John J. Tormey III, Entertainment Lawyer

New York Entertainment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq. John J. Tormey III, PLLC: My name is John J. Tormey III. This is my blog. I am a New York lawyer, also admitted to practice in California and the District of Columbia. My focus is on entertainment, art, media, copyright, trademark, limited liability company law, and music A and R (Artist and Repertoire) matters. I formerly served as Counsel to The Walt Disney Company, and Senior Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel to Miramax Films.

Showing posts with label legal services. Show all posts

Saturday, January 5, 2013

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part III: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net

brightline@att.net

https://www.tormey.org/

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part III: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Part II of this article discussed how individuals historically incorporated their businesses in the hopes of avoiding personal liability, but then often became dissatisfied with the so-called “double taxation” thereby resulting. This, among other motivations, brought the S-corporation and then, the limited liability company (LLC), into being. As a New York entertainment lawyer practicing in this day and age, I most often see limited liability companies (LLC’s) as opposed to other forms of entities used in film, music, television, publishing, and Internet businesses. However one cannot understand and appreciate the advantages typically provided by the limited liability company (LLC) unless superimposed as bas-relief upon the entity’s historical context – which gives further meaning to the LLC across all sectors and industries including entertainment and media.

Society clearly benefits from encouraging people to start businesses - and take some commercial risks without an attendant risk of personal ruin. Yet otherwise well-intentioned and well-motivated people were either quitting businesses or exposing themselves to personal liability - in both instances due to their aversion to the so-called “double layer of taxation” engendered by the C-corp. Additionally, the “double” taxation of the C-corp was creating a disincentive for new people to go into business - particularly those who were risk-averse. There had to be a better way.

That better way, at the time, was the S-corp, which came into existence a number of years ago principally for the above types of reasons and rationales. It was named after a “Subchapter-S” in the Internal Revenue Code of the United States, and was regularly recognized by the IRS and state tax authorities alike. One of the familiar tasks for an entertainment lawyer became the act of ensuring that clients timely made their appropriate S-corp elections (see below) with appropriate governmental authorities – hardly the romantic notion one would have of what it is like to interact with talent and go to celebrity premieres..

Akin to the C-corp in most other respects, the S-corp only mandated a single layer of taxation, as opposed to the C-corp’s double layer of taxation. But there were also a few catches.

One had to make a formal written “election” (or in some cases, “elections”) to qualify as an S-corp. If one didn’t do so in time by a strict deadline, one would lose S-corp status and be “doubly” taxed like a C-corp instead. As most entertainment lawyers can attest, this kind of eventuality could actually snuff out a fledgling entertainment or media start-up business in its first years of existence, already engaging in risky and speculative business activity as is often the case in media and entertainment.

There were other restrictions on S-corps, too, such as a limit on the number of shareholders, a limit on foreign ownership, and a limit on corporate parent-subsidiary ownership. Some of these restrictions have been loosened - and in some cases eliminated - in recent years; so one should not rule out the S-corp without first updating its tax code requirements with one’s lawyer – entertainment lawyer or otherwise – as well as one’s tax accountant. The historical restrictions of the S-corp put business owners in a “Catch-22” situation - they clearly wanted a single layer of taxation, but in the context of an entity that wasn’t so restricted. The newer solution: scrap the idea of a corporation at all, and instead form a limited liability company, or LLC.

The limited liability company (LLC) is akin to the S-corp but without most of the attendant historical restrictions. Yes, there were a certain number of restrictions on the LLC, too, when it first appeared on the scene - most of which were subsequently lifted by either the IRS or state legislatures, or both. Again, S-corp restrictions have also been lifted in recent years, making the S-corp and limited liability company (LLC) look more similar to each other as time goes on.

But even as of this writing, the limited liability company (LLC) is usually considered the most advantageous entity from a tax perspective of all 3 most commonly available forms, for the small business owner to create. As a media and entertainment lawyer, the LLC is the entity which I am most often asked to create. The LLC is also considered the most flexible of all 3 entities. What does “flexible” mean? Well, it is considered easier to adapt the LLC to later-occurring additional equity-holders in one’s business, for example, which is another familiar task for an entertainment lawyer in the context of artistic co-ventures - and the word “easier” in this context translates to “less legal fees”. The LLC is in most cases an entity which is easier to manage and administrate.

There are some disadvantages to the limited liability company (LLC), too. The LLC can take more time to finalize, and in some cases can be more expensive to form and/or file with the government - as compared to an S-corp. Some states historically prohibited 1-person LLC’s. Some states still have an underdeveloped body of judicial case law on the LLC, since the entity is still quite new in many states - so the treatment of the LLC under the law may be less certain than the treatment of a corporation. We in New York have an odd restriction, too, as a result of the powerful newspaper and media lobby galvanized during the legislation’s enactment which as a media and entertainment lawyer I suppose that I should not begrudge. This restriction may be present in another state or two as well in analogous form. The restriction is this: if one elects to form a New York LLC, one must publish its existence in periodicals for a number of weeks, before being accorded the legal privilege of initiating a litigation - as a plaintiff - in the LLC’s name in the New York courts. Publication of an LLC’s naissance in Manhattan is expensive - the publication of a limited liability company in periodicals of the creation of a proposed Manhattan LLC can range between $1,000 and $3,000 (the figures can vary and are smaller in other parts of New York State apart from Manhattan).

Even so, the limited liability company (LLC) is considered the trend-setting entity of those “in the know”, across the country. As an entertainment lawyer in New York, I have noticed that hipster Californians gravitate to LLC’s just as much as hipster New Yorkers seem to do. And part from hype, assuming that one can afford to form an LLC, and assuming that one can live with whatever restrictions apply to the LLC in one’s jurisdiction, it may in fact be the entity of choice, and an improvement over the older S-corp and C-corp structures.

A limited liability company (LLC), though frequently mistaken for a corporation, is technically not considered a corporation – rather, it is an unincorporated entity under the tax code, more like a partnership than anything else, but one that (like the S-corp and C-corp), if properly formed and maintained, should provide its members with insulation against personal liability.

If one doesn’t incorporate or form a limited liability company (LLC), the business will likely be what is known as either a sole proprietorship (if a 1-person company), or a general partnership, de facto or otherwise, (if comprised of 2 or more persons). Any entertainment lawyer or other lawyer will opine that this could result in unlimited personal liability for the entity’s owner or owners. Again, that means that an owner’s personal assets can be at risk to satisfy the obligations and debts of the business. Any entertainment lawyer or other lawyer will opine that personal liability is not a risk worth taking. In addition, using a corporate entity or limited liability company (LLC) – particularly an LLC in this day and age - could add a good deal of “cachet” or credibility to one’s business endeavors, in the eyes of other persons and companies with whom the business has contact.

Click the “Articles” button at:

https://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My law practice as an entertainment lawyer includes incorporations and the formation of limited liability companies (LLC’s). If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net

brightline@att.net

https://www.tormey.org

Page:

Business Structures - Part III

Title Metatag:

LLC, entertainment lawyer, corporation, limited liability company

Meta Description:

LLC,entertainment attorney,corporation,limited liability company,New York,entertainment lawyer,record label, start-up

Keywords:

business entities,corporation,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,incorporation,legal services,limited liability company,limited liability companies,LLC,LLC’s,New York lawyer,start-up business

entertainment lawyer, entertainment attorney, business structures, LLC, corporation, limited liability company, LLC, corporation, limited liability company, New York, entertainment lawyer, record label, start up, business entities, corporation, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, incorporation, legal services,

limited liability company, limited liability companies, LLC, LLCs, New York lawyer, start up business

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Attorney And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Attorney
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net
brightline@att.net
https://www.tormey.org

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Attorney And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Part I of this article discussed the process of selecting a new name for a business, typically a limited liability company (LLC) or a corporation in this day and age. Many people choose to incorporate or form an LLC, so as to minimize their personal liability for the debts, liabilities, and obligations of their business. There is cost to forming an entity, but the cost is often worth it. What follows is a brief discussion of “personal liability”, and the types of entities that may be available. These types of issues regarding corporations and limited liability companies (LLC’s) are often brought to an entertainment attorney such as myself in the context of new entertainment venture start-up companies and otherwise, but are in fact universal concerns across manifold sectors and industries besides entertainment.

2. Choosing an Entity.

A full description of all the differences between an S-corporation (S-corp), a C-corporation (C-corp), and a limited liability company (LLC) would be beyond the scope of this article. Besides, the distinctions are often altered - some would say “blurred” - by changes in the Internal Revenue Code and state laws. Even by the time you read this article, further changes to relevant tax laws and state laws may be made, further affecting your entity choice as between a limited liability company (LLC), a corporation, or other available form of entity such as a partnership or trust. The bottom line is that a choice of entity should be made upon current information only, with the assistance of a lawyer and an accountant. To do it any other way is to risk making a bad choice that one will later regret, especially when the first or successive tax returns relating to the LLC or corporation are filed. Though in this day and age an entertainment attorney will typically be asked to form and file a limited liability company (LLC) rather than an alternate form of entity in the context of a new media or entertainment business start-up, the choice of entity should still be carefully examined by the entertainment attorney and the business-owner at the outset – just as it should be carefully examined in any other sector or industry.

The distinctions between an S-corp, C-corp, and limited liability company (LLC) make sense when taken in the historical perspective. Look at them as the product of a kind of Darwinian evolution. In that vein, the S-corp and C-corp may someday become but extinct historical artifacts, while the LLC could become the only entity “fittest” to survive. The LLC may be the best choice of entity - if affordable, and if one is not otherwise precluded from forming it by virtue of one’s own tax profile or one’s home state’s current restrictions on LLC’s.

At some point in history it was realized that persons involved in businesses could be thereby putting their own personal assets at risk as a result. That principle still applies, by the way. If one runs an unincorporated or non-LLC business out of one’s house, that business owner may risk later losing that same house, not to mention cars, bank accounts, and other assets, to the debts, liabilities and obligations of one’s business. This is what “personal liability” is all about. A business owner wants to avoid personal liability, at all costs. The owner wants to shield his or her assets - like a house, cars, and personal bank accounts - from the risks engendered by the business. For these reasons, understandable and common to all humanity, the concept of a corporation was first formulated, many years ago. Rights deals in the context of film, music, television, and publishing, particularly, tend to be liability-evocative, and so it is not uncommon for an entertainment attorney to first focus on the structure of the business vehicle through which the deal is intended to run, before looking at the proposed deal itself.

The traditional and old-fashioned form of corporation in the U.S. still exists as of this writing - in the form of the C-corporation, named after a “Subchapter-C” in the Internal Revenue Code. When properly filed and maintained, the C-corp shields the business-owner/principal from personal liability. For example, if there is US$10,000 in the C-corp’s corporate bank account, then, in theory, only that US$10,000 amount can be used to satisfy a civil (court) judgment against the corporation - even if the President and sole shareholder of the corporation has an additional $50,000 in his/her personal bank account. A “wall”, “shield”, or “veil” is put up between the two sets of assets.

But the C-corp posed historical problems, principally that of so-called “double taxation”. Those C-corp owners filed corporate tax returns as well as individual tax returns. The unsuspecting were thereupon often disheartened to find out that they were subjected to an extra tax hit. The C-corp would be taxed on corporate earnings. In addition, the shareholders could also be taxed personally on monies withdrawn from the corporation by way of dividends. The net effect wasn’t always necessarily a 100% increase in otherwise-prevailing tax (as the somewhat-misleading phrase “double taxation” might otherwise suggest). But, on the other hand, the monies generated by the C-corp were required to filter through two “layers” of taxation as opposed to one.

In this regard, a number of business owners, including some in the entertainment business, realized that they would have oddly been better off from a tax perspective if not incorporated - a bizarre result if there ever was one. Why should the tax code and state corporation law encourage you to take unacceptable personal risk, after all? Some persons thereupon decided to simply not incorporate (or “un-incorporate”, dissolving a pre-existing corporation), and thereupon take the oft-significant risk of individual liability so as to minimize taxes. If continued, one would expect the rate of commercial litigations and personal bankruptcies to rise as result, an event which in no way would be in the public interest. Other persons instead opted out of corporate and business ownership entirely. As an entertainment attorney practicing in New York, I still encounter many companies who have yet to incorporate or form a limited liability company (LLC) – they are typically either sole proprietorships or de factopartnerships, the risks of which their principals are still assuming personal liability whether aware of it or not.

The next installment of this article will address how society responded to the growing dissatisfaction with the C-corp - namely, the creation of the S-corp and the limited liability company (LLC) thereafter.

Click the “Articles” button at:

https://www.tormey.org/art.htm
to return to the main Articles page.

My entertainment law practice includes incorporations and the formation of limited liability companies (LLC’s). If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net
brightline@att.net
https://www.tormey.org

Page:
Business Structures - Part II

Title Metatag:

corporation,entertainment attorney,LLC,limited liability company

Meta Description:

LLC,entertainment lawyer,corporation,limited liability company,New York,entertainment attorney,film production, start-up

Keywords:

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, business structures, corporation, entertainment attorney, LLC, limited liability company, LLC, entertainment lawyer, corporation, limited liability company, New York, entertainment attorney, film production, start up, business entities, corporation, incorporation, legal services, limited liability company, limited liability companies, LLC, LLCs, New York lawyer, start up business

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net

brightline@att.net

https://www.tormey.org

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

As an entertainment attorney practicing in New York, I see people and companies struggling to address the definition of independent contractor vs. employee, frequently. Anyone who hires workers or is thinking of doing so, in New York or elsewhere in the United States, should be aware of the following. Before hiring anyone, it is critical that one carefully determines with one’s accountant and entertainment attorney or other counsel whether the new hire is to be an “employee”; or, alternatively, an “independent contractor”. The terms have legal and financial import; they are mutually exclusive; and one should never use them interchangeably.

The distinction between the two types of workers is important because, among other things, it is usually more expensive and more administratively inconvenient to hire and pay “employees” as opposed to “independent contractors”. On the other hand, few persons or companies that hire workers are truly willing to relinquish control over their hires, to a sufficient degree to allow those workers to accurately be characterized as “independent contractors” as opposed to employees. As an entertainment attorney, I frequently encounter business projects of short duration such as a single film shoot, a single album recording, or a single pilot shoot. The question of “independent contractor vs. employee” therefore arises most often in the context of media and entertainment projects of multi-week or multi-month duration. Though the two constructs, “independent contractor” and “employee”, are not necessarily self-defining, the word “independent” is used for a reason, and truly translates to “loss of hiring-party control”. I’ll explain below.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service in (former) “IRS Publication 937” identified 20 “checklist” factors that it considered when determining whether or not an individual worker is an “independent contractor” as opposed to an “employee”. The litmus test has apparently since evolved somewhat. See, e.g.:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

The hiring party should review the most updated version of the IRS criteria prior to any hires, and it is probably more important to do so with one’s payroll company and tax accountant, than one’s entertainment attorney. The hiring party should also be aware that the IRS is not the only institution with whom to be concerned regarding the all-important “independent contractor vs. employee” determination. Other governmental agencies have a stake in preventing mischaracterization of workers as independent contractors, too.

For example, the state Department of Labor (state “DOL”) in one’s own home state may apply its own checklist of criteria to distinguish independent contractors vs. employees. One needs to be aware that there is a federal [US] Department of Labor as well as a state Department of Labor. A hiring party needs to comply with the requirements of both. In a perfect world, there should be consistency between the respective “checklists” of the IRS and the applicable DOL, as well as consistency between each agency’s interpretation of those checklists. However, your entertainment attorney and tax accountant will opine to you that the world isn’t perfect, and those interpretations could differ as to what constitutes an independent contractor versus an employee. Therefore, one should be aware as to how a local state DOL characterizes the two different types of workers, too - if different than the IRS characterization. Additionally, from an enforcement perspective, the DOL could challenge a hiring business’ characterization of its workers as “independent contractors” vs. employees, without the IRS joining in on the contest. The IRS and the DOL are separate agencies, although there is a suggestion that they will more thoroughly share electronic data with each other on field data and this issue in the near future.

The “independent contractor” determination can be the proverbial unstable apple cart, easily tipped. An employer, as most know, should withhold taxes from an employee’s pay, and make unemployment contributions with respect to those employees, among other things. Hiring companies in the entertainment field, for example, even if they already have an entertainment attorney and a tax accountant, still often wisely use a “payroll company” to administrate payment obligations to workers, so as not to transgress. The cost of a hiring party mischaracterizing an employee as an independent contractor instead, could be high. If ever in doubt, payroll companies and accountants should skew cautious and conservative when making the distinction for their clients in favor of employees – and the entertainment attorney will usually tell the client to listen to his or her payroll company and tax accountant.

However, let’s say that a hypothetical music recording studio, or film production company, for that matter, hires 20 workers, characterizes them all (in reasonably good faith) as “independent contractors”, but uses no payroll company, tax accountant, or entertainment attorney initially. Let’s further assume that the film production or music studio pays no unemployment insurance or workers compensation contributions with respect to any of the hires, and does not withhold taxes from their paychecks. Then, one independent contractor worker is terminated, and vindictively files with the local state DOL for unemployment compensation, claiming to be a fired “employee” instead. Even after phoning the entertainment attorney and tax accountant to enlist their retroactive help, it may now be too late. The recording studio or film production could now find itself faced with a state DOL that characterizes not just the one claimant-worker - but all 20 workers - as “employees” as opposed to “independent contractors”. The apple cart tips. The camel’s nose is now in the tent.

The recording studio or film company may be required to litigate administrative hearings on the independent contractor v. employee question, and may thereupon be assessed retroactive unemployment insurance contributions, interest, and penalties with respect to the workers that “should have been paid as employees”. Other actions may also follow, such as a workers compensation audit, and perhaps even findings by the IRS and local tax authorities with respect to claimed monies that “should have been withheld” from the “employees” pay. The argument of, “But I told them they were independent contractors” may be considered a mere ipse dixit proposition and might not wash with the government. The entertainment attorney or the business owner can state the case to the authorities that short-term hires are the bread-and-butter of the local entertainment economy in the jurisdiction and so should be rewarded and not punished, but the adjudicating authorities may not accept that distinction between entertainment and non-entertainment sectors. Their only care may be to decrease the overall number of independent contractors and increase the total number of employees across all industries and sectors.

Could this nightmare have been avoided by the recording studio or film production company, through documentation, prospective use of its entertainment attorney, or otherwise? The answer is “Maybe yes, maybe no”. Please see Part II of this article for a further discussion.

Click the “Articles” button at:

https://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My entertainment law practice includes state and federal employment law matters relating to independent contractors and employees and other human resource matters as they arise in the fields of film, music, television, publishing, Internet, and other media and industries. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net

brightline@att.net

https://www.tormey.org

Page:

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part I

Title Metatag:

independent contractor,entertainment attorney,employee

Meta Description:

entertainment lawyer,independent contractor,entertainment attorney,employee,labor,withholding,film crew,labor,New York

Keywords:

compensation,contracts,corporations,employees,employment,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,independent contractors,labor,law firm,legal services,New York lawyer,union agreements,withholdings

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, independent contractors, employees, independent contractor, entertainment attorney, employee, entertainment lawyer, independent contractor, entertainment attorney, employee, labor, withholding, film crew, labor, New York, compensation, contracts, corporations, employees, employment, independent contractors, labor, law firm, legal services, New York lawyer, union agreements, withholdings

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

Thursday, December 15, 2011

“Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Music And Film Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/performance.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

“Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Music And Film Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Producing and editing a masterwork of recorded music is obviously a specialized art form. But so is the entertainment lawyer’s act of drafting clauses, contracts, and contractual language generally. How might the art of the entertainment attorney’s legal drafting a clause or contract affect the musician, composer, songwriter, producer or other artist as a practical matter? Many artists think they will be “home free”, just as soon as they are furnished a draft proposed record contract to sign from the label’s entertainment attorney, and then toss the proposed contract over to their own entertainment lawyer for what they hope will be a rubber-stamp review on all clauses. They are wrong. And those of you who have ever received a label’s “first form” proposed contract are chuckling, right about now.

Just because a U.S. record label forwards an artist its “standard form” proposed contract, does not mean that one should sign the draft contract blindly, or ask one’s entertainment lawyer to rubber-stamp the proposed agreement before signing it blindly. A number of label forms still used today are quite hackneyed, and have been adopted as full text or individual clauses in whole or in part from contract form-books or the contract “boilerplate” of other or prior labels. From the entertainment attorney’s perspective, a number of label recording clauses and contracts actually read as if they were written in haste - just like Nigel Tufnel scrawled an 18-inch Stonehenge monument on a napkin in Rob Reiner’s “This Is Spinal Tap”. And if you are a musician, motion picture fan, or other entertainment lawyer, I bet you know what happened to Tap as a result of that scrawl.

It stands to reason that an artist and his or her entertainment lawyer should carefully review all draft clauses, contracts, and other forms forwarded to the artist for signature, prior to ever signing on to them. Through negotiation, through the entertainment attorney, the artist may be able to interpose more precise and even-handed language in the contract ultimately signed, where appropriate. Inequities and unfair clauses aren’t the only things that need to be removed by one’s entertainment lawyer from a first draft proposed contract. Ambiguities must also be removed, before the contract can be signed as one.

For the artist or the artist’s entertainment attorney to leave an ambiguity or inequitable clause in a signed contract, would be merely to leave a potential bad problem for a later day - particularly in the context of a signed recording contract which could tie up an artist’s exclusive services for many years. And remember, as an entertainment lawyer with any longitudinal data on this item will tell you, the artistic “life-span” of most artists is quite short - meaning that an artist could tie up his or her whole career with one bad contract, one bad signing, or even just one bad clause. Usually these bad contract signings occur before the artist seeks the advice and counsel of an entertainment attorney.

One seemingly-inexhaustible type of ambiguity that arises in clauses in entertainment contracts, is in the specific context of what I and other entertainment lawyers refer to as a contract “performance clause”. A non-specific commitment in a contract to perform, usually turns out to be unenforceable. Consider the following:

Contract Clause #1: “Label shall use best efforts to market and publicize the Album in the Territory”.

Contract Clause #2: “The Album, as

delivered to Label by Artist, shall be produced and edited using only first-class facilities and equipment for sound recording and all other activities relating to the Album”.

One shouldn’t use either clause in a contract. One shouldn’t agree to either clause as written. One should negotiate contractual edits to these clauses through one’s entertainment lawyer, prior to signature. Both clauses set forth proposed contractual performance obligations which are, at best, ambiguous. Why? Well, with regard to Contract Clause #1, reasonable minds, including those of the entertainment attorneys on each side of the transaction, can differ as to what “best efforts” really means, what the clause really means if different, or what the two parties to the contract intended “best efforts” to mean at the time (if anything). Reasonable minds, including those of the entertainment lawyers on each side of the negotiation, can also differ as to what constitutes a “first-class” facility as it is “described” in Contract Clause #2. If these contractual clauses were ever scrutinized by judge or jury under the hot lights of a U.S. litigation, the clauses might well be stricken as void for vagueness and unenforceable, and judicially read right out of the corresponding contract itself. In the view of this particular New York entertainment attorney, yes, the clauses really are that bad.

Consider Contract Clause #1, the “best efforts” clause, from the entertainment lawyer’s perspective. How would the artist really go about enforcing that contractual clause as against a U.S. label, as a practical matter? The answer is, the artist probably wouldn’t, at end of day. If there ever were a contract dispute between the artist and label over money or the marketing expenditure, for example, this “best efforts” clause would turn into the artist’s veritable Achilles Heel in the contract, and the artist’s entertainment attorney might not be able to help the artist out of it as a practical matter:

Artist: “You breached the ‘best efforts’ clause in the contract!”

Label: “No! I tried! I tried! I really did!”

You get the idea.

Why should an artist leave a label with that kind of contractual “escape-hatch” in a clause? The entertainment lawyer’s answer is, “no reason at all”. There is absolutely no reason for the artist to put his or her career at risk by agreeing to a vague or lukewarm contractual marketing commitment clause, if the marketing of the Album is perceived to be an essential part of the deal by and for the artist. It often is. It would be the artist’s career at stake. If the marketing spend throughout the contract’s Term diminishes over time, so too could the artist’s public recognition and career as a result. And the equities should be on the artist’s side, in a contractual negotiation conducted between entertainment attorneys over this item.

Assuming that the label is willing to commit to a contractual marketing spend clause at all, then, the artist-side entertainment lawyer argues, the artist should be entitled to know in advance how his or her career would be protected by the label’s expenditure of marketing dollars. Indeed, asks the entertainment attorney, “Why else is the artist signing this deal other than an advance, marketing spend, and tour support?”. The questions may be phrased a bit differently nowadays, in the current age of the contract now known as the “360 deal”. The clauses may evolve, or devolve, but the equitable arguments remain principally the same.

The point is, it is not just performers that should be held to performance clauses in contracts. Companies can be asked by entertainment lawyers to subscribe to performance clauses in contracts, too. In the context of a performance clause - such as a record label’s contractual obligation to market and publicize an album - it is incumbent upon the artist, and the artist’s entertainment attorney if any, to be very specific in the clause itself about what is contractually required of the record company. It should never be left to a subsequent verbal side conversation. In other words, working with his or her entertainment lawyer, the artist should write out a “laundry-list” clause setting forth each of the discrete things that the artist wants the label to do. As but a partial example:

Contract Clause #3: “To market and publicize the Album in the Territory, you, Label, will spend no less than ‘x’ U.S. dollars on advertising for the Album during the following time period: ____________”; or even,

Contract Clause #4: “To market and publicize the Album in the Territory, you, Label, will hire the ___________ P.R. firm in New York, New York, and you will cause no less than ‘y’ U.S. dollars to be expended for publicity for and directly relating to the Album (and no other property or material) during the following time period: _____________”.

Compare Clauses #3 and #4, to Contract Clause #1 earlier above, and then ask yourself or your own entertainment attorney: Which are more hortatory? Which are more precise?

As for Contract Clause #2 and its vague unexplained definition of “first-class facilities and equipment” – why not have one’s entertainment lawyer instead just include in the contract a laundry-list clause of the names of five professional recording studios in the relevant city, that both parties, label and artist, prospectively agree constitute “first-class” for definitional purposes? This is supposed to be a contract, after all, the entertainment attorney opines. “Don’t leave your definitions, and therefore definitional problems, for a later document or a later day, unless you truly want to make a personal financial commitment to keeping more litigators awash in business debating bad clauses and bad contracts before the courts”.

If you don’t ask, you don’t get. Through the entertainment lawyer, the artist should make the label expressly sign on to a very specific contractual list of tasks in an appropriate clause, monitor the label’s progress thereafter, and hold the label to the specific contractual standard that the artist was smart enough to “carve in” in the clause through the entertainment attorney in the first instance.

* * * *

Again, consider Contract Clause #2, the “first class facilities and equipment” clause, from the entertainment lawyer’s perspective. Note that, unlike Contract Clause #1, this is a promise made by the artist to the label - and not a promise made by the label to the artist.

So, an artist might now ask his or her entertainment attorney:

“The shoe’s on the other foot, isn’t it?”

“‘First class’ in that clause is as vague and undefined a contractual standard as ‘best efforts’, isn’t it, entertainment lawyer?”

Entertainment attorney answer: “Right”.

“So, entertainment lawyer, there won’t be any harm in me, the artist, signing onto that contractual clause, will there, because I will be able to wiggle out of it if I ever had to, right?”

Entertainment attorney answer: “Wrong”.

The fact is, a contractual ambiguity in a performance clause is a bad thing - in either case - whether in the context of a label obligation to artist; or even in the context of an artist obligation to a label. The entertainment lawyer should advise that any contractual ambiguity in any clause could hurt the artist, even in the context of one of the artist’s own obligations to the other contracting party. Don’t rest on the linchpin of ambiguities in clauses when conducting business and relying on contracts - even if, in your musical art form itself, as Cameron Crowe once suggested of my first guitar hero Peter Frampton, you may happen to write “obscurantist” song lyrics while taking your own artistic license. Contracts need to be handled differently.

Here’s how ambiguity in your own contractual commitment to a label hurts you, from the entertainment lawyer’s perspective. The old-saw contractual principle of music “delivery” often finds the artist required to hand over documents to the label, as well as physical materials such as the album itself in the form of masters, digital masters, or “glass masters”, in order to get paid. By virtue of a contractually-delineated procedure vetted by and between entertainment attorneys, the label may be entitled to hold some (or even all) monies back, and not pay those monies to the artist until “delivery is complete” under the delivery clauses and delivery schedule in a contract. As one might therefore guess, “delivery” is a definite event whose occurrence or non-occurrence under the contract is oft-contested and sometimes even arbitrated or otherwise litigated by and between artists, labels, and the entertainment lawyers and litigators that represent them.

It is incumbent upon the artist and the artist’s entertainment attorney to prevent the label from drumming-up a pretextual “failed delivery” under any clause in the contract as an excuse for non-payment. In the context of Contract Clause #2 above, “first-class facilities and equipment” could easily become that pretext - the artist’s Achilles Heel in the litigation-tested contract contested between entertainment lawyer litigators. The label could simply take the position through counsel or otherwise that the delivered materials were not created at a “first-class” facility as contractually required in the relevant clause, no matter what facility was used. Why? Because “first-class” was never defined in any clause in the contractual document by either entertainment attorney on either side, as any particular facility.

And if no clause in the contract explicitly defined “first class” as an entertainment lawyer would have advised that it should do, then the artist could well be out the money, at least for the entire duration of an eminently avoidable multi-year litigation over what two dumb words mean. Worse yet, meanwhile, the label might be holding the money and laughing at the artist behind the artist’s back for his or her lack of contractual prescience. From the artist-side entertainment lawyer’s perspective, both of those horror-show possible eventualities and scenarios, are intolerable. They could have been avoided by a single, better clause – often the narrow reed upon which an artist’s success ultimately rests. (Ask Billy Joel. Ask Neil Young. Ask Bruce Springsteen. Ask George Michael. Ask John Fogerty).

What about prescience? How can this foreseeable contractual delivery dispute in the context of Contract Clause #2, be avoided by the entertainment lawyer? The simple solution in this case, again, is for the artist’s entertainment attorney to take a few extra minutes during the negotiations, and textually list-out, in a reply draft counter-proposed contract sent to the label, even if a single succinct clause, the actual facilities intended to be used. The artist-side entertainment lawyer can seek to make the label explicitly contractually pre-agree to the list of facilities, by name and address, in the body of the contract’s text. That is what a contract is for, anyway, as an entertainment attorney will tell you. When used correctly, a contract and its clauses really just comprise a dispute-avoidance tool. An entertainment contract should be a dispute-avoidance tool exchanged between entertainment lawyers. Also note that a contractual ambiguity in a clause could hurt an artist, regardless of whether it is embedded in one of the artist’s performance obligations, or even in one of the label’s performance obligations! The moral?: List all performance obligations. Break them down into discrete and understandable tasks, clause by clause. Approach it the same way an entertainment attorney would. Better yet – enlist the assistance of one before forming an opinion about the clauses or signing the contract.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My entertainment law practice includes the drafting, editing, negotiation, and closure of personal service agreements as well as all other entertainment transactional and advisory matters in the fields of music, film, television, publishing, Internet, and all other media and art forms. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

“Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts

Title Metatag:

entertainment lawyer, entertainment attorney, contracts, clauses

Meta Description:

entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,clauses, performance,contracts,music,film,New York,television,publishing,law

Keywords:

attorney,contracts,drafting,entertainment attorney,entertainment counsel,entertainment law,entertainment lawyer,entertainment litigation,film law,law practice,legal advice,legal services,

music law, New York lawyer, publishing law, television law, transactions, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, performance clauses, entertainment contracts, entertainment lawyer, entertainment attorney, contracts, clauses, performance, contracts, music, film, New York, television, publishing, law, attorney, contracts, drafting, entertainment attorney, entertainment counsel, entertainment law, entertainment lawyer, entertainment litigation, film law, law practice, legal advice, legal services, music law, New York lawyer, publishing law, television law, transactions, clauses

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/performance.htm