prospect of working together, unless we can arrive at a mutual agreement of some basic terms, we will be unable to proceed with the recording as scheduled. Thus, we are proposing the following…..”

Contractual terms do not, and should not be, a confusing quagmire of legalese. Write your proposals in clear, understandable language. The key is to be detailed, not convoluted. As even the most experienced artist managers can find themselves daunted by the prospect of proposing terms for recording contracts and other multi-media deals and transactions, you would be wise to bring in some specialized help.

Ultimately, in your situation, if the record company paid for the recording without negotiating the contract, then they took the risk that no agreement would be reached and that your artists could simply refuse to permit the recordings to be released. That would leave the recording company with a worthless product. Of course, your artists wouldn’t own recordings they didn’t pay for, so they would have nothing to show for their time. Everyone loses. Hopefully, the potential of mutual self-destruction will force the parties into coming up with the reasonable compromise that should have been agreed to ahead of time.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Using Existing Recordings–Not So Fast!

Wednesday, April 10th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

A few weeks ago you wrote a great article about how to obtain a mechanical license when someone wants to record music. But what about using a recording that already exists? We would like to promote an upcoming concert at our venue by putting some recordings of the artist on our website. Since the artist gave us the recordings, are we ok?

Thanks…and no, you may not be ok.

Any time you want to use an existing recording of a composition, whether to put on your website, or as a soundtrack to a film or video, you will need to get permission (aka “a license)” from the composer (which often means contacting the composer’s publisher) as well as permission (aka “a license”) from the owner of the recording (which is often a record label.) That’s right, you may need to get two separate licenses! Why? Because copyright law creates a separate copyright in compositions and a separate copyright in the recording of a composition.

Just because an artist or an artist’s manager gives you a recording and gives you permission to use that recording, doesn’t mean that the artist owns the recording or has the rights to give. Even if it is a recording of the artist’s own original composition or if the composition itself is in the public domain, the artist may not own the recording. In which case, the artist cannot give you permission to use it, much less the artist’s manager.

Shortly after I posted the earlier blog you mentioned (The Mechanics of Mechanical Licenses, March 6, 2013), Peter Christ of Crystal Records Inc. (http://www.crystalrecords.com) sent me an email which exactly and accurately addressed this issue. He graciously agreed to let me post it here:

Your explanation was very clear and should help those who want to record music that is not public domain. However, it does not address the situation of a person who wants to use a recording already made, and on a record label, for their web site or their movie or other background music use. It should be made clear that the publisher needs to be contacted and ALSO the record label or other copyright owner of the recorded music.

We sometimes find out that our copyrighted recordings are being used as background music for films or on someone’s web site. This is not legal without our permission, and when it is discovered, the legal expenses can be very high for the perpetrator.

 

Some people want to do it right, and we frequently get requests for license to use our recordings for films, web, etc. We always appreciate that someone is honest and knowledgeable enough to request a license. However, in most cases, they do not realize they need a license both from the record company and from the publisher of the music. And in many cases, the music was recorded under an AFM contract and additional payment must be made through the union to the musicians on the recording. It should be pointed out that even if the music itself is public domain, the recording is most likely not, so permission from the record company, and possibly the union, is definitely needed. So the two minutes or so they want to use can get quite expensive.

Thank you for your excellent column in Musical America.

See, I don’t make this stuff up just to make your lives complicated! Bottom line, when it comes to music rights there are three rules: never assume—always ask—and know who to ask.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Does God Serve On Their Board?

Wednesday, March 20th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

We booked one of our artists to perform at a non-profit venue. The booking agreement was signed by all parties. We just received a phone call from the venue that their board met last night and decided unanimously to cancel the engagement due to poor ticket sales. The contract states that our artist is to be paid a cancellation fee if the date is cancelled for any reason except an act of God. However, the venue is claiming that this is an act of god and they do not have to pay. Any suggestions?

While I am familiar with many board chairs and presidents who erroneously believe they rule with omnipotent powers, their decisions do not constitute “Acts of God.” Moreover, unless there is a specific definition of “Acts of God” in a booking contract that expressly states that ticket sales are subject to divine will and authority or that a recognized deity from an established pantheon is in charge of marketing and sales, poor ticket sales are also not “Acts of God.”

Contrary to myth, non-profits are not exempt from the laws and legal obligations which govern all businesses, for-profit or otherwise. They must license copyrighted materials, pay their employees and independent contractors, and honor contractual obligations just like everyone else. In this case, you would appear to have a fairly straightforward breach of contract situation whereby the venue is contractually obligated to pay your artist the agreed upon cancellation fee.

Regardless of the legal merits of your claim, your first course of action should not be threats or demands. Instead, explore every possibility of a creative and mutually reasonable solution. Non-profits are under a considerable amount of pressure and, more often than not, in situations such as these, they are acting out of fear and self-survival rather than any nefarious intent. Can you reschedule the date? Can you offer to provide additional marketing materials or suggestions? Are there any expenses or costs which can be reduced? Are there any other presenters in the area who might be willing to partner with the venue and share expenses? Assuming your venue is unwilling to budge or consider alternatives, then stating the legal merits of the situation and suggesting mediation or arbitration would certainly be appropriate.

Ultimately, this may be one of those rare instances when filing legal action may be warranted. If your booking agreement does not provide for attorneys fees and costs in the event of a lawsuit, and if the engagement fee is not substantial enough to warrant the time and aggravation, you may be able to file a small claims action in lieu of a more formal trial. Sometimes, merely filing a lawsuit or claim is enough to bring them to the bargaining table. However, always remember that winning a lawsuit doesn’t mean you or your artist will ever see a dime. If the venue refuses to pay, you’ll have to pursue them further with bank liens and property attachments until they either pay or file bankruptcy or close entirely. While not resulting in any damages for you or your artist, this can often be its own form of divine retribution upon the venue.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

You’re Not the Boss of Me!

Wednesday, February 20th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law & Disorder,

 

Our ensemble has recently had friction with its management over weather-related travel concerns. We had concerts scheduled during both Hurricane Sandy and this most recent blizzard in the Northeast, and as both approached, discussed postponing them with our management company. In both instances, they stated that since plane, train, and public transportation travel had been halted, we would need to rent a van and drive to the engagements. They said that due to the nature of our contracts, we would have to make every effort to get there no matter what. We had serious safety concerns about doing this, due to the predicted severity of the storms. In the end, it turned out in both instances that the presenters chose to reschedule the concerts for hopefully sunnier springtime dates, so we did not need to travel after all.

 

I know that our contracts with presenters include an “Act of God” clause, and my question is, who is empowered to make the decision about whether invoking this clause is the right thing to do? The presenter, our management company, or us? What if all three parties do not agree? Can we refuse to travel if we feel conditions are unsafe? Also, our ensemble is a non-profit organization, with the musicians hired as independent contractors. I am concerned that should we ever go ahead and travel to an engagement during bad weather conditions against our better judgment, and should an accident occur, that the individual musicians would have grounds to sue our non-profit for essentially telling them they must go. Would our management company be held responsible at all since they would not allow us to postpone? Help!

 

An “Act of God” clause is purely a creature of contract. It’s the terms of the contract (not God!) that defines what constitutes an “Act of God” and who gets to make the decision as to whether or not to invoke the clause. If the contract merely says something like: “This engagement may be canceled in the event of an Act of God”, it’s fairly meaningless. While I am familiar with lots of artists, managers, and presenters who prefer short and simple contracts, the problem with “short and simple” is that, in cases such as yours, it can also mean “vague and useless.” A good Act of God clause will define what constitutes an Act of God and who can make the determination, as well as address such issues as whether or not deposits need to get returned or engagements re-booked.

In your situation, to determine whether the nature of your contract, in fact, required you to make every effort to get there “no matter what,” I’d need to review your specific contract. However, I can’t image an engagement contract that actually required you to risk personal safely to get to the engagement—especially if planes, trains, and public transportation had all been halted. Even if you had, indeed, signed such a contract, there are always alternatives to risking personal safety merely to comply with a contract—including a legal defense called “impossibility of performance.”

Regardless of what a contract says or doesn’t say, the ultimate decision to cancel or postpone an engagement, whatever the reason, is always yours. Whether you’re canceling or postponing because you feel you cannot travel safely or canceling because you want to pursue a more enticing offer, those decisions are yours to make, not your manager’s.

Similar to Act of God clauses, manager/artist relationships are also defined and determined by contracts. However, unlike Act of God clauses, most state laws impose two legal obligations on all agents and managers which can never be waived or altered by contracts: (1) All managers owe a fiduciary duty to their artists (ie: they must put the artist’s interest above their own) and (2) All managers must follow the instructions and directives of their artists. (There are other obligations, too, but these are the most important.)

Like an attorney, a manager is there to provide advice, counsel, and direction, but not to give orders or commands. Unless a manager is also a producer, the manager works for the artist, not the other way around. Final decisions are always yours to make. Of course, the consequences—including being sued by presenter for breach of contract—are solely yours to bear, as well.

Granted, the manager/artist relationship should always be one of mutual respect, otherwise it doesn’t work for either of you. If a manager feels you are not taking their advice and counsel, and, as a result, you are adversely affecting your career, then the manager may rightly choose to no longer work with you. Likewise, if there comes a point when you believe your manager is putting his or her interest above your own, its time to move on.

As for your liability question, let’s save that for another post. For now, suffice it to say, under our less-than-intuitive legal system, anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything—especially if an artist is injured because you required them to drive in poor weather conditions. Get insurance! Stay tuned.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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