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
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Music Business/Law Tips - "Breaking A Record Contract" (Part 2)
Another common technique to cancel a recording contract is the use of California Civil Code Section 2855, the so called "Seven-Year Statute". According to this statute, "a contract to render personal service...may not be enforced against the employee beyond seven years from the commencement of service under it." Hence, the Seven-Year Statute prevents a record contract from being enforceable against an artist for longer than seven years.
In general, most recording agreements run for a period of one year, followed by at least four one year optional periods (the "term"). Often, the periods are contingent upon delivery of recorded product. In other words, instead of providing that a period of the agreement will be one year, the term provision may read that a period will last, for example, "one year, or a period of eight months after delivery of a specific number of recordings, whichever is later." A term based on delivery would be open-ended, because the period is dependent upon an unknown future date when the recordings are actually delivered. However, because of Section 2855, few artist contracts are written for a period of more than seven years.
Furthermore, under Section 2855, any employee (i.e. artist) who is a party to a contract to render personal service in the production of phonorecords may not invoke the code as a means of departure until the employee first gives "written notice to the employer... specifying that the employee from and after a future date certain specified in the notice will no longer render service under the contract" by reason of the expiration of the seven year time limit.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that Section 2855 does allow for a record company to sue an artist for monetary damages if, after seven years, the artist terminates the contract and signs with a new company but still owes the first company one or more records. Obviously, however, since the music industry is generally unpredictable with respect to sales, such damages would be speculative.
Interestingly Ms Braxton [discussed last time], who signed her first recording agreement in August 1989, initially utilized Section 2855 when - prior to her bankruptcy petition - she filed a suit against LaFace in the Los Angeles Superior Court on the basis that her agreement became invalid in August 1996. Apparently, before the civil action was filed she had held discussions with her label about adjusting the terms of the contract, but the talks had reached an impasse. (Again, it would appear that the filing of the Section 2855 action was a negotiating ploy.) LaFace countersued Braxton for breach of contract and then Braxton filed the bankruptcy action which put a stay on the lawsuits.
In the same fashion as Braxton, other high profile artists have used Section 2855 as a lever in the renegotiation of - or exit from - an existing agreement. In 1992, recording star Luther Vandross filed a suit against Epic Records in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming he was no longer bound to his 1981 contract. The very next year, former Eagle Don Henley became embroiled in a Los Angeles Superior Court action with his label, Geffen Records, wherein Henley sought to terminate his 1984 contract. Thereafter, in 1994, Henley's Eagle brethren Glenn Frey was involved in a similar lawsuit when MCA Records sued Frey after he attempted to end his deal. In that same year, the band Metallica challenged its contact with Elektra Records when it asked the court to dismiss the band from its contract. In 1997 the Smashing Pumpkins notified Virgin Records that it would not render future services to the label under the contract it signed in 1991. These disputes have all been settled out of court, and thus the judiciary has not had a chance to rule on the implications of Section 2855.
Equally important, the Vandross, Henley and Frey cases involved an interesting issue that was not adjudicated because of the settlements, but which might impact the outcome of such a situation if it went to trial. In these three matters, although the original contracts between the artist and label were more than seven years old when the artist attempted to leave the deal, there had been subsequent amendments made to the contracts, and the amendments were not seven years old. Hence, the labels argued that the amendments counted as new contracts. Fortunately, on this point there is some guidance. In a New York case involving singer Melissa Manchester and her record company Arista, the court held that an amendment to a contract can stop the seven year clock (or start it anew) if the amendment is so all- encompassing as to amount to a new contract, and if the artist freely elected to extend the term from an equal bargaining position. The amendment issue notwithstanding, Section 2855 is the device most commonly introduced by a disgruntled artist when seven years has elapsed since the date of contract execution.
[part 3 next time]
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
In general, most recording agreements run for a period of one year, followed by at least four one year optional periods (the "term"). Often, the periods are contingent upon delivery of recorded product. In other words, instead of providing that a period of the agreement will be one year, the term provision may read that a period will last, for example, "one year, or a period of eight months after delivery of a specific number of recordings, whichever is later." A term based on delivery would be open-ended, because the period is dependent upon an unknown future date when the recordings are actually delivered. However, because of Section 2855, few artist contracts are written for a period of more than seven years.
Furthermore, under Section 2855, any employee (i.e. artist) who is a party to a contract to render personal service in the production of phonorecords may not invoke the code as a means of departure until the employee first gives "written notice to the employer... specifying that the employee from and after a future date certain specified in the notice will no longer render service under the contract" by reason of the expiration of the seven year time limit.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that Section 2855 does allow for a record company to sue an artist for monetary damages if, after seven years, the artist terminates the contract and signs with a new company but still owes the first company one or more records. Obviously, however, since the music industry is generally unpredictable with respect to sales, such damages would be speculative.
Interestingly Ms Braxton [discussed last time], who signed her first recording agreement in August 1989, initially utilized Section 2855 when - prior to her bankruptcy petition - she filed a suit against LaFace in the Los Angeles Superior Court on the basis that her agreement became invalid in August 1996. Apparently, before the civil action was filed she had held discussions with her label about adjusting the terms of the contract, but the talks had reached an impasse. (Again, it would appear that the filing of the Section 2855 action was a negotiating ploy.) LaFace countersued Braxton for breach of contract and then Braxton filed the bankruptcy action which put a stay on the lawsuits.
In the same fashion as Braxton, other high profile artists have used Section 2855 as a lever in the renegotiation of - or exit from - an existing agreement. In 1992, recording star Luther Vandross filed a suit against Epic Records in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming he was no longer bound to his 1981 contract. The very next year, former Eagle Don Henley became embroiled in a Los Angeles Superior Court action with his label, Geffen Records, wherein Henley sought to terminate his 1984 contract. Thereafter, in 1994, Henley's Eagle brethren Glenn Frey was involved in a similar lawsuit when MCA Records sued Frey after he attempted to end his deal. In that same year, the band Metallica challenged its contact with Elektra Records when it asked the court to dismiss the band from its contract. In 1997 the Smashing Pumpkins notified Virgin Records that it would not render future services to the label under the contract it signed in 1991. These disputes have all been settled out of court, and thus the judiciary has not had a chance to rule on the implications of Section 2855.
Equally important, the Vandross, Henley and Frey cases involved an interesting issue that was not adjudicated because of the settlements, but which might impact the outcome of such a situation if it went to trial. In these three matters, although the original contracts between the artist and label were more than seven years old when the artist attempted to leave the deal, there had been subsequent amendments made to the contracts, and the amendments were not seven years old. Hence, the labels argued that the amendments counted as new contracts. Fortunately, on this point there is some guidance. In a New York case involving singer Melissa Manchester and her record company Arista, the court held that an amendment to a contract can stop the seven year clock (or start it anew) if the amendment is so all- encompassing as to amount to a new contract, and if the artist freely elected to extend the term from an equal bargaining position. The amendment issue notwithstanding, Section 2855 is the device most commonly introduced by a disgruntled artist when seven years has elapsed since the date of contract execution.
[part 3 next time]
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Music Business/Law Tips - "Breaking A Record Contract" (Part 1)
A musical artist, under certain circumstances, can break
an existing recording agreement.
For a new musical artist, securing a recording agreement with a record or production company is the golden ticket. Often, however, the gilt wears thin due to a panoply of circumstances, and the artist will seek freedom from the agreement. Typically, an unknown artist has limited negotiating power, and a first record deal is usually one-sided in favor of the label. Later, after a hit record, the artist might feel that the agreement is adverse in light of the artist's newfound notoriety. In addition, the artist might believe that another record company would be better suited to further the artist's career, or, more simply, pay the artist a greater amount of money. This situation has caused many an artist to seek (or threaten) some sort of legal recourse against the record company as a means to leave the contract, or else to force a renegotiation of the agreement. Over the years, various tactics have been used by artists as a way of cancelling a record contract.
Recently, a novel and highly publicized approach has been taken by a small group of best selling recording artists in their attempt to leave an exclusive contract situation. They have filed for bankruptcy. The Federal Bankruptcy Code states that existing contracts may be rejected if they impair a debtor's ability to get back on his feet or recover financially. Bankruptcy law has thus armed an artist seeking to break or renegotiate a contract with a powerful weapon.
In January 1998, best-selling vocalist Toni Braxton filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles. Although her bankruptcy petition ostensibly was filed on the grounds that her liabilities exceeded her assets, music industry pundits believe that the core reason she filed was so the bankruptcy court would void her existing recording agreement with her record label LaFace.
Braxton's 1993 debut album and her 1996 follow-up have sold an estimated 15 million units worldwide. This enormous success begs the question: How can an artist who has sold approximately 15 million albums go bankrupt? According to her label, following the success of the 1996 release, Braxton demanded more money and said that she would no longer record for the label if it did not meet her demands. She made this demand even though she contractually owed the label more albums. The label did not acquiesce and Braxton apparently implemented the bankruptcy action in an attempt to extricate herself from what she viewed as an inequitable contract.
Braxton is not the first successful recording artist to file for bankruptcy while engaged in a contract dispute. In 1993, the members of the act Run-D.M.C. filed for bankruptcy and emerged from the proceeding with a new contract with Profile Records. Likewise, in 1995, the trio TLC filed for Chapter 11 protection in Atlanta and sought to have its contract with its label LaFace abrogated by the court. In 1996, the group settled out of court with LaFace by securing a new contract.
Such a strategic move is risky because there is no guarantee that the bankruptcy court will reject the contract in question. In 1986, actress Tia Carrere, who was seeking to improve her contract with ABC-TV, filed a bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles. The judge dismissed the petition, saying she did not file in good faith, but rather for the primary purpose of rejecting a personal services contract. This ruling was cited by I.R.S. Records in the label's successful bid to have a Chapter 7 petition filed by the members of its then exclusive recording act Concrete Blonde dismissed. However, the gamble paid off for Braxton who signed a new contract with LaFace in November 1998.
The serious issues raised by the Braxton scenario may one day result in new statutory law. In 1999 there was a bankruptcy bill pending before the House Judiciary Committee which would prevent existing recording contracts from being made void within bankruptcy proceedings. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sought this special interest legislative relief for what its officials have said is a growing problem of artists and artists' representatives either threatening bankruptcy or filing bankruptcy to get out of their contracts. Should this or a similar bill one day pass, it would be the death knell for the use of bankruptcy as a technique for breaking contracts.
[Note: more recently Braxton used the bankruptcy tactic again against her most recent label/to avoid contractual obligations, and although I have not researched it I understand she was successful.]
[part 2 next time]
Ben McLane Esq (with Venice Wong Esq)
benmclane.com
an existing recording agreement.
For a new musical artist, securing a recording agreement with a record or production company is the golden ticket. Often, however, the gilt wears thin due to a panoply of circumstances, and the artist will seek freedom from the agreement. Typically, an unknown artist has limited negotiating power, and a first record deal is usually one-sided in favor of the label. Later, after a hit record, the artist might feel that the agreement is adverse in light of the artist's newfound notoriety. In addition, the artist might believe that another record company would be better suited to further the artist's career, or, more simply, pay the artist a greater amount of money. This situation has caused many an artist to seek (or threaten) some sort of legal recourse against the record company as a means to leave the contract, or else to force a renegotiation of the agreement. Over the years, various tactics have been used by artists as a way of cancelling a record contract.
Recently, a novel and highly publicized approach has been taken by a small group of best selling recording artists in their attempt to leave an exclusive contract situation. They have filed for bankruptcy. The Federal Bankruptcy Code states that existing contracts may be rejected if they impair a debtor's ability to get back on his feet or recover financially. Bankruptcy law has thus armed an artist seeking to break or renegotiate a contract with a powerful weapon.
In January 1998, best-selling vocalist Toni Braxton filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles. Although her bankruptcy petition ostensibly was filed on the grounds that her liabilities exceeded her assets, music industry pundits believe that the core reason she filed was so the bankruptcy court would void her existing recording agreement with her record label LaFace.
Braxton's 1993 debut album and her 1996 follow-up have sold an estimated 15 million units worldwide. This enormous success begs the question: How can an artist who has sold approximately 15 million albums go bankrupt? According to her label, following the success of the 1996 release, Braxton demanded more money and said that she would no longer record for the label if it did not meet her demands. She made this demand even though she contractually owed the label more albums. The label did not acquiesce and Braxton apparently implemented the bankruptcy action in an attempt to extricate herself from what she viewed as an inequitable contract.
Braxton is not the first successful recording artist to file for bankruptcy while engaged in a contract dispute. In 1993, the members of the act Run-D.M.C. filed for bankruptcy and emerged from the proceeding with a new contract with Profile Records. Likewise, in 1995, the trio TLC filed for Chapter 11 protection in Atlanta and sought to have its contract with its label LaFace abrogated by the court. In 1996, the group settled out of court with LaFace by securing a new contract.
Such a strategic move is risky because there is no guarantee that the bankruptcy court will reject the contract in question. In 1986, actress Tia Carrere, who was seeking to improve her contract with ABC-TV, filed a bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles. The judge dismissed the petition, saying she did not file in good faith, but rather for the primary purpose of rejecting a personal services contract. This ruling was cited by I.R.S. Records in the label's successful bid to have a Chapter 7 petition filed by the members of its then exclusive recording act Concrete Blonde dismissed. However, the gamble paid off for Braxton who signed a new contract with LaFace in November 1998.
The serious issues raised by the Braxton scenario may one day result in new statutory law. In 1999 there was a bankruptcy bill pending before the House Judiciary Committee which would prevent existing recording contracts from being made void within bankruptcy proceedings. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sought this special interest legislative relief for what its officials have said is a growing problem of artists and artists' representatives either threatening bankruptcy or filing bankruptcy to get out of their contracts. Should this or a similar bill one day pass, it would be the death knell for the use of bankruptcy as a technique for breaking contracts.
[Note: more recently Braxton used the bankruptcy tactic again against her most recent label/to avoid contractual obligations, and although I have not researched it I understand she was successful.]
[part 2 next time]
Ben McLane Esq (with Venice Wong Esq)
benmclane.com
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Music Business/Law Tips - "Video" (Part 2)
If an artist is signed to a label, a video usually will be produced to help promote the release. A video has two aspects: sales tool (i.e., MTV) and potential product (i.e., home video sales). Although a video is mostly a promotional tool, virtually all record contracts require that the artist grant video rights to the label. For contract purposes, a video is treated like a record. Therefore, the concept of recoupment comes into play. Recoupment means that the label will have the right to recoup the costs of the video, usually from all sources of income that the artist might make. As with records, the label will usually initially pay the production costs of the video. There is a strong argument that since videos serve to promote a record, not to generate sales of the actual video, only a part of the costs of the video should be recouped from the artist's royalties. Thus, most labels only require recoupment of 50% of the label's expense for production costs.
At first glance, it would seem that a signed artist would want to demand a guarantee of a as many videos as possible in the record contract. However, the artist must keep in mind that a label will usually spend an average of $25,000+ on a video. Since half of these costs are recoupable from the artist's royalties, a promotional video might not always be the wisest choice. The key is to try and keep the budget low. An artist on a label will also be concerned with creative control. Yet, unless an artist is quite successful, the label generally controls the content and the concept of the video. Finally, it is not reasonable to expect to make a profit from a video. There are rare exceptions (Madonna and Michael Jackson come to mind), but again the reason for making a video is normally to hype a record.
In conclusion, if an artist is unsigned, in most instances a video (with the exception of an internet only YouTube low budget video) is probably not the most practical way to spend money because chances are it will not be seen on mainstream TV channels like MTV. If an artist is signed, although the label will probably insist on a video, the artist should strive to get the budget low so the artist will not owe back as much money to the label.
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
At first glance, it would seem that a signed artist would want to demand a guarantee of a as many videos as possible in the record contract. However, the artist must keep in mind that a label will usually spend an average of $25,000+ on a video. Since half of these costs are recoupable from the artist's royalties, a promotional video might not always be the wisest choice. The key is to try and keep the budget low. An artist on a label will also be concerned with creative control. Yet, unless an artist is quite successful, the label generally controls the content and the concept of the video. Finally, it is not reasonable to expect to make a profit from a video. There are rare exceptions (Madonna and Michael Jackson come to mind), but again the reason for making a video is normally to hype a record.
In conclusion, if an artist is unsigned, in most instances a video (with the exception of an internet only YouTube low budget video) is probably not the most practical way to spend money because chances are it will not be seen on mainstream TV channels like MTV. If an artist is signed, although the label will probably insist on a video, the artist should strive to get the budget low so the artist will not owe back as much money to the label.
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Music Business/Law Tips - "Video" (Part 1)
Video is a subject that is synonymous with the music business today. Essentially, the main purpose of a video is to promote a record and to help build an image for an artist, not necessarily to make an artist money. However, videos can make money for an artist indirectly because a video can increase record sales, merch sales, and help gain fans for shows. An artist can get utilize a video to get bookings, interest a manager/agent, and perhaps get a record deal. This article will discuss video as it pertains to unsigned and signed artists.
If an artist is unsigned, a full blown video is probably not the best use of resources unless: (1) the artist has a great song along with a great visual or story, (2) the artist can afford to produce a professional video, and (3) the artist can have the video broadcast to a wide audience. Traditionally, the best exposure for a video is of course MTV and similar music video sites. However, getting on MTV is next to impossible without being on a reputable label. It is possible to get on local cable programs with a well produced video. Additionally, many syndicated video and talk shows might consider a video by an unsigned artist. Of course, with the advent of YouTube, Vimeo, Vevo, etc., anyone can upload an amatuer or fully produced video on the internet as well since there is no barrier/gatekeeper, and sometimes the video can go "viral" which can acheive the same end result as being on MTV (but without some promotion its like a grain of sand on the beach).
[part 2 next time]
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
If an artist is unsigned, a full blown video is probably not the best use of resources unless: (1) the artist has a great song along with a great visual or story, (2) the artist can afford to produce a professional video, and (3) the artist can have the video broadcast to a wide audience. Traditionally, the best exposure for a video is of course MTV and similar music video sites. However, getting on MTV is next to impossible without being on a reputable label. It is possible to get on local cable programs with a well produced video. Additionally, many syndicated video and talk shows might consider a video by an unsigned artist. Of course, with the advent of YouTube, Vimeo, Vevo, etc., anyone can upload an amatuer or fully produced video on the internet as well since there is no barrier/gatekeeper, and sometimes the video can go "viral" which can acheive the same end result as being on MTV (but without some promotion its like a grain of sand on the beach).
[part 2 next time]
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Music Business/Law Tips - "Union" (Part 2)
As a member of the AFM, one must pay an initiation fee, as well as quarterly dues. However, the benefits are comprehensive. As well as better pay and working conditions, benefits include, but are not limited to: a pension, job referrals, insurance, legal counsel, discounts, collection of unpaid fees, consultation, industry contact information, workshops, etc.
One drawback to being an AFM member is that a person may not work for employers that are not signatory companies. Doing so may result in fines or expulsion from the union. An obvious problem is that many small clubs/coffeehouses and small record companies cannot afford to pay the union minimums. For a musician just starting out his or her career, these smaller outlets are the only supportive showcases for their talents. Many artists work "under the table" and take the risk.
The important question to answer is when, or if, to join the AFM? The best guideline would be for a musician to join the union when he or she has decided to become a full-time professional musician and when there is some reasonable basis to assume that one can survive as a musician.
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
One drawback to being an AFM member is that a person may not work for employers that are not signatory companies. Doing so may result in fines or expulsion from the union. An obvious problem is that many small clubs/coffeehouses and small record companies cannot afford to pay the union minimums. For a musician just starting out his or her career, these smaller outlets are the only supportive showcases for their talents. Many artists work "under the table" and take the risk.
The important question to answer is when, or if, to join the AFM? The best guideline would be for a musician to join the union when he or she has decided to become a full-time professional musician and when there is some reasonable basis to assume that one can survive as a musician.
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Music Business/Law Tips - "Union" (Part 1)
If a person is planning to pursue a successful career as a professional musician (either as a player or vocalist), he or she will eventually have to join the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) which is the musicians' union. There are other music-related unions such as the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) which represents singers and radio/television talent, and the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) which represents actors; however, the AFM will be the focus of this article.
The AFM is a labor union whose membership is comprised of musicians. The AFM regulates wages and working conditions as well as providing a level of job security to its members. The essential reason the AFM formed was because musicians bargaining as a group would have greater negotiating strength than individual musicians. The AFM is a national union with local charters which have their own specific territories (e.g., AFM Local 47 in Los Angeles). Each local union sets minimum wage scales at clubs and theaters in its own jurisdiction. As an AFM member, a musician is free to negotiate wages above union scale, the musician simply cannot work for less than scale.
All of the major record companies have signed an agreement with the AFM whereby as an employer they promise to hire only union members and to provide at least the minimum pay and working conditions set forth in the agreement. Any music employer signing such an agreement is called a "signatory company". As a member of the AFM, a musician authorizes all employers to deduct "work dues", which are a small percentage of the scale wages, from their pay and to have the dues sent to the local union.
[part 2 next time]
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
The AFM is a labor union whose membership is comprised of musicians. The AFM regulates wages and working conditions as well as providing a level of job security to its members. The essential reason the AFM formed was because musicians bargaining as a group would have greater negotiating strength than individual musicians. The AFM is a national union with local charters which have their own specific territories (e.g., AFM Local 47 in Los Angeles). Each local union sets minimum wage scales at clubs and theaters in its own jurisdiction. As an AFM member, a musician is free to negotiate wages above union scale, the musician simply cannot work for less than scale.
All of the major record companies have signed an agreement with the AFM whereby as an employer they promise to hire only union members and to provide at least the minimum pay and working conditions set forth in the agreement. Any music employer signing such an agreement is called a "signatory company". As a member of the AFM, a musician authorizes all employers to deduct "work dues", which are a small percentage of the scale wages, from their pay and to have the dues sent to the local union.
[part 2 next time]
Ben McLane Esq
benmclane.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
