Trouble for California Entertainment Attorneys

Most entertainment attorneys are vaguely aware of California Labor Code 1700,  The Talent Agencies  Act.  We remember the broad outlines:  the law  originally had something to do with the movie business, it was once used against the Jefferson Airplane’s manager in the 1960s.  We all routine admonish our manager clients that they cannot “procure employment” for a client, even if this statute does not reach outside of California.

            Incredibly the law was recently employed by Labor Commissioner of California to punish a California attorney who did nothing more than negotiate  a contract on behalf of a client.  The case, Solis v. Blancarte, first reported on JD Supra, involves an attorney who negotiated an employment agreement for a sports reporter and charged a fee equal to 5 percent of the compensation earned by the client.  According to the opinion, the relationship between attorney and client lasted for several years.

            While the practice of charging a percentage of earnings is not prevalent among Nashville  attorneys, it is by no means unusual in California.  I am aware of many law firms which operate this way.  What is striking about this opinion is that it punished the attorney for doing the job he was hired to do.  The opinion quotes from the labor code which defines “Talent Agency” as  a person…who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising or attempting to procure employment engagements for an artist or artists”.  Crucially, the statute also states that “the activity of procuring, offering or promising to procure recording contracts for an artist or artists shall not of itself subject a person to regulation and licensing under this chapter.”

            So while soliciting and negotiating record deals is exempted from this statute, everything else that an attorney might negotiate for an artist client is not.  Interestingly, even though there was no evidence that the attorney was attempting to solicit a reporting job for his client (i.e. the job was offered to the client and the attorney’s job was to negotiate the contract) the Labor Code Commissioner saw fit to stretch the definition of “procure” to include those activities which “bring about” the deal, i.e. the act of negotiating the contract. This is what lawyers do: they negotiate.

            I am not in California,  have very few California clients and have rarely represented an artist on a contingent fee but this ruling is still shocking.  Imagine a governmental agency arbitrarily deciding that an otherwise legal and legitimate professional activity was suddenly illegal and that your earned legal fees had to be forfeited.  This seems so far removed from the original purposes of this statute.  I hope that Attorney Blancarte challenges this ruling and I am sure that we have not heard the end of this California saga.

The Captain Beefheart Trademark Question

            I am a practitioner of trademark law and I can attest  that it is often a sea of angst and confusion.  I'm also a fan of both the late Captain Beefheart and the late Frank Zappa … there's a little bit of angst and confusion there as well.

            Thus, I am fascinated by the fact that Zappa's widow Gail just secured a notice of allowance on her intent to use application for the trademark "Captain Beefheart" (Serial No. 85695177).  (I have written about Gail Zappa before: http://tripaldredgelaw.blogspot.com/2012/12/selling-zappa.html).

            Ms. Zappa is seeking registration in several U.S. classes that include everything from "audio and video recordings" to "electronic games software"  to “sunglasses”. (Captain Beefheart sunglasses  ?  Cool!).

            I don't claim to know the whole complicated history between Don Van Vliet  (p/k/a Captain Beefheart) and the Zappas.  I know that Don and Frank were high school friends, I know that Zappa released  Trout Mask Replica and I know that there was some legal wrangling over the original master  recordings to the album  Bat Chain Puller which was recorded in the 1970’s but which went unreleased until 2012.

            I can't tell how Zappa would have acquired the rights to the trademark in sound recordings  and other classes for the Captain.  California has a very good right of publicity statute which would seem to give Vliet’s  heirs a right to exploit his name, image and likeness after his death. What about all of the other Beefheart  recordings that were released on labels other than those controlled by Frank Zappa?

            There may be a simple explanation to all of this and the explanation may be that it is none of our business.  Or it may be one of those interesting areas where the laws of intellectual property and state  property and probate laws intersect.  Stay tuned.