Showbiz Personal Managers Say Talent Agencies Act Unconstitutional

COMMENTS (9)

• Totally agree with the Managers here. They bust their arses for their clients – why should they not get paid by these petty and self-centered actors that leave and then decide they don’t want to pay for work that was done.

  The TAA definitely violates the involuntary servitude prohibitions of the 13th Amendment, and due process. Finally this is coming to light.

  Comment by Agree — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 3:24pm PST  Reply to this post

• Go get ‘em Clinton!!!

  Comment by Bill S — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 3:44pm PST  Reply to this post

• Thank god! This process/fight has been going on for so many years now. I really hope the managers get what they deserve. They work very hard for their clients…just as hard as an agent does. There are no logical reasons why a court or a judge in the State of California should allow an actor to get away with this. In the early stages of an actors career, the actor depends on the manager while they are trying to be discovered and once the actor has a little taste of success or fame, they think it is ok to screw over the manager by not paying the commission that is owed to them. I really hope the managers finally win this fight and we never have to hear about this again.

  Comment by Manager supporter — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 4:23pm PST  Reply to this post

• It’s about time the media started covering this issue. It’s been going on for years and has even gone all of the way to the California Supreme Court. There’s an old law that says that managers are not allowed to solicit jobs and the punishment has been to void their contract and remove them from being due ANY commissions from ANY jobs, not just the one in question for breaking a law. Actors and other talent have been using this as an excuse to get out of paying commissions. J-Lo used it to get out of her contract with her old manager but later went back to him. Usually an actor uses it after they land a series so they can avoid having to pay their manager any commissions. There’s a sad history here of managers losing their businesses and worse.

  Comment by innerealm — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 4:43pm PST  Reply to this post

• So if the managers are saying that the TAA is unenforceable aren’t they inviting agents to compete with them as producers? If so, a hearty “thank you” from the Association of Talent Agents. And what about the guilds? Without the TAA, what requirements do you think they will impose on anyone looking to represent their members?

  Comment by Curious — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 4:56pm PST  Reply to this post

• Hi Curious,
  This effort is to have enforcement match the written law. When that happens, the artist will be the beneficiary. As written (Lab. Code 1700.39), the TAA prohibits talent agencies from dividing fees with an employer, so packaging is unlawful. Only there’s no written penalty for that action, so there’s no reason for agencies to stop doing that. And the guilds are part of the problem. Each of their bylaws limits the cumulative commission they can pay agents to 10%; that’s why managers can’t get licensed. If you’re already paying CAA 10%, there’s no money to pay another licensee.

  The bottom line is that there’s been maybe $500,000,000 in otherwise owed commissions that have been compromised by enforcement of laws that do not exist. The Act has no penalty provision and CA law clearly prohibits an administrative agency from creating remedies that the Legislature withheld. Yet they do. The 13th Amendment protects everyone’s right to be paid for their labor unless that labor is found criminal — and the TAA expressly states that no violation can be found criminal. The wrongful, unconstitutional enforcement has compromised careers and shortened lives — I can’t imagine that the issues you list above should be more paramount that making sure no other managers are ever again similarly compromised. Bye, curious.

  Comment by rick siegel — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 5:55pm PST  Reply to this post

• hmmm, is it possible there’s actually an interesting discussion occurring in the comments? I doubt it will last!

  Okay, so the line between managers/agent is fading right? But what other implications would something like this have? Would the term manager/agent just be matter of semantics? Managers aren’t allowed to procure work for their clients, but they do? What is the point of attacking the language here of this bill? What are they fighting for?

  Comment by soulless — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 8:04pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Want to correct you, Soulless. As written, the TAA doesn’t restrict procurement to licensees, it’s only enforced as if that restriction exists. And even if you want to pretend there is some restriction, ignoring that the scheme is written like the accountancy and psychologist licensing schemes, where no activity is restricted to licensees but the title of accountant and psychologist is restricted to licensees, as the TAA has no penalty provision the LC has no authority to mete out a penalty. And the point of this fight is to ensure that a manager can’t first create a client’s success and then be prohibited from receiving their deserved commissions. Isn’t that clear?

    Comment by rick siegel — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 8:21pm PST  Reply to this post

• Here are the things required for a talent agency license in CA:
  1. State and Federal Fingerprint/Criminal Check;
  2. Client trust account to keep client funds separate from agency funds;
  3. Office account to keep agency funds separate from personal funds;
  4. Industry references;
  5. Record of experience in the industry;
  6. Business license (also required to pay business taxes);
  7. Proof and maintenance of business entity (more taxes/fees) or DBA with the State;
  8. Talent Contracts with required provisions signed and approved by the Commissioner;
  9. Fee schedule approved by Commissioner;
  10. Proof of proper office – not your living room or PO Box;
  11. A Bond for $50,000 to cover any “missing” client funds (yearly cost);
  12. Worker’s Compensation Insurance to cover agency employees (yearly cost);
  13. Photo ID to verify identity of agency owners; and
  14. Application Fee, and yearly licensing fee.

  100% of these requirements are to protect the talent. That is the purpose of the license, and it’s part of the policing powers granted to the states by the Constitution. This is no different than the licenses required for real estate AGENTS, attorneys, doctors, counselors, barbers, notaries, security guards, teachers, accountants, insurance AGENTS, etc…

  If you read the court cases, and Labor Commissioner rulings on this issue, you will find that managers have only lost commissions on jobs that they directly “procured” for the client. In fact, the courts found that any contracted work done by the manager that violated the TAA must be severed from their other work, and commissions paid on all non-violating activities. In other words, even if the manager has violated the TAA it doesn’t mean that their entire contract is void. The Commissioner’s rulings have followed this court ruling to the letter. In fact, a manager could do literally nothing for a client, have the agent obtain millions of dollars in work, and still collect their 15%. The Commissioner will only void a contract for a TAA violation, not because the manager didn’t earn it, or the talent doesn’t want to pay.

  This is a very small, simple issue. If you want to submit talent for work, or negotiate the terms of this work, get a license. The role of managers as envisioned by the TAA is to advise, and manage the talent’s career obligations. This means helping them get headshots, reels, training, networking opportunities and agency representation. It means working with multiple agents, legal, PR, accountants and others involved in the talent’s career as the point person, schedule keeper and conflict negotiator. It means advising the client on which projects to take, and helping them assess their offers.

  Why doesn’t the Complaint filed by the Conference of Managers argue that the state doesn’t have the authority to license the attorneys and CPAs who work with the talent? Aren’t the mangers being restrained, and denied due process by the state that refuses to allow them to practice law and accounting? Why can’t they cut their clients’ hair, sell them a house, and give them a little liposuction too? Because the state has the power to license professionals, especially if they touch bodies or money. This is to protect members of the public from physical, mental and financial harm – not to “enslave” managers.

  If you want to submit talent and negotiate deals, get a license – problem solved. No TAA violations, no contract enforcement problems. Oh – you don’t want to pay for a bond, or insurance, or rent, or business taxes, or licensing fees, or a trust account, or follow all those pesky contract and commissioning rules? (que tiny violins) Don’t expect to ignore and violate state law, and then have the law work for your benefit.

  Finally, and probably most importantly, many people are going to find your abuse of the 13th Amendment offensive. You are not slaves. Nobody owns you, sells you, takes your children, whips you, or works you to death. That is not the same as losing 15% on an episode of Gossip Girl. Seriously.

  Comment by Pat — Friday November 16, 2012 @ 10:05pm PST  Reply to this post