I didn't even read you post, I just saw the thread title and voted NO. I still haven't read the post, and I'm confident NO is the correct answer!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Would you sign this contract ??
- Thread starter mike buzzetti
- Start date
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
I used to pay fees (as a venue) to SESAC, ASCAP, BMI, and one other whose name escapes me.
None of the fees were based upon anything except the venue's ability to pay.
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
FWIW, I managed large hotels in several different states; SESAC, BMI, etc. were unavoidable in any state, and were ALWAYS the responsibility of the venue.
This is correct IF what you mean is that yes, the clause does have legal teeth because even if the rights orgs would only come after the venue, the artist also is signing on to an indemnity here too - ie the performer is legally obligated to pay the venue back for its losses to the rights orgs. And yes, it doesn’t mean a lot because the performer won’t have the cheese to cover it, BUT, especially if the artist is signing as an individual, this could lead to a judgement that follows you around and makes basic things like mortgages very difficult to obtain. Yes I am a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
I agree with all of that; but having been the guy placing the lien in the past I can confirm that it's a lot easier to place those than it is to collect on them. The clause may have veracity but won't be likely to make venues whole in practice. Probably even seeking the judgement would be more trouble than it's worth, as very few of the performers can or would pay. I bet.
I wouldn't sign this contract. The pay is paltry and the venue should be responsible for securing rights.
JeezyMcNuggles
Inactive
- Feb 23, 2018
- 14,723
- 20,970
- Disclosures
- I suck, but nobody really notices
Yeah.
I've played there. They're cool over there. I never saw the contract, but, we all got food, and pay was decent. Owner was cool too.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
No. The pay is one thing, but the requirement to procure performance rights is a whole other dealbreaker in this case. That's not your responsibility. BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc. should all have license agreements with the venue. Even our local coffee shops who host singer/songwriters and even the occasional solo bass gig that I play have agreements with them.
Theoretically, the setlist a band plays SHOULD be entered/submitted with the appropriate PRO entity so that the original songwriters (even if that's YOU) get paid for the performance of the music in that venue. The only way around this that I can see is to only play original music, have proof in writing that every song is original and is registered with a PRO, and provide copies of the song list along with a letter that states that you give the venue permission to have your music played in their venue. Then, you can submit your setlist yourself online to ensure that you are paid for your performance. It puts the liability for the music and performing rights totally on you.... because you own all the music. That's how we typically handle that in my jazz trio if it ever comes up, because we play almost all original music all the time - and can do at least 3 sets or more without ever playing another composer's music, or Real Book tunes. I've never dealt with a venue that wasn't already affiliated with at least 2 of the 3 PRO's.
Theoretically, the setlist a band plays SHOULD be entered/submitted with the appropriate PRO entity so that the original songwriters (even if that's YOU) get paid for the performance of the music in that venue. The only way around this that I can see is to only play original music, have proof in writing that every song is original and is registered with a PRO, and provide copies of the song list along with a letter that states that you give the venue permission to have your music played in their venue. Then, you can submit your setlist yourself online to ensure that you are paid for your performance. It puts the liability for the music and performing rights totally on you.... because you own all the music. That's how we typically handle that in my jazz trio if it ever comes up, because we play almost all original music all the time - and can do at least 3 sets or more without ever playing another composer's music, or Real Book tunes. I've never dealt with a venue that wasn't already affiliated with at least 2 of the 3 PRO's.
Last edited:
Again, not really my point. I am a licensed attorney (in NY and CA), and my point is that even if they can’t collect, they can get a judgement. And if the venue is owned by a corporation with deep pockets, they very well could go for that judgment, even knowing you can’t pay. Why? To make an example. To ruin your credit. If you don’t think that could happen, you’re being naive.
What I would do is simply make the limitation of liability mutual, and make sure the indemnity isn’t excluded from that cap. I would also try to strike #8, but capping the liability gives you a pretty painless worst case scenario.
Last edited:
This contract is very similar to the one I use as a venue manager.
#8 is basically a moot point as others have mentioned. If this winery plays music, then they should have all the performance rights already in place. Read #8 again. The key word is "additional".
Contracts are a basis for negotiation. As a self-represented band, I would have issue with the clause stating that the band having to cancel within 2 weeks of the performance equates to the band having to find a suitable replacement. With a management company, this probably isn't an issue. Self-represented, this is the first point I would negotiate with the venue.
I'm actually quite impressed with the cancellation clause as it applies to the venue cancelling on the band. I read this as a venue that does value musicians as business professionals.
In the end, I would probably sign this contract.
#8 is basically a moot point as others have mentioned. If this winery plays music, then they should have all the performance rights already in place. Read #8 again. The key word is "additional".
Contracts are a basis for negotiation. As a self-represented band, I would have issue with the clause stating that the band having to cancel within 2 weeks of the performance equates to the band having to find a suitable replacement. With a management company, this probably isn't an issue. Self-represented, this is the first point I would negotiate with the venue.
I'm actually quite impressed with the cancellation clause as it applies to the venue cancelling on the band. I read this as a venue that does value musicians as business professionals.
In the end, I would probably sign this contract.
I wouldn't rely on this train of thinking until and unless you confirm what rights they have. But, I might if they would give some comfort on that point, and agree that would minimize the risk substantially.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
Agreed. There's no need to specify 'additional' performance rights unless they aren't registered with all major PROs to begin with. I'd ask for them to show you documentation of their licenses in the interest of full transparency.
Precisely. The band has every right to ask for documentation on the current licensing status of the venue. Contracts are not ultimatums. They are a two-way, negotiated agreement that both parties feel benefit themselves.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
The issue here is that most places that host music already have this handled... the winery seems to think they are an exception for some reason, and are putting the onus on the bands, which is not standard practice. Even my little local coffee shops in town, as well as our many breweries that host music, have BMI/ASCAP/SESAC licensing taken care of. The winery might be doing themselves and the bands a favor if they added something more detailed upfront to the contract like "We have standing licensing agreements with BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. If you are knowingly performing music that is affiliated with a PRO outside of the scope of our licensing, you must secure the performing rights and pay all fees associated with those licenses.'
This surprised me when I lean of it years back
https://www.paaba.org/2011/10/when-should-small-business-pay-ascap-or-bmi/
Top 11 Licensing Questions: How to Play Legal Business Music
Then there's this...
Playing Music in Your Store: How to Avoid Paying for It!
It is a glaring indication that they do not know anything at all about what they're doing when it comes to hosting musical events. Someone told them they had some liability in this area and they tried to figure out a way to place that on the bands, which won't actually work. It's an unenforceable clause that points to gross ineptitude on their part. Any place that knows what they're doing knows this is an impossible thing to request from bands.
There's also another way around this: write and perform all originals! Unfortunately, having done (mostly) exactly that for 35+ years, I recognize you probably wouldn't be playing said winery if that's what you did
