Music Business/Law Tips - "Breaking A Record Contract" (Part 3)

California Civil Code Section 3423 provides an artist with another tactic to terminate a record deal. Equity will not require a party to perform under a personal service contract, such as a recording agreement. Equity can, however, stop an artist from performing personal services (i.e. recording) for someone else if a valid contract exists which makes the artist's services exclusive to the first party. Such a remedy is in the form of an injunction which would prevent an artist from jumping ship to another label.

Section 3423, nicknamed the "$9,000 Plus Provision", requires that a record company must make increasing minimum annual payments to an artist in order to obtain an injunction. Although somewhat complicated, the law essentially reads that a record company can get an injunction only if it contractually guarantees the artist $9,000 in the first contract year, $12,000 in the second year and $15,000 per year in years three through seven. In addition, in years four through seven, the company must have paid the artist additional sums of between $15,000 and $90,000.

An important case discussing Section 3423 is Foxx v. Williams, involving comedian Redd Foxx and his record company Dootone. A lawsuit for a declaration of rights was filed by Foxx, and Dootone attempted by cross-complaint to enjoin Foxx from performing for another company. The court found that the Dootone contract did not meet the requirements of the injunction statute because it did not guarantee Foxx any compensation, and thus Dootone could not enjoin Foxx. In expounding on the purpose of the statute, the court stated:

"An injunction which forbids an artist to accept new employment may be a harsh and powerful remedy. The monetary limitation in the statute is intended to serve as a counterweight in balancing the equities. The legislature has concluded that an artist who is not entitled to receive a minimum of $6,000 [$9,000 now] per year by performing his contract should not be subjected to this kind of economic coercion."

A similar case which sided with the label is MCA Records, Inc. v. Newton-John. There, singer Olivia Newton-John, unhappy as a recording artist on MCA, tried to terminate the relationship. MCA sought to enjoin her from recording for another record company. The contract between MCA and John did not expressly guarantee her $6,000 [$9,000 now] per year minimum compensation and thus John argued that she could not be enjoined. On the other hand, her contract did provide her yearly six figure nonreturnable monetary advances from which she was to record albums and pocket the difference between the actual recording costs and the advance (i.e., the "recording fund"). Moreover, the contract gave her exclusive control over the allocation of production costs. Under these facts, the court decided that John was, therefore, guaranteed a minimum of $6,000 [$9,000 now], and consequently MCA was entitled to injunctive relief. On the basis of this case, in order to determine whether the minimum annual payments were made under a recording fund scenario, one would have to deduct reasonable recording expenses to see if the remainder is in excess of $6,000 [$9,000 now]. Practically speaking, this method to break a contract is quite common when an artist records for a small independent label that cannot afford to pay an artist an advance.

[part 4 next time]

Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com