Fnord wrote:
Why does anyone sign a contract?
1) Because "Good fences make good neighbors".
The best way to avoid arguments in a business relationship is to write down both parties' expectations ahead of time. That document becomes a boundary marker -- like a fence between neighboring yards -- explaining who's responsible for what.
The dominant expectation is that the first person will receive something from the second person, while the second person receives something of equal value from the first. This is called a "Quid-Pro-Quo" contract (literally, "This-For-That").
2) Because both sides get what they want.
Car sellers get money, while cars buyers get cars. Obvious, right? Then the buyer may also add the stipulation that the seller pays for all major repairs for the first year. In return, the seller may then add the stipulation that the buyer brings the car in on the first of each month for a free check-up and oil change.
A performer may sign a contract with a producer. The performer agrees to provide marketable material for distribution, while the producer agrees to pay the performer for the right to distribute the material.
Things get sticky when a disagreement ensues over creativity. The producer may try to convince the performer that only certain kinds of performances are marketable. The performer counters with the assertion that pandering to market forces stifles creativity. The producer then it holds from the market any performances that he deems unmarketable, while the performer insists on providing unmarked able performances.
Note that inherent in the right to distribute is the right to not distribute. This is where things get ugly. The producer demands performances that meet certain standards, while the performer refuses to meet those standards. An impasse usually ensues, until one or the other party relents, or the contract expires.
Meanwhile, the producer is receiving unmarketable performances, and the performer is not getting paid.
What to do?
Wait for the contract to expire? That may take years.
Wait for the performer to give in? The performer can collaborate on uncredited performances for "scale" -- less money than what the contracted producer will pay, but it is still pay.
Wait for the producer to give in? The producer likely has hundreds of other performers providing marketable performances.
Invent a scandal to shame and embarrass the other person into buying off the contract? Now we're talking! Hypothetically speaking ...
[speculation]
The performer accuses the producer of wrong-doing, and announces it to the press in a gamble that the producer will want to sweep everything under the rug and buy the performer's silence.
Except it doesn't always work that way.
Any producer worth his chops will know that if you give in to one extortionist, others will soon follow. Thus, the smart producer will say "Bring it on" and wait for his day in court, where he will demand that the performer present bona fide material evidence for examination under the watchful eye of a judge, two lawyers, and twelve impartial witnesses.
And if there is no bona fide material evidence, the case devolves into mere conflicting claims, and the case will likely get thrown out of court.
Meanwhile, the contract is still in effect, and the performer is not getting paid.
[/speculation]
... Hypothetically speaking, of course!
That's pretty much right. Basically to iron out the details of an agreement so that they may be enforceable in court.
It's just not musicians who have contracts regarding what the produce. Employment contracts for higher level people are quite common. How enforceable they may be depends largely on where you are. In Texas, non-compete agreements or non-compete clauses in employment contracts are often not worth the effort.
As for the musician in question (I assume a singer or something), she received an offer which she accepted. Without the agreement she may not have been able to make as much use of her talent because it undoubtedly opened many doors for her.
28 Sep 2015, 11:28 am
