Whither Managers (Or...Will Managers Wither)?

“they’re supposed to, um, manage, your day to day affairs. Managers can deal with your ongoing needs in relation to the job. Managers make sure your hotel room is waiting, your schedule is accurate and up to date, etc.”

Wouldn’t a PA be far cheaper and less egotistical?

How hard is it to become licensed? What’s the downside to managers gaining that license and still primarily being a manager, but are still covered for the times that drift into agents work.

I was an agent and a manager.

Being a manager is much better…for both parties.

Agents need to be registered with the Department of Consumer Affairs and they used to have to be franchised wih SAG (no longer). Of course the big difference here is that I mainly represented Actors not Writers. I’m not sure if a Writer necessarily would benefit from having dual representation. But Rick is coming from the standpoint of representing an Actor. And having a manager is invaluable.

I know a whole lot about the Blasi case. The truth is, Blasi just didn’t want to pay her commission. Period. The law was on her side but for many actors just starting out, if a manager didn’t procure work for them, they would never work.

Representing an Actor and representing a Writer is so different, I don’t think they can accurately be compared. I can’t even begin to pontificate as to what would have happened to Al Pacino’s career if he wasn’t managed by Martin Bregman.

“The entire point of the Talent Agency Act is that representation of artists needs to be paired with accountability to the law. Just as lawyers can’t argue cases without being admitted to the bar and doctors can’t prescribe medicine without a medical license, talent agents need to be regulated. The reason is simple. There is an enormous potential for abuse.”

In my experience, the Bar operates more to protect lawyers than it does to protect the public; the Board of Medical Licensure serves physicians’ interests, not those of sick people. So I’m inclined to think that California’s Talent Agency Act mostly benefits Talent Agencies, and if it benefits talent, that purpose is secondary at best.

I’ve never heard anyone complain that talent isn’t pampered enough.

Does New York have a comparable Talent Agency statute?

The laws in New York aren’t as strict as the ones in California.

But they do exist.

Craig, I think managers are crucial, especially for writers. Especially now. As the movie business has gotten leaner, agents are less and less performing as people who build careers. Managers have taken that on. There are a lot of writers who, in between getting their first break and them becoming consistantly “working” writers, would die without managers. For writers who have a slow climb, there are very few agents who are willing to get them work. And it is possible to work enough to have an agent, but not enough to make that agent work.

This is where managers are so important. Managers perform as—well, your agent. They find the work, the agent closes the deal. I wonder how hollywood would adjust if managers became scared of procuring work. Maybe the baby-boutique agencies could fill the void, but i’m not sure it would be a real fix.

Cont’ from above post:

However, I do think your boy Rick was retarded for allowing his situation to play out in court. Basically, managing as i’ve described is a “hustle.” Hence there’s more risk involved. Managers know this. If Rick’s actions call more federal light onto his industry and damage it, it’ll be his (and other managers) fault.

All money ain’t good money. You didn’t get paid? So what. If you don’t have a legal right to get money for you clients, but, that’s how you make your living…stay the fuck out of court.

As much as I would love to just give 10% to an agent instead of 25% to dual right now, this potential news scares the be’jesus out of me. As an established writer with strong credits under your belt, maybe having only an agent works fine for you, but as someone trying to build a career, virtually NO agent will take you on, especially without a manager. I’m just in the process of getting both, and every top-level agent I’ve met with has been far more receptive when they hear I’m also signing with a top-level management company. Sure, it’s partially the Hollywood “appearances” machine, and the more people working in the corner the more likely they’ll earn any commission—but it’s mainly (because they’ve told me flat out) that they know the manager can hold my hand through development a litttle so they can focus on selling. How many agents are going to want to sit down and talk ideas before you start a new spec, for example? Very, very few.

I’m also an actor, and there are far more agents representing actors than writers, so therefore far more agents willing to develop new actors compared to writers, and even there, for many many actors, the manager is the way in. You pay the commission because they know people you don’t. End of story. When you get to the stage where you all know the same people, sure it seems redundant, but when you’re new in town? Us newbies are SOL if this goes down.

To answer Leif Smart’s question - the reason managers don’t want to become agents is so they can become producers on their clients’ projects.

Agents are forbidden from doing so. But, nowadays for actors and writers and directors, managers will glom onto their clients’ projects and command hefty producer fees.

I’ve heard of many actors using the Talent Agency Act to cut out their managers, but I haven’t heard of any pure writers doing it. Anyone done that?

I doubt managers are going anywhere. Too many have become major players. They’re not going to pack it up and go home.

As far as whether they’re beneficial to writers or not, I think that depends on what stage you are in your career.

Managers will get behind baby writers. In fact there’s a whole cottage industry of management co’s that have made breaking n00bs their bread and butter (Energy, FourSight, etc). How many agents take on “babies” as anything more than back-pocket clients? How many agents will even READ a n00b writer? Juniors, yeah. But a) they spend most of their time covering everyone else’s clients and b) don’t have much juice. Hopefully they’ll remember you when they’ve got legs of their own, but that could take a while. A few years even. Whereas a manager will hustle for you from day 1, noob or not.

Legit managers by and large adhere to the 10% rule-of-thumb. The biggest bone of contention is the producer thing. Yeah, it’s a conflict of interest. But on the upside, their fee should be refundable as soon as they get their producer money from the studio.

Managers are also taking on more of a development role. A lot of managers have CE backgrounds. They’ll give extensive notes to whip a script into “ready to shoot” shape. It’s similar to what happened in the music industry; artist development is now commonly left to independent producers, who deliver the label a finished record by an artist ready for MTV. Burden of risk is left to the producers, who get a bigger share of the kitty in exchange for taking on that risk.

For an established writer, I could definitely see agent-only being the way to go. It’s a cleaner, cut-and-dry relationship. And your resume sells you. Your credits sell you. Your B.O. history sells you. Selling an untested product is a lot harder of a job. A baby needs someone willing to put in the work. I’m guessing that the potential of producer fee is precisely why a lot of managers are more willing to put in that work.

Managers are a benefit to a writer trying to establish his career. They are currently the easiest and cheapest way for new talent to get their work read.

Getting an agent to read a script is as difficult as getting a production company to read one.

Agents are supposed to represent writers. They don’t. They represent success. Managers end up taking the role of “agent” because the agents have refused to do so.

The stamp on the cover of a script from a talent agency is used more as an assurance of quality to producers. However, I have read plenty of scripts by well known screenwriters that are just as horrid as those by unknowns.

In all honesty, I am more concerned… and curious about the state of entertainment lawyers. They appear to fulfill the functions of all three roles (agent, manager, and lawyer) and can don the cap of producer with very little hindrance.

My personal experience is different than everyone else’s, I guess, since I haven’t had any easier of a time getting any managers to read my work than I have getting agents to read it. I don’t know how they help build writers’ careers between that writer’s first sale and their becoming consistent sellers if they aren’t willing to read people like me who are currently in that position.

That method has worked for writers for decades. No reason it can’t work for decades more.

It may be working for you and countless other writers with a track record, but (as others have said) it does not work well at all for those of us with good scripts and no track record. I regularly hear “referral only” or “too many clients” or even “I have too many baby writers right now to take on another” from agents’ assistants. I can get managers to take my call and read my scripts. (Results of which are still to be determined.)

The management system has flaws and sharks and shady characters. The agency system has flaws and sharks and shady characters; with licenses. Agencies act as producers; they just call it “packaging” instead.

The management system may be flawed, but it works for a significant population of new writers. Right now, they’re the only entity out there really working for the new kids on the block. They should not be punished for it because of a loophole that negates a legally-binding business contract at a client’s whim, simply because that client happens to be an “artist”.

The argument that what hurts managers invariably hurts writers doesn’t hold water. Managers don’t help launch unknown writers out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because there is money in it. It’s just like the drug trade: do away with managers and someone else will step in to take there place.

With that in mind, there’s no question that a little regulation to keep writers from getting screwed is in our interest. But let’s not forget that the reason managers have thrived is because it is so insanely, ridiculously hard to get even a mediocre agent, much less a good one. What would really help would be for all the talented, hardworking managers out there to just bite the bullet and BECOME agents.

So why don’t they? From what little I’ve read, the only truly onerous requirement to become an agent — aside from the code of conduct, which is SUPPOSED to be strict — is the posting of a $10,000 bond. I can certainly see how that might keep some talented, hardworking up-and-comers from getting into the game. If it cost me $10,000 to get my first script read, I would still be in grad school.

So here’s my idea: why not lower the bond amount to $5000, or even $1000? That might encourage some of those aspiring producer/managersa they churn out at UCLA and USC each year to pony up the cash to become agents and start doing their business above board. And maybe it would even force the big 4 to compete for talent in a way that haven’t had to very much of late.

In short, giving managers free reign to screw over aspiring writers is obviously nothing the WGA should be interested in. But any measure that inscreases the supply of — and competition among — agents without seriously undermining the rights of their clients should be welcomed by professional writers and not-yet-professionals (like myself) alike.

Many of those managers were once agents… and will return to being agents if managers can only manage. The ones who were never agents might become agents. So the idea that there will suddenly be this representation shortage is silly.

I have had experience with the manager/producer thing - and it wasn’t a good experience. I have also had experience with a manager who thought he knew how to develop material - and relly didn’t have a clue. And I’ve had experience with managers who couldn’t get a deal if their life depended on it.

I’ve had 19 scripts produced and more sold (2 films coming out next year) and not one of those deals was made by an agent or manager…

But I’m looking for an agent. Anyone know one who will take my credits as a referral?

• Bill

You’re the man, Bill.

Not to derail the topic:

but I doubt I’d have the wear-with-all to do it solo for more than a single screenplay, let alone 19.

BACK ON TOPIC:

The fact that you have 19 produced screenplays and still can’t get an agent is the problem.

Most managers are acting as agents because agents are acting as production companies. Agents are more concerned with the overall package than the singular talent of an individual, or the quality of the story. They are looking at the big picture, end-game box office and residuals, rather than the simple act of being a facilitating agent to the sale of the screenplay.

In effect, most agents are only representing themselves. Or at least their 10%.

I’m glad to see you all throwing your donkies in Craig’s face…On his own turf no less.

So, are those of you on here talking about having managers who are helping you as young, up-and-coming writers getting any manager-induced sales or otherwise getting paid work through your managers?

I tried the cold-call-unrepped route with next-to-no luck. Trilogy Entertainment (once upon a time) allowed and encouraged unrepped writers to submit material accompanied by a release. Anywhere else, the doors closed politely but firmly.

Once I signed on with my managers, I got meetings and reads at shows and companies that would otherwise not give me the time of day. I got on an “approved” list for TV at a network. I was also able to convince shows to take my calls and my scripts with the magic words “I’m represented by.”

My managers went comedy, I write drama, so I’ve had to start looking again. I’ve had a great managerial experience, and once again, the managers take my calls. I expect I’ll end up with another manager and no agent. I’m comfortable with that, risks and all.

Nope, I haven’t gotten paid, and I’m curious to know of the 50% or so WGA member who are paid, what the manager/agent breakdown happens to be.

We had a manager during a spell when we were considering changing agencies. We paid him 10%. When we moved to UTA, we decided we didn’t need a manager anymore since UTA was doing the job so well, and our manager offered to stay on for only 5%.

So it’s negotiable.

We didn’t keep our manager in the end because we didn’t need one. Two many cooks peforming the same functions…at least, in our case.

And then there’s always the inevitable conflict of interest: “I love this script. Let me attach myself as producer, and I won’t take any commissions.”

If we were less established, I would say that any form of representation and creative support is good.

For more established writers, it’s case-by-case. We know a few writers who really love and believe in their managers.

In terms of management companies, and managers, who have the best reputation?

I suppose I hadn’t considered that managers serve a role as agents for people who can’t get agents…and I don’t mean that in a nasty way.

On the other hand, that should really give you guys pause. Sure, if a bank won’t give you a loan, you can go to a loan shark…but is it a good idea?

I know, I know. Better than nothing.

The one thing I would strongly urge is that none of you pays more than 10% for a manager’s services. It’s uncalled for and, IMO, completely unreasonable.

In an ideal world, I’d be able to sell my product directly to a buyer, without the 10% middleman. We shouldn’t really need the agency industry at all.

Choosing a manager over an agent is more like working for a temp agency. If no one will hire me full-time, do I sit around on the dole with no benefits, or do I hook up with a temp agency, and then meet employers that will want to hire me — once they get to know me without all that annoying risk involved?

If the manager is getting doors opened that aren’t otherwise open to you, then it’s worth it to the writer.

I think about my screenwriting nemesis and how he, with only a manager, has managed to land a couple of assignments I was very much interested in. I couldn’t even get in the door to give my pitch.

“On the other hand, that should really give you guys pause. Sure, if a bank won’t give you a loan, you can go to a loan shark…but is it a good idea?”

If the bank won’t even let you in the door to apply for a loan, a loan shark may be the only choice. But the bank shutting its doors to new customers has nothing to do with the loan-seeker’s creditworthiness.

We like to pretend that aspiring screenwriters are accepted or rejected based solely on their work, but in the vast majority of cases, aspiring writers are rejected before our work is even seen.

By itself, writing a great script won’t get anyone in anybody’s door.

I have two actor friends who now have rather substantial careers in film and television … they both started with managers, who in turn brought them to agencies and picked the best one for them … the manager nurtured their careers, while agent’s looked after their deals once the name was made.

Their manager’s get fifteen percent and the agent gets ten. They both said, “it’s a quarter of what I earn, but I had nothing before I met the manager, so it’s worth it.”

Both have said that the agency didn’t really care, in the beginning, until they started getting up on the big screen. Once that happened, it was easy for the agency.

But the manager was instrumental getting their faces up there, in pitching them constantly and in looking out for them.

I know that’s acting, but it seems to fit the profile of the lit managers I’ve met as well. The idea is that one gets more personal attention from a manager. And an agent.

Not only is it difficult to get an agent to read a script, it’s also extremely difficult to get an agent to sign a writer whose they like unless there is already a deal in place.

So I agree that oftentimes, writing a great script won’t open a door, not unless there’s an actor attached or a deal already in play.

How can a writer get that deal without an agent?

I started out with just a manager. That manager got me an agent at one of the big three. The agent gets me jobs.

I couldn’t have gotten the one without the other. Not because of lack of talent (I hope), but because in my world the acessibility of managers is much easier.

Hell, EVERYONE is a manager in LA. And they’ll even admit it publicly. A lot of agents I know? Not so much.

It’s a strange thing but I understand it.

So now my team works as a sort of a ‘set-up and punch’ situation. Manager sometimes gets the meetings, the agents step in and get the deals from them.

And even, sometimes, vice versa.

The thing people need to remember -and it’s a pain in the ass- is that just being repped doesn’t mean you get to stop thinking about the business side of things.

Ultimately, YOU are the manager of your career and you need to keep it that way. You’re the only one who’s going to be looking out for number one. To everyone else, you’re a product.

Anyway, it helps to have a Tom Hagen to your agent’s Don Corleone.

In my opinion.

Craig:

Weren’t you just with a manager for awhile and then got an agent after Peter left BG?

As far as I can tell, the Blasi case is not that much different to the other talent agency cases over the years, such as Jason Behr vs Marv Dauer in 2001. The courts have just ruled that the contract was severable,

Analysis of the Blasi case here:

http://ivanhoffman.com/manager.html

scroll to bottom for details on severability.

quoted for context: Civil Code section 1599 provides:

    Where a contract has several distinct objects, of which one at least is lawful, and one at least is unlawful, in whole or in part, the contract is void as to the latter and valid as to the rest.

    The Court summarized the state of the law in this regard.

    In determining whether to apply the doctrine of severability of contracts, the courts must consider the main objective of the parties' agreement. If the illegality is {Slip Opn. Page 9} collateral to and severable from the main purpose of the contract, then severance is appropriate. (Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (2004) [citation omitted].) If, however, the taint of illegality so permeates the entire agreement that it cannot be removed by severance or restriction but only by reformation or augmentation, the courts must invalidate the entire agreement. (Id. at p. 660.)</em>

But is it likely for a LIT manager to have an agreement that is not permeated by illegality?

I’ve not read the Labor Commissioners findings on the Balsi case, but it seems she couldn’t prove the manager procurred employment related to the actual contested commissions so used a random event to have the entire contract ruled void ab intio, using the principle Craig summarised.

As far as the Labor Commissioner is concerned, sending out specs is considered procuring employment—this is actually due to the omnipotence of the WGA-mandated second step, which is employment, even if the sale is not—as is arranging meetings. How likely is it that a writer would be in Balsi’s predicment of not being able to prove illegality? With scripts, there is a paper trail, but prodco’s don’t usually send messengers to pick up actresses from their manager’s offices for auditions.

Let’s be honest, the only justification for being a manager is freedom to produce (which has the upside of saving the writer commissions). Those managers who never produce have absolutely no damn excuse for not being agents and signatory to the WGA AMBA. NON WHATSOEVER. It is ironic that they can spin “never producing” into “writer friendly”.

Kevin:

Correct. But Peter is no longer my manager. I’m agent-only now.

Let’s be honest, the only justification for being a manager is freedom to produce (which has the upside of saving the writer commissions). Those managers who never produce have absolutely no damn excuse for not being agents and signatory to the WGA AMBA. NON WHATSOEVER.

That’s not true.

Being an Agent and being a Manager are two completely different animals. Yes, it’s true that a lot of managers are former agents but there are some managers that were never agents because an agent’s one and only concern is the deal. Which isn’t necessarily a negative thing—somebody has to keep their eye on the prize. But there are a lot of managers that are passionate and smart who will help guide you on your long term career so when it’s time to make a decision between writing The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Middle and a lower paying gig directed by Todd Field, you can make the right choice.

Craig:

So didn’t Peter procure work for you?

Ryan writes…”by itself, writing a great script won’t get anyone in anybody’s door.”

Ryan, I empathize, but every situation is unique. The last two projects our company set up were from completely unknown writers. We read the material, responded to it, helped develop it, then set them up as movies. We’re producers, not managers. But, we definitely played a “managerial” role. We negotiated our deals with the buyers, as did the writers. Managers troll the halls at UCLA, USC, etc. They definitely serve a purpose but, in the end, like mentioned previously, they get 10% cuz they do 10% of the work. It’s not impossible to get read. You just need to create the situations where getting read presents itself. A manager, or an up and coming producer, can do that for you. Sure, a good script may not be good enough, so then you fight to get to talent. Get someone attached. Bill is a great example. He’s put together 19 movies! Never with an agent or manager. It can be done. Just depends on how you wanna go about it.

“You just need to create the situations where getting read presents itself.”

That’s what I was trying to say, though. A person who writes a great script and, for whatever reason, never gets read, isn’t going to get that script sold.

So, if the open avenue to getting read is a manager, then so be it.

I just took Craig’s comparison of managers to loan sharks to be something of a “if you can’t get an agent, maybe it’s because you’re just not good enough to get an agent” and was trying to note that a person can have a great script and no agent would know it until that agents reads that script. And given how many agents are completely closed off to unknowns (or even lesser knowns), the lack of an agent isn’t, in my opinion, necessarily a commentary on the quality of one’s work.

I never said getting read was impossible. I just said it was difficult and, in my experience, it’s no easier to get a manager to read than an agent. Producers have, so far, been much easier to get to for me. But now that I’m in the Guild, I’m in a kind of nether-world where I’m not known enough to get in with most signatory producers (many of whom won’t routinely deal directly with writers and want some sort of representative to deal with) and can no longer work for the non-sigs that are, apparently, a bit easier to get in with.

If I were a manager, though, I think I’d seek out people who have a sale or two under their belts and maybe see if there’s something there. Seems like it might be a tad bit easier to develop the career of someone who already opened the door a crack himself. The whole “I don’t care about your resume, I just want to hear your logline” that I’ve run into doesn’t sound like developing careers. It sounds like an attempt to find something that will sell… which I would think would be procuring work. Something I understand to be illegal in California for managers to do.

Also, if you are, like me, wanting to get into the assignment game rather than constantly coming up with spec after spec after spec, the slavish attention by a manager to the logline of a specific spec rather than to the writing ability itself seems even more counter-productive.

The two movies that my screenwriting nemesis is working on/has worked on were both assignments. He has not, as far as I know, sold a spec yet.

But is it likely for a LIT manager to have an agreement that is not permeated by illegality?

I’m curious about this too…

I’d imagine that it is a lot easier for managers to “solicit” for writers than it is for actors. And vice versa, harder for a writer to negate the contract.

The main difference being that the actor IS the product/service being sold. For a writer, the product is the screenplay. A lit manager represnts the writer, not the screenplay.

A manager, by definition, manages his client’s schedule. Where is the line drawn between managing meetings and soliciting work?

That’s not true.

you forgot to give one reason in your post why being a bonded agent and signatory to the Artists’ Managers Basic Agreement is in any way a hindrance to a manager who does not produce (and has no plans to produce in the future). Does either prevent them from spending more time with writers, developing scripts, being passionate, guiding your career, charging more than 10%(oh, wait…).

One good reason for a non-producing manager not to be an agent? They can still behave like agents—but the writer is protected. (As is the manager’s own income.)

sorry i’m 3:54

James,

Just my opinion, but if anything, I’d expect it’s far easier for a writer to negate a management agreement, esp if the writer doesn’t have an agent—as the manager would be sending out their spec scripts.

A lit manager represnts the writer, not the screenplay.

That’s the sell. The well known management firms (Energy, B/S, Zide, etc) built themseves by putting the screenlay, the spec—the SALE—way ahead of the writer. They were/are notorious for making Xerox machines the “point” reps. Specs, not writers, were their raison d’etre (the bubble has kinda burst now). Of course, there was an upside for writers and there’s no such thing as a free lunch (easy access to managers comes at a price…).

The main difference being that the actor IS the product/service being sold.

very true. But in the eyes of the Labor Commissioner the WGA guaranteed first rewrite means selling (or attempting to sell) a spec (a property/product) is defato procurement

Labor Commissioner:

“the shopping, or unsuccessful efforts to sell, completed screenplays and scripts to producers and studios in the television and motion picture industries, absent compelling evidence that no future services of the writer are contemplated, establishes an attempt to procure employment within the meaning of 1700.4(a) and consequently is protected activity.” Victoria Strouse vs. Corner of the Sky, Inc. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/TAC/13-00.pdf

“a great deal of testimony was offered to suggest that the two-tiered purchasing system is standard in the industry and they by respondent sending [scripts] primarily to producers and not studios, this negated any intent to deal with actual prospective buyers. As a result respondent was not actually attempting to sell the product.Respondent’s argument that this is not “attempting to procure” is nonsensical. Respondent intended to seek a buyer in the only way the system allowed; the producer first and studio second. A hierarchy of purchasing is insignificant in determining respondent’s intent and does not shield the respondent…” Strouse vs Corner of the Sky Inc. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/TAC/13-00.pdf

Broughcut:

you forgot to give one reason in your post why being a bonded agent and signatory to the Artists’ Managers Basic Agreement is in any way a hindrance to a manager who does not produce (and has no plans to produce in the future).”

Well, let’s think of this logically. If you’re a manager then it’s possible to actually manage the career of an Akiva Goldsman.

Usually the story goes: The manager hooks up with a young Akiva, they develop a personal and business relationship, places him at a big ole agency, and they stay together for a couple of decades. Hopefully.

Now if that same person was an agent, how in the world could they compete with CAA or ICM? They couldn’t, that’s how. Do you realize what a disastrous monopoly (you know, more than it is now) if everyone was an agent?

So yeah, never working because all of the top agencies in town have all the talent is a bit of a hindrance.

By the way, I’m not sure if being signatory to the Artists’ Managers Basic Agreement has anything to do with the Talent Agency Act. I could be wrong, however.

Do you realize what a disastrous monopoly (you know, more than it is now) if everyone was an agent?

My point, exactly.

Well, let’s think of this logically. If you’re a manager then it’s possible to actually manage the career of an Akiva Goldsman.

Don’t think he actually has a manager. This doesn’t concern managers who’s role is to “actually manage”, but those managers who are actually agenting and managing at the same time.

Usually the story goes: The manager hooks up with a young Akiva, they develop a personal and business relationship, places him at a big ole agency, and they stay together for a couple of decades. Hopefully.

Now if that same person was an agent, how in the world could they compete with CAA or ICM? They couldn’t, that’s how. Do you realize what a disastrous monopoly (you know, more than it is now) if everyone was an agent?

Managers operating illegally and outside of the WGA AMBA helps prevent a disastrous monopoly?

If this same person is still that A-lister, why would their manager need to compete with CAA or ICM? They would be busy managing, not agenting. Are you suggesting that management firms are not already in continuous competition with agencies to land the best scripts?

You get why I’m saying managers who wish to gain an income entirely from commission* should bite the bullet and become agents on paper, right? It means there is a surety bond continuously in effect and it brings their wildcat contracts under the WGA AMBA and Rider W (an agreement which has everything to do with the Talent Agency Act as unlicenced talent agents and managers can not be signatory to the AMBA).

As for competition, it’s tecnically possible to sign with two agencies. There is one stiking point, Rider W in its current form limits agents’ commissions to a total of 10% (yeah, okay, 5% is one good reason for a non-producing manager not to be an agent, but they’re good at bending the rules). Maybe Craig has a comment on that because if WGA want managers to be regulated and brought into the fold their commission would need to be properly accomodated.

“But CAA or ICM wouldn’t co-agent”…etc etc… Having to abide by some basic rules isn’t going to make managers who walk and quack like agents under the current status quo any less desirable.

(I’m doubtful many exist but people keep insisting *their manager would never deign to produce… like it’s universally bad for writers.)

Broughcut:

So what are you saying? That managers shouldn’t exist? Or that managers shouldn’t collect commissions from procuring employment?

Thank you.

Unk

I have no problem with managers who manage.

I have a problem with managers who glom onto projects as producers, without actually doing the work of a producer.

I have a problem with managers who glom onto projects as producers, and do the work of producing, but at the expense of their client’s interests (creative or financial).

I have no problems with managers who also are producers without sacrificing their client’s interests.

However, most managers I’ve dealt with (especially individual literary managers) tend to fit in the middle categories.

• keith

Catchy headline, but the first word should be Whither.

Arggggh! I can’t believe no one else caught that. The whole point of the title was the whither/wither bit, and I knew that, and I’d typoed it anyway…

ARGHHH.

Fixed.

Craig said:

I can�t believe no one else caught that.

Wouldn’t that be a double negative? :>

Rick Siegel here.

After reading Craig’s post and the various comments, there is a great deal I want to respond to.

First, I am a principal at Marathon, hopefully with principles.

Here’s what I see as the difference between a agent and a manager. The agents are your vice-presidents of sales; managers are the chief executive officers.

A writer could have an agent for screenplays, another for TV movies, another for TV development and staffing.

He could also have a directing agent. Or, if he’s like clients of mine who both wrote and starred in their films (Saving Grace, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, etc), acting and commercial agents as well. Along, like with my comedy clients, personal appearance agents.

The manager works with all of them. Along with working on the contracts with the attorney, the publicity with the publicist, and the finances with the business manager. And just like with other industries, if there’s no publicist or attorney or business manager or particular agent, the manager needs to take over some of those responsibilities.

And while Craig is right that the manager is ultimately responsible for your hotel room and schedule, as many of the comments noted, that had really not be all they do or you’re wasting your cash.

Where Craig is wrong is that there is any statutes saying that managers cannot help you explore job opportunities. Nor does anyone want that, because the most basic rationale that artists take on management is to maximize the quality and quantity of their career opportunities, working hand in hand (like I did with all my clients) with the agents and other artist representatives.

Marathon is asking the Supreme Court to recognize that without any such statutory restrictions, the generations of implicating and the finding managers culpable of TAA violations has been done devoid of any legal foundation.

After devoting much of the last four years to the study of the applicability of the TAA on managers, this is what I’ve learned:

1) The California Constitution demands that those subjected to a legislative Act should be referred to in the Act’s title; the Talent Agencies Act only refers to talent agents.

2) There is a way to avoid the above demand: if the contents of the Act clearly include or refer to a group unmentioned in the Act’s title. The occupation of personal management is not either mentioned or referred to in any of the TAA’s 47 statutes.

3) As per clear California law, without being mentioned in either the title or contents of the Act, the only way to use existing law to shoehorn managers to TAA regulation is if a study of the legislative history shows that in the creation of the TAA, the Legislature clearly intended for managers to be subject to the Act. Just the opposite, the record shows that after first including five statutes that would have demanded managers be licensed, the Legislature, by deleting those provisions, clearly exempted our profession from the Act’s precepts. Not only is this an issue of basic statutory construction— once the legislature has considered and rejected subjecting a group to a series of statutes, no court has the right to later do so.

None of the above facts have been in any way rebuked. So while so many have taken the position, “that is pretty much the way the law is written,” the law is just not written that way. Nor was it the Legislator’s intention to have it enforced that way when they created the TAA. Imagine buying a six-pack of beer and then get arrested for breaking the prohibition statute. And no matter how you tell them that there is no longer any such law, you get penalized for it. That’s exactly what happens to us.

Leif Smart asked how hard is it to get a license. Well, there is no manager license. And because of WGA, DGA, SAG, and AFTRA by-laws, none of you can pay more than 10% in cumulative agency commissions, once we get a talent agency license and become agents, we can no longer share our clients with agents as we do now. At least half of working TV writers and maybe half of working screenwriters have dual representation. That number is much higher for actors, and virtually every musician and comedian have both agents and managers, if they can find willing reps.

And that’s what I want the Guild members to understand — that if Marathon loses, and artists continue to, using Craig’s words, “hold the aces” as to whether managers can get paid, managers will stop being managers. Would you work for ABC if you knew that after you provided the network the benefit of your writing skills that they didn’t have to pay you? Doubt it.

DenMaley noted that the State Bar Act punishes those who argue legal cases without first passing the Bar. True, but the definition of an attorney is anyone who negotiates contracts, and the State goes into great detail explaining why it does not limit those activities to attorneys. Following 100 years of case law: the only time sharing a responsibility is unlawful is if there are statutes specifically prohibiting or punishing those without the proper licensing from doing them. That doesn’t apply with the TAA.

MLBomb calls me retarded. I can argue virtually everything else that others have written, but ML has me stumped.

Garrett’s point about manager’s producing is an interesting one. Producing for the most part is just a credit; that in itself is not a conflict of interest. But where the State should step in is where the client comes to the manager for employment counseling and ends up being an employee. In the 1960’s, attorney general Bobby Kennedy demanded that Lew Wasserman either give up the production entity MCA or the talent agency MCA. He held on to the production entity, the grandchild of the separated MCA talent agency is now known as ICM.

Tom: yes, writers do it. So do musicians and directors. Under the current enforcement, how can you blame them.

RonniePudding follows the Jeff Berg thought process — keep the managers down, they won’t go anywhere. So what if Jennifer Lopez or Kevin Connelly or Faith Ford or Cher or Wheezer or Jewel or Arsenio Hall or Anita Baker or Nicholette Sheridan or Sugar Ray Leonard or the Jefferson Airplane hold back millions.

Ryan Paige asks if managers have ever made script sales for their clients. Well, Ryan, I haven’t. However, I have had my clients continue to have ownership of their scripts until the first day of production on MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING, THE BIG TEASE, SAVING GRACE, I’LL BE THERE and THE SPANISH JUDGES. And I can give you a list of managers and projects who’ve either sold the scripts or ensured their clients movies get made.

I just can’t imagine that anyone is hellbent on ending our ability to do that. And by the way, if I was an agent with 100 instead of ten clients, would I have had the same amount of time to dedicate myself to getting all that done? Doubt it.

As for Craig’s calling me a loan shark, trust me, if you prick me, I will bleed. More to the point, ask yourselves why so many people do keep both? And perhaps recognize that for comedians and musicians, only having agents would severely compromise them. No big deal? How many writers got work because of Drew Carey, Tim Allen, Roseanne, Seinfeld, Ray Romano, etc? And if there’s no manager to help them develop — none of the above had agents when they got their first series — would there have been those series? I think I like being compared to Tom Hayden as Anonymous did better.

broughcut: you say that those who never produce have no dame excuse for not being agents. Well, my first career was advertising. And I gave up ad sales for having an ad agency, because I liked being involved in every aspect — the creation of the ad campaign, where the ads would be placed, and selling the clients on my abilities. Same thing here — I prefer to work with the agents than be one. Hope that makes sense.

James: the answer to your question about whether agents can have illegality, the answer is yes. In fact, any one who didn’t want to pay their agent, under enforcement before severance, was to tell the labor commissioner that you went into your agency and didn’t see either the agency’s fee structure or the TAA statutes posted in a conspicuous place. (1700.24 and 1700.28) According to 1700.39 of the TAA, a client cannot get paid directly from the buyer/studio. In other words, packaging is unlawful.

Overall, I appreciate the debate. Now that I’ve seen what’s been written, I hope you don’t mind that I continue to chime in. Best, Rick Siegel

I forgot the most important point. Since it seems that most of you do understand the value of the existence of managers, urge your leadership not to submit a brief to the CA Supreme Court that might just kill our profession off.

Even though I believe every point of law, equity and legislative history is on my side, I have a worry of what I call the Shylock syndrome. There is already a prejudice that managers are bad people — anyone who’s ever watched BEHIND THE MUSIC knows how managers continually rip off their clients. If all of those we do business with tell the court that managers are evil bad-doers who must be controlled, the Court’s desire to protect may overwhelm the facts in front of them.

As many of you know, that’s happened in issues much more important. The argument abour Roe V Wade is that there is no “right to privacy” as utilized to rule in protecting the woman’s right to choose.

Truth is, there are good managers and bad, just like there are good and bad agents; and from what I read, good and bad writers. There are civil remedies outside the Act that exist when a manager steals or breaches their fiduciary duty.

Further, I and most managers would be happy to be regulated. Just don’t want to be punished for not having a license that we are neither required to get nor can get without changing occupations. Best.

“Ryan Paige asks if managers have ever made script sales for their clients. Well, Ryan, I haven’t.”

I didn’t ask if ANY manager had ever made a sale for his/her client. I asked if any of the people here had managers who had made a sale for them.

It was more my wondering if the managers people were talking about who are, apparently, easier to get read by are also ones who are getting work for those clients.

That last anonymous post was me, obviously.

Rick:

Thanks for coming and commenting.

I didn’t intend to call you a loan shark at all, but rather to make a point about the questionable value of extralegal opportunities.

I get that you think these things aren’t extralegal. I’m curious to see how your legal challenges turn out, but as we discussed on the phone, I’m very skeptical that your view of the law will prevail.

I’ll certainly write a follow-up essay once it’s all resolved.

Ryan, yes. Warren Zide, and his offspring, Bender-Spink, became leaders both as managers and then producers with their willingness to read and develop unproduced writers.

And they are not alone. I realize the hard part is finding them, just like the hard part for us is finding the right clients. But I assure you, if you keep writing good work, it will happen. Sooner or later everyone gets their turn at bat.

Rick Siegel said:

“Producing for the most part is just a credit; that in itself is not a conflict of interest.”

And perhaps this is why I tend to be rubbed the wrong by a lot of manager/producers (although as I said before, some actually provide great value as Producers). Someone actually has to do the job of producing a movie. It’s not just a credit.

Maybe on my next film I’ll throw a credit up saying “Director managed by Keith Calder.” Hey, it’s just a credit, right? Or maybe I can say “Written By Keith Calder.” That’s just a credit too, right? It doesn’t matter that someone else is actually doing that job.

Why can’t manager/producers have it one way or the other? You either get the credit for producing the movie (and deal with the extra work and headache of avoiding conflicts of interest), or you just focus on being a manager, and let the producers get the credit for producing the movie.

• keith

Producing for the most part is just a credit; that in itself is not a conflict of interest.”

Well…no.

But aside from that ridiculous comment, whether I’m producing a film or a television show, I almost always deal with the manager first and sometimes only. For the most part, Managers are interested in the talent’s career. Agents are interested in the current deal on the table. And they’re both right. It’s a lovely set of checks and balances and doing away with management is ludicrous.

In New York especially, managers procure work all the time. There’s nothing wrong with that.

“But I assure you, if you keep writing good work, it will happen. Sooner or later everyone gets their turn at bat.”

Of course, at that point, I won’t so much be an “unproduced writer” anymore, barring some sort of strange time travel thing happening.

But I appreciate the buck up.

I did not mean being a producer should ever be allowed as a possessary credit (I rep so-and-so, and therefore I must be attached to the project) or honorary title.

My point was comparative to being a producer/employer. Writers, especially in television, are producers, but that doesn’t mean they write the checks. It is a conflict of interest to be a producer/employer who also represents talent.

Rick:

I’m not sure that view of producing is correct either. Producing involves many functions, only one of which is writing the checks. There’s hiring writers (which television writer/producers do), supervising the schedule (tv writers again), casting (tv writers)…

I think the Producers Guild has some good definitions.

I do agree that producing and managing at the same time can clearly lead to problems.

Why do people get their knickers in a twist over the principle of manager’s producing? How could managers afford to spend more time than agents with writers, for the same 10%, if they didn’t occasionally produce? It’s not (well, shouldn’t be) about the manager’s ego or aspirations… it’s just another way of paying the manager for the work they put in developing scripts prior to the sale.

If they produce, they get a 12K (x2) development fee and the writer doesn’t pay a commission. That’s a good thing, no?

It’s crazy to think managers have an obligation to do more to “earn” that credit by fulfilling the role of producer after the script is set-up—the last think you want is a manager attached to a script who has a reputation of imposing himself upon development after the sale.

A manager producing is not really a conflict of interest.

Business Affairs execs will not negotiate with managers. The writer will need their own lawyer or agent to negotiate their deal, which is entirely separate from the manager’s. If the writer chooses to use the manager’s attorney on the deal, the writer will be asked to sign a conflictof interest waiver and consider any potential problems before agreeing to this.

I think that wanting to earn more than 10% by attaching to produce is a good reason for not becoming an agent, it makes working with writers more rewarding for the manager and gives them an extra incentive to find (and help develop) great scripts (or should that be “writers”).

Rick, aren’t you a…

(quoting TAA) “person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising or attempting to procure employment or engagements for an artist or artists”

if so, you are a Talent Agent. If you don’t have a licence you are an unlicensed talent agent who may or may not call himself a lit manager… but still a talent agent (they can’t take that away from you, Rick ;) — not as long as you are successful at procuring your clients work) and therefore subject to the TAA.

3) As per clear California law, without being mentioned in either the title or contents of the Act, the only way to use existing law to shoehorn managers to TAA regulation is if a study of the legislative history shows that in the creation of the TAA, the Legislature clearly intended for managers to be subject to the Act. Just the opposite,

Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday, but never ever jam today!

none of you can pay more than 10% in cumulative agency commissions, once we get a talent agency license and become agents, we can no longer share our clients with agents as we do now.

I asked about this earlier on (the WGA shouldn’t be in the position of giving managers excuses), but this looks like a gaping loophole to me:

(quoting Rider W) Artists’ Manager’s fee, commission or compensation based on or related to the representation of a Writer’s services or materials shall in no case exceed ten percent (10%) of the Writer’s compensation for said services or materials, provided, however, that the foregoing limitation shall not apply to the following cases:…If, after the execution of the attached contract, the Writer incurs an obligation or obligations for commissions to others, without the consent in writing of the Artists’ Manager

So… is Rider W really a bar to managers becoming agents?

And that’s what I want the Guild members to understand — that if Marathon loses, and artists continue to, using Craig’s words, “hold the aces” as to whether managers can get paid, managers will stop being managers.

Some may stop being unlicenced talent agents and more will get their “commission” from buyers in the form of development/producing fees (outside the TAA’s jurisdiction). Those managers who ONLY manage (do they exist?) are not effected in any way shape or form by any TAA case. And, considering how few cases are brought and the 1 year statute of limitations, is the very existence of managers really threatened?

broughcut: you say that those who never produce have no dame excuse for not being agents. Well, my first career was advertising. And I gave up ad sales for having an ad agency, because I liked being involved in every aspect — the creation of the ad campaign, where the ads would be placed, and selling the clients on my abilities. Same thing here — I prefer to work with the agents than be one. Hope that makes sense.

Putting the Rider W issue aside for a moment, as a as a (non-producing) lit manager, how would an agency licence cramp your style?

urgh, where’s the edit button? :)

Artist’s Manager = Artist’s Agent in AMBA-land.

Anyone who thinks a producing manager doesn’t have a conflict of interest has probably never been repped by a producing manager.

I have, and trust me, it’s potentially trouble. The manager’s interest is in the project — and producer’s fee from the studio — and not necessarily what’s best for the writer in the short- or long-term. “Oh, you need to fire my client to get a greenlight? Cool!” Etc.

That said, it can also be a great thing, because a producing manager will kill on behalf of your project. It depends.

Rick, your post was generally thoughtful, but that statement was bizarre. You must know that lit. manager’s production credits aren’t just “credits” — there’s almost always cash attached.

And Craig, in regards to the original topic — certain types of managers will vanish, others will thrive. The newbie writer will always turn to the Foursights, Energys, and Benderspinks of the world, getting an invaluable push in exchange for allowing the manager to be a producer on their work.

But as those writers evolve, and some reach the A-list, most will eventually drop management, unless it’s truly a great working relationship. I don’t think any lit manager can count on holding clients over the long-term; by necessity, they have to be almost as project-focused as agents are.

Why do people get their knickers in a twist over the principle of manager’s producing?

Think of it like this — in a way, a writer gets hired by (and works for) a producer. A manager gets hired by (and works for) a writer.

Who’s the boss?

Tony Danza.

Thank you, I’m here all week.

Broughcut, l and most every managers would have happily gotten our talent agent’s license if we could still share clients with other agents. But agents don’t share clients with other agents: how do we put the WGA, DGA, SAG and AFTRA guild by-laws aside; they exist and limit all members to 10% cumulative commissions.

Rider W state that the obligation would come after the contract. Are you interested in hiring someone to pay them a full commission after you’ve already gotten the job? You’re unique.

As for managers that only manage, in other words meaning safe from TAA enforcement, there’s no such thing. And where you’re dead wrong is that so few cases are brought. For example, a couple of Desperate Housewives did it; a few LOST souls did it, most of the GIRLFRIENDS cast did it; Rosa wasn’t the only one to do it on STRONG MEDICINE, Jennifer Lopez has utilized it twice, Michael Chiklis may be about to use it for the third time; Thomas Hayden Church, Faith Ford, Wheezer, Jewel, Kelly Ripa, Damon Wayons, Arsenio Hall, Richard Pryor, Elizabeth Taylor, Freddie Prinze Jr, Sean Hayes, Anita Baker, the list is endless. My estimation is that close to $250,000,000 of otherwise-owed commissions has been withheld from my profession.

That may not seem like a big deal to you, but then again it might.

And as for me being a talent agent because I procure… that’s simply not true. Just because one shares the responsibility of another profession doesn’t make them that profession. One can design gardens legally without a license, but they cannot call themselves landscape architects unless they have the proper certification. Same exact responsibilities, only one is licensed. California law states that the only time one cannot share a responsibility with a licensed profession is if there are specific statutes prohibiting or penalizing one for doing that responsibility (representing another person in court, dispensing medicine, signing for another’s tax return).

A business affairs executive is a perfect example (by the way, they absolutely will negotiate with managers; they’ll negotiate with anyone the artist tells them to negotiate with). Most studio and network business affairs execs are not attorneys, yet all their responsibilities are the same as if they were.

Tom, you’re right, I shorthanded my thoughts on producorial credits which may have come off as bizarre. My real argument is with those who are the bosses of their clients. It’s what Brillstein Grey in particular does, (they employ and represent David chase, Bill Maher and Jim Belushi, for example) and what the agencies are fighting to do. At most, there must be specific waivers by the artists before they become clients – so at least they are aware of the pros and cons – or this should be prohibited. Personally, I think the conflict of interest is too great to allow under any circumstance, but if the parties all agree, that’s that with that then. Finally, I doubt I would have fought any harder for my clients or sloughed them off if I were a producer; either way, the project’s success must be the bottom line.

How is it a significant conflict of interest if the writer has a competent and impartial rep (lawyer or agent) overseeing his deal? If the writer doesn’t think this is necessary, then they can’t complain when the manager screws them over. A studio doesn’t exactly need a manager’s consent to fire a writer… Anyone actually have a half decent reason why it’s a conflict of interest?

Who’s the boss? A MANAGER PRODUCING DOES NOT MAKE THEM A PRODUCER. It’s a way around the TAA in the short term and may get them some extra cash if the thing is greenlit (but only if that happens). Studios pay agents fees for new writers all the time: is the paltry development fee any different to a buyer agreeing to scale plus ten percent? Hardly, the manager is just paid directly by the studio rather than indirectly and via the writer.

Of course it does make scripts marginaly more expenive to accquire but this is small change to studios.

And as for me being a talent agent because I procure… that’s simply not true.

Rick, it is completely true. How could the act be any clearer about this? Anyone in California “who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising or attempting to procure employment or engagements for an artist or artists” is a Talent Agent. That’s what the act says. Calling a spade a spade isn’t a loophole. “Lit manager” is a self-anointed title, distinct from business management and traditional hands-off “career” management (we agree few if any lit managers focus exclusively on managing careers, whatever that means), it doesn’t need to be mentioned explicitly in the ATA.

A business affairs executive is a perfect example (by the way, they absolutely will negotiate with managers; they’ll negotiate with anyone the artist tells them to negotiate with).

Couldn’t that get them disbarred? You know of cases were Studio BA execs have negotiated writers deals directly with managers, without an agent or lawyer at any point being invoved on the writer’s side to look out for the writer’s best interests?—that is completey illegal and I am sure the exception rather than the norm. BA have their heads screwed on and aren’t going to break the law and jeopardise their jobs, the studio’s money, the whole deal, on a writers (a writers!) say-so.

I think they are allowed to negotiate with managers if the manager has been instructed by the writers legal AGENT to negotiate on the writer’s behalf. Afaik, this is the only way an unlicensed manage can legally procure employment—under the instruction of a licenced agent.

Is anyone in a position to do a strawpole of BA execs and find out how many would negotiate illegaly with managers? Sure, CE’s etc will discuss things with managers, but that is a fundamentally different relationship.

l and most every managers would have happily gotten our talent agent’s license if we could still share clients with other agen

This is a remarkable and extremely positive addmission. Ball’s back in the Craig’s court, and I hope he addresess the Rider W issue at some point.. if you’re going to call out managers at least address the responsibilities of the WGA in all of this. Like I said, though, my understanding of Rider w is that unless the writer’s agent (the ice berg flavour) gives written consent for the manager-come-agent/manger to join the team, the original agent does not have to share commission—and, presumably, the manager/agent is entitled to 10% also.

Except as set forth above or by the provisions of Paragraph 6 (c) (Package Representation) of the Basic Agreement, Artists’ Manager’s fee, commission or compensation based on or related to the representation of a Writer’s services or materials shall in no case exceed ten percent (10%) of the Writer’s compensation for said services or materials, provided, however, that the foregoing limitation shall not apply to the following cases: (i) If the Writer has failed to disclose to the Artists’ Manager the existence of any prior Artists’ Manager contract or relationships under which a claim for commissions might or could be asserted against the Writer. (ii) If, after the execution of the attached contract, the Writer incurs an obligation or obligations for commissions to others, without the consent in writing of the

whither go craig?

Broughcut:

Okay, just to clear up a couple of things.

Conflict of interest occurs on every single level of the entertainment business. One of the biggest perpetrators aren’t managers…it’s the agencies. Packaging is a complete conflict of interest. And who’s best interest is at heart when an agency tells a studio that they’ll never be able to deal with any of their clients again? As a producer I deal with agencies every day and when I want to hire someone, the agency always wants to throw in some other client that I’m not interested in and because the situation got so out of hand, I ended up not even working with the person I originally wanted.

Now that’s a conflict of interest.

“A business affairs executive is a perfect example (by the way, they absolutely will negotiate with managers; they’ll negotiate with anyone the artist tells them to negotiate with).”

Couldn’t that get them disbarred?”

No. They’re not lawyers.

You know of cases were Studio BA execs have negotiated writers deals directly with managers, without an agent or lawyer at any point being invoved on the writer’s side to look out for the writer’s best interests?—that is completey illegal and I am sure the exception rather than the norm.

It happens almost every single day. Every Single Day.

And it’s not illegal. A contract does not have to be negotiated with an agent or lawyer.

California law states that the only time one cannot share a responsibility with a licensed profession is if there are specific statutes prohibiting or penalizing one for doing that responsibility (representing another person in court, dispensing medicine, signing for another’s taxreturn).

Or procuring work for an artist, per the TAA.

I just want to be clear…Rick is basing much of his analysis on his own view of the legality of the TAA as it is currently enforced. There’s a voluminous amount of case law (which he references) that contradicts his view, and his victory in the Blasi appeal was very narrow and did not in any way contradict the use of the TAA to restrict anyone but talent agents from legally charging artists commissions for procuring work.

And it’s not illegal.

How do we bold face here? I’ll try this It is 100% illegal. A manager can not negotiate contracts on behalf of clients. Did that work?

A contract does not have to be negotiated with an agent or lawyer.

This is true, but it can’t be negotiated with a manager—which is why studios don’t do it (maybe things have changed…I assume not, despite the unsupported (and, frankly wild ) claims posted here). Yes, contracts can be ‘negotiated’ directly with writers, no lawyer or agent required.

This is one of the crucial laws that keeps manager’s “conflict of interest” on par with the rest of the industry. What I am saying is that if the writer is sensible, there’s little reason for the manager’s conflict of interest to rise above the ‘conflicted’ background noise; that it is wrong to assume the relationship between writers and “producing” managers is autmatically tainted by a conflict of interest. We’re talking about managers in this thread, but as it occurs at ‘every single level of the entertainment world’… I’m sure you would agree that managers are being unfairly singled out.

Yes, many BA execs are attorneys.

Broughcut:

This is true, but it can’t be negotiated with a manager—which is why studios don’t do it (maybe things have changed…I assume not, despite the unsupported (and, frankly wild ) claims posted here).

This is how you bold:

STUDIOS NEGOTIATE WITH MANAGERS ALL THE TIME

This isn’t the business of accounting. It’s the business of show and a studio will negotiate with whomever the artist tells them to negotiate with. What, do you think a studio questions the qualifications of a person on the other end of the phone?

And here is where you’re confused.

The Talent Agency Act regulates individuals from procuring and accepting a commission from talent. It does not, however, prohibit 3rd parties from negotiating with managers. Because well…that wouldn’t make any sense. As an individual, you can give power of attorney to absolutely anyone of legal age and sound mind. Do you think that if a studio negotiates with a manager that somehow that negates the deal?

I’ll answer for you.

It doesn’t.

If you wrote a screenplay and told a studio to negotiate with your uncle Paulie who works at the fish market…perfectly legal.

The Talent Agency Act regulates individuals from procuring and accepting a commission from talent. It does not, however, prohibit 3rd parties from negotiating with managers. Because well…that wouldn’t make any sense. As an individual, you can give power of attorney to absolutely anyone of legal age and sound mind. Do you think that if a studio negotiates with a manager that somehow that negates the deal?

No, it just negates the commission. The Talent Agency Act has, in fact, been interpreted and enforced as a law that prevents any who is not a licensed talent agent from charging a commission for the procurement or negotiation of an artist’s employment. Negotiation is considered part and parcel with procurement.

You can argue that it shouldn’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is currently considered illegal by the governing authority (The California State Labor Commission).

Rick — thanks for explaining. I see what you meant now.

You’re in an unfortunate situation — it seems you provide a valuable but extralegal service, and you’re unprotected from clients who choose to weasel. I’d hope you could depend on their sense of fairness, but I guess not.

Curious… do clients who cut managers out ever give a cover story for doing so, or do they actually admit that they just don’t want to pay the commission? I know this is Hollywood, but yipes.

Craig,

My analysis of the law has been the culmination of first, two years of trying to create legislative change, and then over four years of defending my legal rights. And with those four years, I can confidently state that while your views of what is written in the TAA is more accepted, it is also wrong.

1) While correct when you say that my appellate court win did not contradict previous case law, you are incorrect in saying that there is a “voluminous amount of case law” that contradicts our view.

Only five TAA cases that have ever been decided by the Court of Appeals. None spoke to the applicability issues that we have raised. And because they ruled for us on severance, our Court considered themselves restrained from ruling on a constitutional issue after finding a ruling for us on statutory grounds.

Bottom line: our arguments have never been ruled upon by any previous court and Blasi’s counsel is not saying that they have been.

2) You write that the TAA prohibits and/or penalizes one for “procuring work for an artist, per the TAA” exists. It does neither: the words prohibit or penalty, nor any synonym thereof, can be found in the statutes.

The current enforcement meshes §1700.5, which states that one must obtain a license before carrying on the occupation of a talent agent; and §1700.4(a), which defines an agent as one who procures and may also direct and counsel.

But we are the first case to ask a Court to decide whether the TAA, without the needed by law prohibitive or penalizing statutes, can still enforce forfeitures for licensing violations.

Further, as our Appellate Court pointed out, long standing law holds that any licensing violations creates issues between the violator and the state, not the violator and the person they did work for. As such, even when there is unlicensed procurement, the representation/client contract should remain in effect.

And that’s not my analysis of the law, Craig, that’s our Court’s analysis.

And as for you, Broughcut, you may be a terrific writer, but your knowledge of how show business works is lacking. During my 16 years in management I have dealt with NBC, Fox, CBS, UPN, Sony, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Universal, HBO, Dreamworks, Imagine, Playtone and a litany of smaller production companies’ business affairs execs. They all knew I was a manager, not an agent. No one ever asked if I were licensed; it was not an issue. There is nothing illegal with negotiating with anyone; even as Kevin Arbounet notes, Uncle Paulie from the fish market.

And as much as I appreciate Kevin’s words, I don’t understand what he meant by writing the TAA “regulates individuals from procuring and accepting a commission from talent.” It has been enforced as such, but it was not written that way.

Now back to the Giants-Saints game.

Rick:

“Accepted” tends to go hand in hand with “correct” when dealing with the law.

The voluminous case law to which I refer is the history with the Labor Commission and State Supreme Court, not the court of appeals.

Your argument about the words “prohibit” or “penalty” are weak, IMO. If a statue says “Only Rick Siegel may sleep with his wife,” I’m fairly certain I’m prohibited from sleeping with your wife, regardless of the lack of the word “prohibit.”

It’s misleading to say that the court said in Blasi that when there’s unlicensed procurement, the contract should remain in effect. That’s true, but didn’t they also say that any commissions resulting from unlicensed procurement should be disgorged? Didn’t they also say that any portion of the contract resulting from unlicensed procurement should be severed?

Correct me if I’m wrong.

The severability thing seems reasonable to me. I read the decision on that Weezer case, for example, and the procurement ended up coming down to the manager setting up a single small club gig (IIRC, it was more like a practice gig before going out on tour) for which they took no commission. And, for that, the entire management contract was voided and the commissions that were paid for what was, apparently, legitimate management work had to be refunded to the band members.

Of course, as far as I know, I have no vote on the appellate courts, so my opinion probably doesn’t count for much.

Craig:

No, it just negates the commission.

Right.

This is what I was trying to explain to Broughcut. Studios negotiate with managers all the time but for some reason he refused to believe it.

And as much as I appreciate Kevin’s words, I don’t understand what he meant by writing the TAA “regulates individuals from procuring and accepting a commission from talent.” It has been enforced as such, but it was not written that way.

It’s not written that way but yes, that’s how it is enforced.

But then again you misspelled my last name (it’s Arbouet not Arbounet), so you are not dead to me.:)

Merry Christmas everyone!

And remember…I want 10% of everyone’s gifts.

Craig,

You may be of the opinion that the argument about the words ‘prohibit’ or ‘penalty’ is weak, but know the argument it isn’t mine, it’s the holding from the 1961 CA Supreme Court case Reid v. Overland Machine Products. (“The imposition by statute of a penalty implies a prohibition of the act referred to and a contract founded upon such act is void.”)

Nor is it a weak way to use existing cases in my favor: it’s important that those subject to laws must be able to find those laws, otherwise there is a problem with constitutional due process because of their vagueness.

Craig, do you really think someone should be subject to laws that are completely unwritten? That without any verbiage that tells someone that their actions are not prohibited and/or will be subject to penalty or any sort? I cannot imagine that. Craig? Craig? Can you imagine that being fair?

Tom, to answer your question, I don’t think there’s ever been a client who thought they were ripping off their ex-managers. Their rationalization is that they paid the manager while they were clients, why should they have to pay when they no longer want to have the manager’s help? Course, that’s like not wanting to continuing paying for your mortgage after getting the bank’s help in buying the house. “Hey, I’m already in the home, why do I still have to pay the damn bank?”

Ryan, thanks for your thoughts on severance. But let’s say Wheezer asked The Firm to get them all their work, which they then did. Should the management firm lose the right to get their 15% which the band then gets to keep?

Kevin’s comment, that the law is “not written that way but yes, that’s how it is enforced,” perfectly encapsulates our argument. Laws must be enforced as the Legislators’ wrote them, not as judges have previously ruled. The current enforcement is both incorrect and unconstitutional, it must be changed.

And that’s why the WGA leaders must be urged not to lobby through an amicus brief for the continued mis-enforcement which has compromised my profession for a generation: it is being enforced in a way that the legislature neither wrote nor intended.

Rick:

I guess we’ll see how the courts rule. Forgive me if I’m skeptical, but 20 years of case law and interpretation seem to be weighing against you, so while it’s not impossible that you will prevail in your ultimate goal, it’s not exactly nuts for me to think you might be wrong. ;)

Craig, do you really think someone should be subject to laws that are completely unwritten? That without any verbiage that tells someone that their actions are not prohibited and/or will be subject to penalty or any sort? I cannot imagine that. Craig? Craig? Can you imagine that being fair?

Happens all the time. Courts interpret laws, and thus they are enforced. The insistance on verbiage that addresses all possible contingencies is what turns our laws into overwritten nonsense.

If a law says, “Only licensed talent agents may do the following” and a court determines that this means “…and no one else can with impunity from penality” then I’m fine with that.

Find the words “right to an abortion” in the Constitution, and I’ll agree with you in a heartbeat.

Hell, too controversial? Find the words “innocent until proven guilty” in the Constitution while you’re at it. Presumption of innocence is a cherished bedrock of American jurisprudence, and yet it’s not written down in our Constitution. Instead, it was inferred by courts.

I’m still confused about Blasi. The CoA sent the contract back to the Labor Commissioner to determine which parts of your contract with Blasi should be enforced—and which should be severed—so can you sum up what conditions the CoA believes should lead to severence…and for which portions of the contract, and with what results?

Actually, I used “em” so it depends on your browser settings whether it’s bold or italic or underlined. :)

I’m not debating with you, Kevin. IT IS ILLEGAL FOR A MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE OR CLOSE CONTRACTS.

This is basic stuff. I will try to find you a reference when I have time. In the meantime—pref before responding—try googling something obvious, like +agent +”manager cannot negotiate”.

Do you think that if a studio negotiates with a manager that somehow that negates the deal?

No, I think if the manager signs on behalf of the writer it negates the deal as a manager does not have their clients proxy in negotiations, as an agent or attorney does. (An agent or attorney can enter into agreements on the client’s behalf, a manager can not do so)..

Reread my posts. I have said that the necessary involvement of an attorney in a manager-brokered deal means conflict of interest is either mitigated (writer uses own attorney) or disclaimed via a conflict of interest waiver (writer uses manager’s attorney).

As far as I know, and as far as I am concerned until someone who actually knows what they are talking about on the business affairs end says otherwise, studios will not negotiate and close writer’s deals without the involvement of an agent or lawyer (however superficially) on the writers side. If the manager’s lawyer merely rubberstamps the contract that’s the writer’s fault for not having the good sense to use their own attorney.

You seem like a cool guy, could you just take the time to check the facts and read the posts you are responding to? I may not have posted in the blog before but I don’t go around saying stuff willy-nilly and you don’t need to respond in bold for me to lend weight to your comments.

During my 16 years in management I have dealt with NBC, Fox, CBS, UPN, Sony, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Universal, HBO, Dreamworks, Imagine, Playtone and a litany of smaller production companies’ business affairs execs. They all knew I was a manager, not an agent. No one ever asked if I were licensed; it was not an issue.

It was not an issue because you used your attorney for the formal dealmaking. The writer’s attorney should always have the opportunity to provide oversight and this should minimise conflict of interest. I’m trying to defend managers—stop confusing Kevin.

Or are you seriously saying it was in your clients’ interest to negotiate their contracts without an attorney (even if it was your own)?

Rick, why don’t you just become an agent and put this extraordinary legal dexterity to work on the few loop-holed sentences of Rider W that you claim force you to do battle with the State of California?

I’m still confused about Blasi. The CoA sent the contract back to the Labor Commissioner to determine which parts of your contract with Blasi should be enforced—and which should be severed—so can you sum up what conditions the CoA believes should lead to severence…and for which portions of the contract, and with what results?

From reading about this, I gather Blasi did not establish that RS procured her employment for the gig with disputed commissions, but that he had procured employment for other jobs and that this meant the whole contract should be void ab initio. Convenient, eh. The Court of Appeals ruled the acts of illegality (procuring employment) were severable from the commisionable deals. However, I think that they also pointed out manager contracts in other cases may be so “tainted by illegality” that the Labor Commisioner’s way of doing things (void ab initio) is the way to go. So I assume not having procured is the condition the CoA believes should lead to severence (legal from illegal).

Rick — I have no legal expertise, so grain of salt. “Extralegal” means “not subject to the law” — managers aren’t regulated like agents are, so you have fewer legal restrictions on you, but also fewer legal protections. That’s all I meant.

Just so you guys can judge for yourself (because I think the TAA is quite clear)…

First, there’s this:

1700.4. (a) “Talent agency” means a person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment or engagements for an artist or artists, except that the activities of procuring, offering, or promising to procure recording contracts for an artist or artists shall not of itself subject a person or corporation to regulation and licensing under this chapter. Talent agencies may, in addition, counsel or direct artists in the development of their professional careers.

So the TAA first defines “talent agency” as a person or corporation that(among other things)procures contracts for artists (with the clear exception of recording contracts).

Then it says…

1700.5. No person shall engage in or carry on the occupation of a talent agency without first procuring a license therefor from the Labor Commissioner.

Seems to me like it’s clear, right? Talent agents procure employment for artists. No one shall do that job unless they get a license.

I guess Rick is arguing that he doesn’t fall under the heading of “no person” or something…but that just doesn’t seem to hold water, especially when the first words of the TAA are:

1700. As used in this chapter, “person” means any individual, company, society, firm, partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, manager, or their agents or employees.

In short, if there’s a legal objection to this, it seems like a technical one to me, and if Rick’s technical objection prevails, it’s all-too-likely that the legislature will simply amend the TAA to close the loophole.

Why?

Something tells me the talent agencies will spend what’s required to get the law changed.

“Ryan, thanks for your thoughts on severance. But let’s say Wheezer asked The Firm to get them all their work, which they then did. Should the management firm lose the right to get their 15% which the band then gets to keep?”

If it was up to me, I think a client should be able to direct their representatives (be it a manager or one’s uncle Irv) to do what the client wants, including procuring work.

But I don’t think that’s what the CA legislature wanted. We’ll see, though.

Certainly, I shouldn’t be able to vacate my contract based on procured work that I asked my manager to get. But I imagine that could happen, if it hasn’t already.

If it was up to me, I think a client should be able to direct their representatives (be it a manager or one’s uncle Irv) to do what the client wants, including procuring work.

I’m pretty certain clients can already do this—but it has to be via the agent. A licensed agent can instruct an unlicensed individual to procure work—legally—on the agent’s behalf.

A writer can negotiate with whomever he chooses, uncle irv or uncle paulie or whoever can’t legally do so unless they have a license.

Of course, a writer is free to ask uncle Irv to procure work, and neither the state nor the Labor Commissioner is going to be involved unless the writer decides to withhold uncle irv’s commission and uncle irv has a problem with that.

But a studio isn’t going to paper a deal with uncle irv unless he is a licensed attorney or agent. Not a problem, because it wouldn’t be in the writer’s or unlce irv’s financial interest for uncle irv to talk money with the studios.

I’m not convinced that calling a spade a spade is a loophole. Rick doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge that he is in fact an agent—an unlicensed one. I mean, did Charles Manson get a mention in the California Penal Code?

Craig,

Just as Kevin encapsulated our issue, you have encapsulated our barrier to success. While there is no case law on applicability, because the issue has never been raised before now, courts and the labor commission have routinely applied it against us.

And as you write, the enforcement of law is founded wholly on the past. As I wrote in an early brief, ‘if Galileo had to convince a bunch of lawyers, we’d be living in a world without globes.’ With thousands of years of precedent saying the world was flat an none espousing its roundness, it’d be impossible to create a legally round world.

So what one needs is support. That others who recognize the injustice (or roundness) help the person succeed. Because by now I doubt you think I’m wrong, only that I may not succeed.

The very reason for higher courts is to correct the mistakes of the lower courts.

In your second to last email states that that TAA says “only licensed talent agents may do the following…”, yet as your last email shows, those words, which would limit certain responsibilities to licensed agents (like prescribing medicine is to doctors, going into court for others is to attorneys) do not exist.

I have never held myself out as a talent agent, I am not one. If you don’t know what the difference between us is, then blame Peter and not my profession as a whole.

The word manager in §1700 does not mean personal manager, but the manager of a company, it does not incorporate my profession.

Most important, and this relates to the anonymous comment as well, if you were to read the legislative history, you would find that, as I have written earlier, during the creation of the TAA the legislature specifically considered incorporating personal managers into the TAA (writing statutes demanding our licensing) and then rejected doing so (deleting those statutes before the Act’s passage). And per Beverly v Anderson and a century of similar precedents, once a group has been first considered and then rejected by the legislature, no court or labor commission has the right to later subject that group into the Act from which the Legislature exempted them.

The loophole is one that artists use in not paying their managers for work that has been done, not in my wanting to see the law enforced as the legislature chose to enact.

And B-Cut, for the last time, it is legal for anyone to negotiate a contract. You all seem to believe that the TAA was created to protect agents; it wasn’t, it was to protect you. Having a representative explore opportunities for you, or finalizing contracts for you, is to your benefit, it is not exploiting or in any way harming you. And that’s what laws are for. So the studios can, will and do paper deals with anyone, because the contracts ensure they get to work with the artists they want to employ.

I have continually acknowledged that I procure. It is one of the many responsibilities I have as the CEO of my clients’ show business activities. But as I am tired of offering the same rationale again and again, please explain why I am wrong. Tell me how bookkeepers, garden designers, life coaches, store clerks and business affairs execs can have the same responsibilities as their licensed colleagues without violating the appropriate licensing statutes but managers are. Blasi’s attorneys have not come up with an answer to this in three years, and there’s good reason for that: one does not change professions just because they share responsibilities. Only when statutes either prohibit or elucidate a penalty when those without licenses do them (hold themselves out as licensed landscape architects or attorneys, or perform surgery without an MD, etc) does the licensed occupation have a sovereign right to perform that job.

That anonymous at 10:08am was me.

And I understand the legislative history of the TAA and what that may or may mean constitutionally (but that’s a legal argument, not really an argument of actual intent of the people who supported and passed the law); however, it would be difficult to convince me that the entire purpose of the TAA is to regulate only those who call themselves agents rather than to attempt to regulate everyone who does those few things the act says agents do regardless of what they call themselves.

I see your point about bookkeepers vs. CPAs doing many of the same things with CPAs having licenses and bookkeepers not having them (and the other examples), and I respect that as an argument that may well have merit and that could prevail.

But it just doesn’t make any sense to have the law at all, if the purpose is to protect talent, if the way around it is to simply not say you’re an agent while still doing the things the law talks about. So, I’m skeptical that the true intent (and let’s ignore the legal/constitutional argument about what constitutes intent) was to exempt everyone who didn’t call themselves an agent.

A question: If you do prevail in court and managers are found to be exempt from the law due to the reasons you cite (or similar ones), do you fear the Legislature will revisit the matter and add managers to the law, basically putting us back where we are now in terms of what managers are or aren’t allowed to do?

Broughcut:

I hope you understand what Rick was saying about negotiating contracts. Both Rick and I have represented talent. We’ve both dealt with many, many studios and networks (I’ve represented several leads on HBO’s Oz, including various stars) and again, if a manager negotiates with a network, it doesn’t negate the contract. You seem like a cool guy too but Craig, Rick, and myself are explicitly telling you that it’s not illegal nor negate a contract. Studios negotiate with whomever the talent instructs them too.

Period.

I’m not trying to be all, “I’ve got a ton of experience at this” but…I’ve got a ton of experience at this. Unless you’ve ever been an agent or a manager (I’ve been both), you really don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not saying that to be mean or a dick and I apologize beforehand if it’s coming out that way but you’re arguing something and you’re just waaaay off.

Tell me how bookkeepers, garden designers, life coaches, store clerks and business affairs execs can have the same responsibilities as their licensed colleagues without violating the appropriate licensing statutes but managers are.

My guess is that they can all do the things their licensed colleagues do without fear of losing commissions because they don’t charge commissions.

Rick, I think I go with the “walk like a duck” test here. Courts aren’t computers. They can tell the difference between a friend who gives someone one of their prescription ointments for some dry skin, and a guy holding himself out as a “kind of doctor” writing prescriptions for people.

Managers feel like agents who are trying to avoid the burdens of a license.

if a manager negotiates with a network, it doesn’t negate the contract. You seem like a cool guy too but Craig, Rick, and myself are explicitly telling you that it’s not illegal nor negate a contract. Studios negotiate with whomever the talent instructs them too.

Broughcut, Kevin is correct. In fact, the TAA specifically states that operating as a talent agent without a license is not a crime. Instead, however, you open yourself up to a negation of your contract with the talent.

Talent’s contract with the employer is not void. There is no case I’ve ever heard of in which talent sought to sever their contract with their manager, and in doing so, found that their contract with their employer was now void.

Simply not the case.

Yeah, I’m wrong. I don’t think I’m waaaay off… But wrong. All the same, managers should not be negotiating writer’s contracts without the involvement of an attorney at some point. That may not be wrong, but it is unethical and it is a conflict of interest.

It seems to be quite a common misconception, WGA TV Writers Booklet also says managers can not negotiate deals.

I drafted this before the last two posts:

And B-Cut, for the last time, it is legal for anyone to negotiate a contract.

Not employment contracts (managers can negotiate music contracts, but that is off-topic).

I’m not denying certain practical realities but the fact remains that it is currently against the law for a manager to negotiate an employment contract.

TAA: (d) It is not unlawful for a person or corporation which is not licensed pursuant to this chapter to act in conjunction with, and at the request of, a licensed talent agency in the negotiation of an employment contract.

in other words, managers may not negotiate employment contracts. I’m not claiming this is the reason why studios shouldn’t/don’t finalise deals with managers—the TAA is part of the Labor Code, it pertains to the enforcability of contracts between client and agent/manager, not third parites (as far as I know). I was under the impression there were other laws regulating the negotition of contracts. But, I can’t them. So, perhaps not.

Technically, attorneys are not exempt from TAA licensing but AFAIK this has only been relevant to cases were the use of a transactional attorney has been argued to shield a manager from the TAA licensing requirements (it doesn’t, only a licensed agent can instruct a manager to negotiate an employment contract: Jewel vs Cold War Mngt link: http://tinyurl.com/yfm7pu).

I don’t think a licensed attorney who does not have an agency license has ever been taken to the Labor Commissioner. But they appear to be just as vulnerable to this as managers.

The Beverly Hills Bar association wants the TAA to exempt licensed attorneys as they’re licensing requirements are more vigorous (link: http://tinyurl.com/ylan67)

But few if any CA law firms appear to be licensed agents…

http://www.dir.ca.gov/ftproot/talenta.txt

What’s the deal?

As for managers not being able to negotiate, I have heard this from many sources but why can’t I find a reference for it besides on writers boards and in blogs?

Alex Epstein, Complications Ensue blog:

You’d have to have an agent or lawyer negotiate the sale for you. Managers cannot legally negotiate for you

Chris Lockhart (ICM), Inside Pitch blog:

Many writers only have an agent. And many writers only have managers, who must use lawyers to broker the deal. Remember, managers cannot negotiate deals, but agents can.

Done Deal FAQ:

If you have only a manager, you will need an entertainment lawyer to negotiate the deal and handle your contracts. If you have an agent, do you need a manager? That’s up to you.

etc, etc

The WGA, no less (TV Writer’s Booklet):

It is important to note that managers are not legally permitted to procure employment under the Talent Agency Act. Therefore, technically, if you have a manager, you will also need an agent and/or an attorney to negotiate your deal.

WGA link: http://tinyurl.com/y9mjpo

To negotiate, technically, but not to procure? The WGA is clearly drawing a distintion between the two, as I did earlier. However, as far as the Talent Agency Act is concerned, once the manager has procured a deal there is no “safe harbor”—even if the manager then negotiates it under the direction of an agent the initial procurement taints the whole deal as far as the manager’s commission goes (Jewel case).

So… why on earth can an attorney not licensed as an agent negotiate a deal, but a manager can not do so?

I admit, I don’t know the answer. It appears that, technically, managers can not negotiate if they want to protect commissions. But I guess they are free, technically, to negotiate.

It is still technically “illegal”, but that illegalty seems confined to labor law. So, yeah, looks like I’m wrong—along with a bunch of other people, WGA included.

California Civil Code says Uncle Irv can be an agent, I guess this does extend to having someone’s proxy in negotiations and entering into binding contracts: www.lectlaw.com/files/bul16.htm

Most important, and this relates to the anonymous comment as well, if you were to read the legislative history, you would find that, as I have written earlier, during the creation of the TAA the legislature specifically considered incorporating personal managers into the TAA (writing statutes demanding our licensing) and then rejected doing so (deleting those statutes before the Act’s passage). And per Beverly v Anderson and a century of similar precedents, once a group has been first considered and then rejected by the legislature, no court or labor commission has the right to later subject that group into the Act from which the Legislature exempted them.

They didn’t exempt managers, they excluded them from the game. Presumably because they thought it was a bad idea to duplicate the role of an agent. The Act was originally called the Artist’s Manager’s Act—does that mean agents were excluded prior to 1978?

I have never held myself out as a talent agent, I am not one. If you don’t know what the difference between us is, then blame Peter and not my profession as a whole.

Like it or not, the decision to exclude managers makes you an unlicensed agent. You said earlier on it’s been badly done to for a generation… maybe so for talent, but lit managers have been around in sizable numbers for barely a decade. (Ironic that “personal career management” for writers exploded with the spec [commodity] market…).

You all seem to believe that the TAA was created to protect agents; it wasn’t, it was to protect you.

Exactly why people have a problem with managers.

Having a representative explore opportunities for you, or finalizing contracts for you, is to your benefit, it is not exploiting or in any way harming you. And that’s what laws are for. So the studios can, will and do paper deals with anyone,

So you’re also practicing law without a license? So much for my argument that responsible managers will, at the very least, provide their own attorney to finalise deals and thereby add transparency to the potential conflict of interest….

Rider W?? This is a WGA-centric site but everyone’s avoiding this issue. Yet Rick claims (with some basis) that Rider W is largely responsible for the whole mess.

TAA: (d) It is not unlawful for a person or corporation which is not licensed pursuant to this chapter to act in conjunction with, and at the request of, a licensed talent agency in the negotiation of an employment contract. in other words, managers may not negotiate employment contracts.”

Broughcut, reread the quote from the TAA that you cited. When you’re done, reread it again. And again.

I don’t think a licensed attorney who does not have an agency license has ever been taken to the Labor Commissioner. But they appear to be just as vulnerable to this as managers.”

What? No.

It appears that, technically, managers can not negotiate if they want to protect commissions. But I guess they are free, technically, to negotiate.”

Yes.

I’m not denying certain practical realities but the fact remains that it is currently against the law for a manager to negotiate an employment contract.”

No…Broughcut, you are totally all over the place.

So you’re also practicing law without a license? So much for my argument that responsible managers will, at the very least, provide their own attorney to finalise deals and thereby add transparency to the potential conflict of interest….”

Again, this is where you lose it. Absolutely nobody on this planet needs to have a license to negotiate a contract. And for the most part you continue to draw conclusions from a stance that has nothing to do with the conclusion. It’s actually really confusing. How in the world is it a conflict of interest to negotiate a contract if you’re a manager? Basically what you’re saying is:

Nicole Kidman is offered a part in The Hours II: More Fucking Hours. If an agent negotiates that deal…all’s well with the world. But if a manager negotiates the deal…conflict of interest? That doesn’t make any sense.

Now, I agree with you when it comes to managers who also produce. There’s an obvious conflict of interest there but again, you must understand that an agent that’s part of a big agency is yet another conflict of interest for that talent— (i.e. Agency instructing Studio that they can’t work with represented Writer if they also don’t hire represented Actress).

Broughcut, do you get where you’re off base?

1700.4. (a) “Talent agency” means a person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment or engagements for an artist or artists, except that the activities of procuring, offering, or promising to procure recording contracts for an artist or artists shall not of itself subject a person or corporation to regulation and licensing under this chapter. Talent agencies may, in addition, counsel or direct artists in the development of their professional careers.

Feel free to tell me where the line is drawn between the above and the simple act of scheduling a meeting for a client.

A personal manager in ANY field is able to schedule meetings for their client. Why is it so different in film?

A NBA star can have numerous meetings handled and dealt through a personal manager or assistant with or without the approval of said star. Hell, that’s what they were HIRED for in the first place. This has nothing to do with their sports agent.

Yeah, they step on each other’s toes. That happens all the time in business. That doesn’t automatically make it illegal.

You wonder why things get so blown out of proportion?

…or attempting to procure employment or engagements for an artist or artists…

That is incredibly vague.

And now you have two people arguing its merit.

Craig, I love your column, and I agree that some protections need to be made. However, it seems that you are arguing for the “law” simply because it is law.

The Talent Agency Act does more to protect agents than writers. I’m not sure if I’d argue the validity of this act for it’s ability to protect writers. The Talent Agency Act simply ensures that agents interests are put in the forefront. Shouldn’t it be the artists?

Hell, you said it yourself:

Something tells me the talent agencies will spend what’s required to get the law changed.

Yeah, no kidding. It’s in their best interest… even if it’s not in their clients.

Craig,

Commissions are simply a different methodology of payment from being paid by salary; how one gets paid is irrelevant to an action’s lawfulness. You chose not to have an agent and use your manager as an agent. As your resume suggests you could find an agent, and I can’t imagine Peter not wanting the collaboration to achieve your career objectives, I must think that your duck analogy is based upon your singular decision to make your manager take on the full responsibility of an agent’s.

And again, as there is 100 year old law stating that licensing violations should not void a contract, your writing that managers open themselves “up to a negation” of their contracts has no legal foundation. It would be surprising if the Supreme Court found some way not to reaffirm that foundation, which in itself would end artists initiating TAA controversies specifically to legally withhold otherwise-owed commissions.

Boughcut, your turnaround is quite impressive. You have my complete respect.

So you know, the Labor Commission has adjudicated against attorneys, even against as venerable a firm as Gang Tyre. Go to http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DLSE-TACs.htm and check out the Jewel case, which specifically speaks to how attorneys can be embroiled in TAA controversies.

Nice research finding the resolution that the BH Bar raised to exempt attorneys from the Act. You should know however, that the resolution was rejected; fought by the attorneys who have a cottage industry in representing talent in these disputes. As you can imagine, I’m not the most popular person in that circle.

There is good reason why your blogs and writers’ boards follow the line of thinking that managers can’t procure – because before the legislative history was completely dissected and the full implications of the TAA analyzed, everyone just assumed the ‘flat world’ position that managers were subject to TAA regulation.

If you looked at the Blasi v Marathon labor commission, you will find that the Commission does not differentiate between solicitation and negotiation; that as per the dictionary definitions, they are intertwined. Think about it, how would you know you were involved in a negotiation and not solicitation until the deal was consummated; if there is no agreement as to service and payment, then it must be considered an unconsummated solicitation.

And then, like the others, you encapsulate the problem… can you imagine not having the right to be paid for your labors? We either go against our fiduciary duty to help our clients’ succeed, or we are unable to protect our commissions.

Agents were originally called ‘artists managers.’ There were three reasons cited for the legislature to take up consideration of the TAA in 1978: to change the name to match the occupation that they were regulating, to incorporate booking agents into the same Act, versus the employment statutes where they’d been, and to license personal managers. They went two out of three.

And just like Craig choosing not to have an agent, when clients don’t want attorneys involved, we can’t make them. they are our employers after all. and without the legal arm, just like any small business CEO having to take on extra responsibilities, we end up having to take over the papering of contracts. Again, I believe that every manager would choose to have other reps involved.

I don’t claim that Rider W or the analogous limitations of commissions is the culprit to this mess. I do claim that if the Guilds would change their percentage limits, that managers could then get talent agency licenses and still share clients with agencies as we do now. Nobody’s argued with that logic, yet no one’s running out to change it, either.

Kevin,

I’m no longer quoting from mars, we just disagree. You think it’s cool for managers to negotiate complex contracts without an attorney.

What? No.

Yeah, it’s surprising. Licensed attorney’s are not exempt from the TAA. It appears this is another wide-spread misconception. How many attorneys are licensed talent agents? They do indeed appear to be just as vulnerable to this as managers. Sure, attorneys tend not to procure and are much more likely to work under the direction of an agent, but otherwise they appear to be in the same boat as managers.

Maybe we will both learn something from this thread?

As for the illegality question, you are quoting me out of context. I’m not using illegality under the TAA to back up my previous point about studios not negotiating. It is still technically “not legal” for a manager to negotiate but this is confined to the TAA. I admit this has very limited implications. I was just pointing out the TAA’s stance on the legality of unlicensed persons negotiating.

My previous comments were largely based on the mistaken belief that, unlike agents and attorneys, managers could enter in binding contracts on their client’s behalf. This doesn’t appear to be correct.

I know at last some studio BA execs shared this misconception and would not finalise deals with managers—this was several years ago though.

I have a feeling that if you took a straw pole of wga writers (even execs) a sizable number would be under the impression that managers can not close binding contracts for clients.

Again, this is where you lose it. Absolutely nobody on this planet needs to have a license to negotiate a contract.

Well, according to the TAA they do to negotiate a commisionable employment contract. I agree they do not need a license to negotiate a binding employment contract—my bad. I apologise. :)

And for the most part you continue to draw conclusions from a stance that has nothing to do with the conclusion. It’s actually really confusing. How in the world is it a conflict of interest to negotiate a contract if you’re a manager? Basically what you’re saying is:

Are you seriously claiming it’s kosher for a manager to negotiate writers contracts without the involvement, at some point, of an attorney? Even agents have legal affairs departments to oversee negotiations and many writers, however powerful and experienced their agent, have attorneys to review their contracts.

I think it is a conflict of interest for managers to negotiate without an attorney looking out for the writer’s interest’s (be it the writers own rep, or one provided by the manager) as the manager, unlike the agent, is free to start producing at the drop of a hat. I’m confused why you’re so eager to demonstrate managers can do without attorneys on either side? Surely that’s less than ideal?

Of course, I agree, if clients don’t want attorney’s involved that’s their problem, not the managers. But they should be pointed down that path, even given the opportunity to use the managers attorney on the deal.

Rick, I downloaded the Blasi v Marathon case last night but haven’t got around to it. Will try later. You’ve been very patient—thanks. I still disagree with some pretty fundamental points.

I think managers should be subjected to TAA regulation (and are currently) but it would seem the TAA has nothing to do with manager’s right and ability to negotiate legally binding employment contracts as is often suggested. Otherwise lawyers, 99.9% of whom appear to be unlicensed and unbonded as agents, wouldn’t be able to negotiate either.

I really have shifted my stance on this whole issue… how come attorneys are given a free pass and managers get hung out to dry? This doesn’t seem consistent.

I probably misread Rider W but if the writer’s agent doesn’t give written consent for a second agent/manager to “join the team” can’t you both charge 10%? If so that seems pretty workable. Perhaps I’m being naive. Anyway, too much black.

typo

My previous comments were largely based on the mistaken belief that, unlike agents and attorneys, managers could not enter in binding contracts on their client’s behalf. This doesn’t appear to be correct. [no shit].

Yeah, it’s surprising. Licensed attorney’s are not exempt from the TAA. It appears this is another wide-spread misconception.”

Actually, I didn’t know this. Wow, that’s kinda nuts. Doesn’t the American Bar Association supercede the TAA?

I guess where we differ is this fundamental thought:

What does being an Attorney have to do with a Writer’s best interest?

At the end of the day, all that matters is the deal. And believe me, Benny Medina is gonna get a better deal than some unknown lawyer.

So that’s where our thoughts differ. Either way, thanks a lot, Broughcut. Your input was really helpful because outside of my own little entertainment world there are some things that I didn’t know, so thanks!

Broughcut, if I ask for an attorney’s help on your deal, isn’t there a chance that the lawyer would feel more beholden to my interest than your interest?

And each Guild limits the total commission to 10%. So you could have ten agents taking 1%, 5 taking 2%, but if you have UTA taking ten, BGE must get zero if it were licensed.

And no, Kevin, though it makes no sense, the State Bar Act does not supercede the TAA. At least until our decision comes out; we’ve brought that to the attention of the court, they may rule on it.

Craig, I love your column, and I agree that some protections need to be made. However, it seems that you are arguing for the “law” simply because it is law.

No, I’m arguing for the law (no quotes necessary, it really is a law) because the law requires talent representatives to adhere to certain standards and responsibilities.

For instance, if an agent wants a written contract between himself and an artist, he has to file it with the state. A manager doesn’t. An agent has to file a list of fees with the state. A manager doesn’t. If an agent collects income on behalf of a client, he has to deposit it into a trust account. A manager doesn’t. If an agent fails to disburse that income in a timely fashion, he’s subject to penalties. A manager isn’t. An agent must keep thorough records regarding their clients and their earnings. A manager doesn’t. An agent can’t sell stakes in their business to third parties. A manager can. An agent is forbidden by law to kickback money to artists’ employers. A manager is not. An agent can’t refer clients to any business in which the agent has a financial interest. A manager can. It is illegal for an agent to refuse representation on the basis of race, religion, gender, creed or disability. Managers don’t have that restriction.

The TAA exists in part to protect agents from anyone doing their job, but it clearly also exists to protect artists from discrimination, fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, etc.

Rick believes that if he becomes an agent, he and an artist’s other agent can’t each collect 10%.

Goddamned right.

I’m a client at CAA. I have a lead agent, two other agents on my team, and then about 200 agents that can contribute to my representation. I pay 10%. No more, no less.

What I think the WGAw ought to say in its amicus brief is this: if Rick Siegel wants to do the job of talent agent, he ought to be subject to the legal responsibilities that the client has, and he ought to be subject to the competitive economic circumstances all other talent agents are subject to, i.e. only one agent/agency can represent a client at one time.

Aw, geez. Gents, this is where we will bid adieu.

Craig writes that the agents have to file a list of fees with the State. True, but not a single agency files their packaging fees with the State. It’s illegal, as per 1700.39 (which doesn’t as Craig writes, forbid agents from kicking back money to the employers, but forbids agents from receiving monies directly from employers – be it a percentage of the licensing fee or the back end).

Any manager who doesn’t keep thorough records as to the clients earnings and payments, or put client monies into a trust account and disburse that income is subject to civil penalties, just not from the TAA. Not a material issue.

Managers have the same discrimination issues as all Californians, whether specific to the TAA or not.

The TAA was created so employers wouldn’t masquerade as employment counselors and lure them into working in the downtown burlesque halls or the bordellos in the hills. If your checks on SCARY MOVIE ? was written from a Brad Grey owned entity, you have been victim to exactly what the TAA was created to prevent. Did the situation help you? Maybe, or maybe had they just acted managerially for you you’d have a better back-end; who’s to say.

The TAA was created to keep people from helping you get work. It’s only used that way when people want to avoid paying otherwise-owed commissions.

Are you really afraid of a manager helping to get you work is something to be feared, or is the continued existence of the law a way to make more money while keeping it from the person you hired, supervised and then fired? Really, if we’re calling a spade a spade, let’s be truly honest and admit why artists like being able to utilize the TAA licensing issue.

After the manager is fired because the client thinks they didn’t do enough, they go to the Labor Commission and say the manager shouldn’t be paid because of what they did. Is there anything more hypocritical than that, save perhaps Republican politicians saying they’re in this to help the common man?

Congratulations to you Craig, because you have a new agency that’s working for you. Yet the majority of your working peers, even at CAA, use both managers and an agency.

Yet you think that the WGAw should write an amicus brief saying that this policy should end, in a ruling that would also end that right for actors, directors, comedians and musicians. It is a position taken that shows a complete lack of concern for all other people’s needs or desires, that what works for you must be the law of the land. Hell, I don’t need an abortion, so no one should be allowed to have one. I wish you every success; course, if your career starts to sag and your CAA lead agent gets a little too busy and his minions are becoming the lead agents for the writers of GORY COMEDY 11, you may feel like the parent who changes their opinion on choice once its their 16 year old who’s pregnant.

I became a manager because I thought I could be of more help to growing artists that way then I could as an agent; I wanted to develop careers rather than sell someone’s resume. I’m proud of my accomplishments, thrilled that I’ve helped make people multi-millionaires and established leaders in their chosen fields.

I think that the members of the WGA need people like me. Craig wants to get rid of me. Well, it’s his bat and its his ball, so I’ll be on my way. Anyone who wants to contact me, feel free: ricks@marathonent.com.

In the meantime, have a good new year. Rick

Rick:

I’m with you Rick. And if managers were down away with, the level of disaster that would ensue would be tremendous. Specifically, as you point out, the ABSOLUTE need for a manager in the music business and for actors.

Keep fighting the good fight and I’ll back you. At the end of the day there’s nothing shittier than being bilked out of money that you earned.

Rick:

You seem to be taking some of this personally. I hope that’s not the case.

On kickbacks, you say that 1700.39 doesn’t:

forbid agents from kicking back money to the employers, but forbids agents from receiving monies directly from employers – be it a percentage of the licensing fee or the back end)

That’s not how it’s written. It says…

1700.39. No talent agency shall divide fees with an employer, an agent or other employee of an employer.

“Divide fees” doesn’t just mean “don’t receive money from employers” but also means “don’t send commission money to employers,” i.e. kickbacks.

The emotional crux of Rick’s argument is that artists know exactly what they’re doing when they hire managers to perform the job of “talent agent,” and thus it’s hypocritical for them to seek shelter in the TAA when they decide they don’t want to pay those managers anymore.

I sort of agree.

I believe that managers are paid a commission to manage. In other words, if I get a gig, I pay my agent 10% as a reward for “getting” the job, and I pay my manager 10% as an advance for managerial services that shall be performed during the duration of the job, regardless of his contribution to the “getting” of the job.

Why?

Well, either there’s a difference between managers and agents, or there ain’t. To me, there is. One difference is what I’ve described above—the division of labor.

As such, if an artist gets a job, then fires his manager before the job ever starts, I believe that artist is not responsible for paying the manager’s commission, because the manager will not be providing the manageral service during the job.

In the end, however, I do not believe Rick’s lawsuit will prevail, and I do not believe his goal will be achieved. I think Rick needs to plan on doing one of two things (because regardless of what I write here, I don’t want to “get rid” of anyone).

I think Rick needs to sponsor a Talent Management Act that licenses managers and holds them accountable to the state…

…or…

…he needs to become an agent.

He writes:

I became a manager because I thought I could be of more help to growing artists that way then I could as an agent; I wanted to develop careers rather than sell someone’s resume. I’m proud of my accomplishments, thrilled that I’ve helped make people multi-millionaires and established leaders in their chosen fields.

As I said to him on the phone, he can do all of that as an agent. It’s called “being a very good agent.”

Craig:

I think Rick needs to sponsor a Talent Management Act that licenses managers and holds them accountable to the state… …or… …he needs to become an agent.”

You need to add an addendum. Because if Rick wants to work with the level of talent that he has than he’d have to “become an agent”…and then go work for CAA, William Morris, ICM or some other three letter agency.

Because the reality is that all of the bigger agencies will scoop up the more well known talent. And if he starts repping developmental clients (I don’t mean retarded by the way…) he’ll lose them too if he’s “a very good agent”.

Plus, let’s be honest. There’s not one really good manager out there that hasn’t procured employment for their talent. Not one.

Kevin:

Okay, so he’ll have to go work at an agency. Or start his own. That’s definitely a “his problem” rather than a “writers’ problem.” If there were only one or two agencies, I’d say writers were being underserved by limited competition, but there are five very large agencies and about three 2nd tier agencies all competing for quality clients.

Managers become managers for specific reasons. Agents become managers because they want to. Managers also become agents when they so desire. The reasons for all of the above can be honest or shady, but they’re still personal choices. Managers should not be forced to become agents in order to protect income that they have rightfully earned. From this discussion, supporting Blasi means the WGA is supporting a cheat. Love that PR image.

Allowing clients to cheat their managers by using the TAA as a weapon does me, as a writer, absolutely no good. There are not enough agents out there able to take me on. I have good material, but no connections. My rep will have to work harder to procure work for me than dozens of his or her other clients. Agents don’t or can’t fill the needs of the dozens upon dozens of people like me. Managers both can and want to nurture this kind of career.

The WGA supporting Blasi doesn’t really helps the Guild, other than getting it into the public eye during a particularly interesting time. If you’ve made enough sales to qualify for Guild membership, I’m willing to bet you can get an agent (good, bad, mediocre doesn’t matter — you can get an agent). A Guild member wouldn’t need (as opposed to want) the procurement services of a manager. Even if it’s a hip-pocket deal, if you can say “I’m repped by XYZ” you have access to the buyers. And that’s what writers need.

Managers who procure work for their clients benefit the Guild in fees, dues, and new members. If the Guild really has a problem with the way managers operate (after a decade of silent acceptance) then maybe the Guild should proactively deal with it. Create general manager contracts that writers and managers can use when signing on with each other. Put information up on WGA.org / Writers Resources to educate what writers should consider if they are looking at management AND agencies. Support a Talent Management Act to protect artists, but that also gives managers the freedom they want. Get the word out. Educate. Decide it’s truly a problem for writers and deal with it.

Just don’t proactively try to shrink the number of reps for the writers.

Yes, Craig, I do take being insulted personally. Had I been an agent, I would not have had the time to produce a show for a client in Edinburgh, and while there promise Craig Ferguson that if he came to America for 10 days, I’d make him a star. Or do the work required once he got here to fulfill my promise; I’d be too busy working on my other 50 clients. I never worked with more than 10 at a time, usually less.

You can’t be the chief executive officer, which is what managers are, for clients unless 1) you have a limited list; and 2) you have agency help, so just like collaborating with the publicity and legal team, you can collaborate with a sales team.

I take it personally when someone with so little knowledge believes that they know more than someone who has been researching these issues for years. In Manera v Stamelman, TAC 32-96, the representative was found to have violated the TAA because they were to receive a “2% profit participation in ‘deal memo’ with SONY,” a violation of 1700.39.

Are you out of your fucking mind? A manager should be able to get a client a job, then once the contracts are signed, the client should be able to fire his manager and not be responsible for paying commission?

Tell me, what can a manager do for a writer without needing a license? Developing a script leads to your getting a sale/job; that would need a license. You are rationalizing past any sense of fair play, past sanity even.

According to Article 4 of the CA State Constitution, as personal managers are not named in the Talent Agencies Act, they cannot be subject to the Act’s tenets.

According to 100 year old law, as managers are not written into or specifically referred to in either the title or contents of the Act, they cannot be subject to the Act’s tenets.

According to equally long-standing law, if during the creation of an Act, the legislature specifically considers and rejects incorporating a group of people into the Act, no court or labor commission has the right to later inject that group into that Act’s precepts.

While you have continued to argue against wanting managers to have freedom from the Act, you could offer no way to compromise any of the above facts. As such, your belief that Marathon will prevail is not based upon thought, but heart; ironic its something since your position shows none of.

No major agency would have wanted me to bring in Craig Ferguson or Leah Remini or Ian Gomez or Rondell Sheridan or Nia Vardalos or Reggie Hayes or Rosa Blasi or help Daniel Kim get back into acting at the stages of their careers they were in when I took them on. Or allowed me to spend the time and effort on them as I did. I know because they were all rejected when I introduced them to the big 5.

It ain’t just me, this is what managers do. Tell me, when you signed with Peter, did you reject CAA? Somehow I doubt it.

And Kevin’s right; if I were an agent and wanted to develop talent, I’d have to go to a smaller place. And once there was money involved I’d never be able to keep them.

So besides not caring that there’d be a couple thousand people who’ve invested in a career that no longer exists, not working towards saving my profession will be a negative influence on all facets of the industry.

But luckily, no writer’d ever have to pay more than 10%. Congratulations.

This is actually kind of nutty when you think about it.

Here’s a fact:

Every single manager out there has procured employment of their talent.

As a producer, I’ve closed many, many deals with managers. And that’s not even the significant part. The significant part is that many of these times, their agent never even pitched them to me.

Now, if we did away with managers or forbid them to procure employment, does everyone realize that there’d be a lot LESS opportunities out there? Guys, I’m sorry. There’s just no way to dispute that. So to all the aspiring writers out there, are you ready for the playing field to get even smaller?

Let’s not get ridiculous and try to redefine what an agent does. An agent simply CAN’T serve their client like a manager does. And yes, a manager CAN’T serve their client like an agent does. But either way, the reality of the business and how it works, well…works.

Can anyone tell me the sheer numbers of how many careers would’ve NEVER been launched if not for the procurement of a manager?

This hurts managers, yes. But it hurts the talent way more.

And this is what really confuses me.

Craig, correct me if I’m wrong but don’t you owe your career to your manager and his procurement of work?

Oh, and one more thing:

As such, if an artist gets a job, then fires his manager before the job ever starts, I believe that artist is not responsible for paying the manager’s commission, because the manager will not be providing the manageral service during the job.”

Anyone who gladly accepts a job that their manager got them and then refuses to pay the commission makes them a shit licking weazel.

Craig, correct me if I’m wrong but don’t you owe your career to your manager and his procurement of work?

Ummmmm, no.

NO.

What?

Jesus, Kevin.

I owe my career to ME. To my writing, to my hard work, to my talent, to my relationships. To me, me, me, and in fourth position there’s me, followed by me again.

Owe my career to my manager? “Owe”???? No, Kevin, what I owed my manager was 10% of what I earned in exchange for management services.

Honestly, the thought that I “owe” anyone my “career” is incredibly insulting.

Rick:

Take it easy. I’m not trying to insult you personally, and I assure you, the position I’m taking is entirely intellectual, and not at all personal. I just disagree with you, okay?

If you want to produce, produce. If you want to CEO an artist’s company, I’m sorry but…that’s called “producing.” So produce! But producers shouldn’t also represent artists. You cannot have two masters like that. It’s dangerous for writers to have their deals made by people who are paid by other people whose interest is to pay the artist as little as possible. It’s dangerous for writers to have their deals made by people who may be paid out of a back-end, when the writer’s fee is applied against that back end.

My concern isn’t for myself. My concern is for wirters who are taken advantage of by managers. You’re proposing that their legal recourse be removed.

I’m proposing that you should get a talent agent license.

BTW, having one wouldn’t have prevented ANY of the following:

No major agency would have wanted me to bring in Craig Ferguson or Leah Remini or Ian Gomez or Rondell Sheridan or Nia Vardalos or Reggie Hayes or Rosa Blasi or help Daniel Kim get back into acting at the stages of their careers they were in when I took them on. Or allowed me to spend the time and effort on them as I did. I know because they were all rejected when I introduced them to the big 5.

Isn’t it obvious? You can do exactly what you’re doing now, in the exact way you do it now, but as an agent instead of a manager.

Ahhhh, but you’re worried that your clients will pick their current agents over you.

That’s something that writers can’t…and shouldn’t have to…help you with.

Craig:

Honestly, the thought that I “owe” anyone my “career” is incredibly insulting.

Craig? C’mon.

I think you know what I meant. If you didn’t here’s what I meant:

Didn’t your manager PROCURE employment for you?

And if he did, did that help you or hurt you?

Anyone who gladly accepts a job that their manager got them and then refuses to pay the commission makes them a shit licking weazel.

Managers and agents like to think they “get” their cilents jobs.

In 11 years of professional screenwriting, neither my manager nor my agent ever got me a single job.

If I come up with a pitch and they set up pitch meetings and I sell the pitch, they didn’t “get” me the job. They “got” me access, and then I got the job.

If you think that makes me a shit licking weazel [sic], so be it.

Still, I find that agents and managers often attempt to convince writers that there’s a greater need or dependence on them than there actually is, and to me, that’s the weaselry, but hey…I’m a writer. :)

Didn’t your manager PROCURE employment for you?

For a number of reasons, I’m not going to talk about my past relationship with my manager, other than to say I’m not a client of his anymore, there’s no conflict between us, we wish each other the best, and that’s that.

Managers and agents like to think they “get” their cilents jobs.

Yes. This is what I think. I think that all the talent out there are useless until an agent or manager GETS them a job. They’re all no talent hacks and without the love and desire of an agent or manager, they’d never work. Yeah, this is what I think.

Sorry, I was just drinking some sarcastic egg nog.:)

Craig…I think we’ve slipped into a game of semantics.

But seriously, this is the first time I’ve ever seen you totally duck an honest question. There are a lot of lines to read between and if I were to read between yours, I’d guess that’s an obvious YES to my question.

Again, if anyone can name me a well known manager that’s never procured employment I’ll eat my shitty new hat that my sister-in-law got me.

Craig, just keep in mind that you’re talking to a guy that’s been on both sides of the fence. I’ve been a representative and I’m now being represented. I’ve met the shady reps and I’ve met the shady clients. And I can honestly tell you that managers procuring work is a very good thing.

But I do agree with you when it comes to producing. Way too much of a conflict of interest.

“If you’ve made enough sales to qualify for Guild membership, I’m willing to bet you can get an agent (good, bad, mediocre doesn’t matter — you can get an agent).”

Bulls**t.

I’m in the WGAw as a full member, and I don’t have any agent or any prospects of getting one.

Heck, even through this whole discussion, the manager posting hasn’t said “Hey, there’s a potential up-and-comer with at least one sale under his belt, maybe I should look into that.” (Not that I would expect such a thing. I don’t even know if Rick represents writers in general).

Making a sale and getting into the Guild doesn’t magically open the door to the point where people start competing to rep you.

Ryan:

Making a sale and getting into the Guild doesn’t magically open the door to the point where people start competing to rep you.”

Now take away managers from that equation. Can you imagine anything more ludicrous?

Well, I don’t know. As I mentioned before, managers haven’t exactly been beating down my door to answer my queries and request to read my scripts, either.

If it came down to me personally, I haven’t seen the benefit of managers in terms of them supposedly being easier to get in with and having them build my career or whatnot. So far for me, they’ve been absolutely no different than agents or Kristin Harrison - the girl I liked in High School who wouldn’t give me the time of day.

Ryan:

Actually, your analogy is quite appropo.

Let’s say Kristin Harrison represents An Agent. She’s really hot, every guy’s dream, and for some reason it seems like every other guy is banging her except for you. More importantly, she won’t have sex with you until you break your cherry with someone else—at least have a couple of other girls bring your name up. Now let’s say there was another girl. Let’s call her Shirley Smith. Shirley represents A Manager. Shirley is nowhere near as hot as Kristin. She’s actually kind of plain and you never really knew she existed. But you hook up with her. And she really teaches you the art of Kuma Sutra. She transforms you from Jack Black to Mickey Rourke, man. And now all of a sudden, Kristin notices you. When you were lowly JB, she couldn’t be bothered but now that you got the Rourke stank all over you, now she’s interested.

Shirley’s a great girl. But dammit…it’s Kristin fucking Harrison. So you know what you do? You leave Shirley for Kristin. But to make it even worse, you pretend you were never even with Shirley. You got those Rourke moves now. Probably always had them but for damn sure Kristin don’t care where you got them. And after some time…neither do you.

That’s what the Agent, Manager heirachy is like. Don’t worry, you’ll meet Shirley soon. And then you’ll be banging Kristin in no time. But never forget how important it was for you to meet Shirley.

Hey, my word is my bond. I’m not the type who could pull a “he procured for me illegally so I want all my commissions back” kind of deal. For one thing, my mother would never speak to me again if I did something like that. And regardless of what the law does or doesn’t say, I think the way artists have used the law often seems shady, at best.

I still maintain that, by and large, we’re operating from a faulty premise - that managers sign talent before they’ve proven themselves and grow them to the point where they can have careers. From my perspective of chasing after these guys, they’re no different than agents in that they’re completely disinterested in signing anyone who hasn’t proven themselves even beyond the point that I’ve proven myself already.

You mention that I’m going to meet my Shirley at some point, but I don’t see what’s going to change between now and five years from now, for example, other than my further proving myself through my own legwork, etc.

I mean, at what point do the managers start agreeing to look at my stuff? Five sales? Ten? How many fewer sales do I have to put together myself to get a manager versus an agent? How far do I have to go to prove myself before I get to the point where the manager deigns me worthy to learn from them on my way on up the ladder to being agent-worthy?

I don’t understand why Rick thinks WGA members should support his quest when he and other managers don’t seem willing to support WGA members such as myself without representation (and having read some threads on that other message board us WGAers sometimes frequent, I know I’m not alone in not having success getting managers interested through anything other than referals).

Perhaps if there was more willingness among managers to read and possibly represent those of us who are WGA members and are professional writers already and all, there’d be more of us willing to give our leadership a call and maybe try to twist a few arms in regard to that amicus brief and the position of the WGA in general to these issues.

Of course, it’s not as if I have any pull with the WGA leadership, either, so any arm-twisting on my part is purely hypothetical and my mention of it should not be inferred to mean that I actually could twist any arms.

Ryan, I haven’t taken on a client since 2003 and decided I wouldn’t until I found out whether my profession was legal. However, I continually signed clients I thought were talented regardless of their agency situation. If they didn’t have one, that just became priority #1. And I believe that’s how most of my profession feels; if we see or read someone we think is talented and just as important think we can help them, we try and sign them.

I recognize how hard it is for those in your position and wish you the best of luck.

If your profession feels that if they see or read someone who you think is talented and who you can help, that goes back to the original idea regarding whether managers truly are easier to get reads from than other sources.

Obviously there’s some initial selection process that can’t have anything to do with talent unless you’re relying on people to have already proven themselves somewhat before they’re considered talented enough to read/represent.

In the last year, I’ve been read by exactly the same number of managers as ICM agents. Of course, my success with getting agent reads was 100% because I targeted one and was successful getting the read.

My success with managers was decidedly less successful. In 2006, I contacted at least ten different managers attempting to get a read. One requested the script.

So, if managers are, as the original article posited, good for writers attempting to break in, shouldn’t my success rate have been higher with managers than with agents?

In my experience, once again, managers aren’t any different than agents in terms of being open to truly new writers.

And they appear just as reluctant to read (let alone represent) writers with a few skins, too, if many of us WGA full members are to be believed.

I wish you luck in getting your profession squared away legally one way or another, but the experience of myself and many others has shown that managers aren’t the godsend to new writers the original argument seemed to present.

“I recognize how hard it is for those in your position and wish you the best of luck.”

But since managers are all gung-ho to read and represent new writers, my position shouldn’t be nearly as hard, should it?

Of course it’s hard. Hard because while Bender or Spink created their careers by reading new writers, they don’t have the time to do that now. What’s hard is finding someone with both the skill and the time to develop new writers; because its always the younger reps who find and develop the new talent. And I think its even harder for writers than actors, as I think that most lit managers started in agencies, so their client lists are more mature when they start managing.

And most important, its hard for everyone. We’ve chosen the industry that has the highest unemployment rate in the history of unemployment.

By the way, I don’t remember saying that writers should support managers because managers are more apt to read writers than agents. My rationale was 1) the law is on our side; and 1) that if Marathon loses, it hurts versus helps writers get work.

This:

“

Ryan, yes. Warren Zide, and his offspring, Bender-Spink, became leaders both as managers and then producers with their willingness to read and develop unproduced writers.

And they are not alone. I realize the hard part is finding them, just like the hard part for us is finding the right clients. But I assure you, if you keep writing good work, it will happen. Sooner or later everyone gets their turn at bat.”

Implied to me (especially since I had been responding to people making claims that managers were easier to get read by currently than agents and was a basic tenet of nearly all of my comments, including Post #118 that you responded to) that you supported that idea.

I apologize if I inferred too much from that and other comments.

Did any of the well-known “management” firms above give a rat’s ass about managing newbie careers when they were selling specs? Did these firms have a willingness to manage as well as sell? How many writers who sold a spec at Energy or wherever were pushed after the sale, made writers lists, were put forward for assignment work? I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that managers focus on spec sales, but maybe it’s time a spade was called a spade.

Rick:

Broughcut, if I ask for an attorney’s help on your deal, isn’t there a chance that the lawyer would feel more beholden to my interest than your interest

Sure. But if the writer doesn’t want to get his own attorney, dual representation is surely better than no legal representation and having a non lawyer review entertainment contracts. As I said above, I think attorneys who would otherwise be conflicted-out can work with two clients under a conflict of interest waiver. Besides, is it really realistic that a manager could screw a writer (whose quote isn’t high enough to secure an agent), in order to sweeten their own producing deal? Aren’t some writers seeing faces in fires over this issue?

And each Guild limits the total commission to 10%. So you could have ten agents taking 1%, 5 taking 2%, but if you have UTA taking ten, BGE must get zero if it were licensed.

I’m beginning to sound like a broken record but Rider W seems to have a few loopholes. If the writer/BGE doesn’t get a letter from UTA granting explicit consent for dual representation, UTA can continue to commission 10%. Rider W doesn’t specify what BGE can commission in such circumstances… Hopefully Craig will get to the bottom of this at some point, it seems pretty integral to this whole issue. Can’t hardly blame mangers for not becoming agents if the franchise agreement limits total commissions to 10%.

True, but not a single agency files their packaging fees with the State. It’s illegal, as per 1700.39

Except agencies don’t tend to commission talent in a package deal.

I’m having difficulty understanding the relevance of the historical background etc… If lit managers are currently excluded from the act because they aren’t named in it, and they do get written into the act in the future, what’s stopping certain managers (present company excepted!) from calling themselves “used car salesmen” and being once more excused from TAA regulation? I still think the act is clear that anyone who procures employment for an artist is considered an agent, irrespective of the job title they give themselves. Also gotta agree that anyone who uses this against a manager who has behaved honestly in their interests is a shit licking weazel.

BROUGHCUT: The Guild’s by-laws delineates a pact between the member and the Guild, not the Guild and UTA. So if you give UTA and BGE both 10%, the Guild could demand that any excess be repaid. And that’s what I’ve been told by officials at every Guild, which all have a similar provision.

And not paying commission may be a benefit to you when your agent packages, but it is irrelevant to the illegality of packaging. 1700.39 doesn’t just prohibit double-dipping – collecting from both sides – it prohibits an agent from collecting fees or back end profits when making a deal for a client.

As per the relevance of the legislative history… your point is well-taken. One could argue that a personal manager is an agent calling them something else just to avoid licensing, in fact that’s been the Labor Commission’s position.

But the specific occupation of personal management was exempted by the Legislature’s specific actions during the creation of the act, by putting in statutes that would have incorporated managers into the Act and deleting them.

Neither dog catchers nor used car salesman were so considered and rejected. The best way to explain this in hopefully not too long or tedious a way is to quote from our Brief to the CA Supreme Court…

The Court in Beverly v. Anderson (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 480, 485-486 holds: “The rejection by the Legislature of a specific provision contained in an act as originally introduced is most persuasive to the conclusion that the act should not be construed to include the omitted provision.” (Rich v. State Board of Optometry (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 591, 607; accord California Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, 845-846.) Similarly, “[t]he fact that the Legislature chose to omit a provision from the final version of a statute which was included in an earlier version constitutes strong evidence that the act as adopted should not be construed to incorporate the original provision.” (Central Delta Water Agency v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 621, 634.)

Early versions of the TAA (AB 2535 as of February 15, April 10, and April 24, 1978) incorporated personal managers into its tenets. A later version (AB 2535 as of May 1, 1978) devoted a chapter of regulations to personal managers. As the Legislature then deleted personal managers before the final version of the bill was passed, “Therefore we conclude that the Legislature intended no such provision to be judicially grafted onto the statute. (Beverly, supra, quoting California Mfrs. Assn., supra, 24 Cal.3d at pp. 845-846; Central Delta Water Agency, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 634; Rich, supra, 235 Cal.App.2d at p. 607.)

A later decision, State of California ex. rel. prior to California State Lands Commission v City of Long Beach (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 767, narrowed the Beverly v Anderson holding. In delineating its matter from Beverly, the CA Lands Commission Court held that Beverly only applies when the Legislature passes “a bill after deleting a provision included in an earlier version of a bill.” (Id. at 780). The Land Commissions Court noted the separation because there was no proof in its case that the issue was ever considered: “No inference can be drawn from a bill upon which the Legislature took no action.” (Id.) Here, inference is clear: the legislative record shows one of the original rationales for the introduction of the TAA was to regulate personal managers. The profession was only excluded from the Act’s provision after being included in four drafts of the Bill. As Justice David G. Sills wrote in Halbert’s Lumber, supra 6 Cal.App.4th at 1238:

“It is the language of the statute itself that has successfully braved the legislative gauntlet. It is that language that has been lobbied for, lobbied against, studied, proposed, drafted, restudied, redrafted, voted on in committee, amended, re-amended, analyzed reanalyzed, voted on by two houses of the Legislature, sent to a conference committee, and after perhaps more lobbying, debate and analysis, finally signed ‘into law’ by the Governor.”

Here, the State clearly and expressly considered and chose to exclude personal managers from the precepts of the Talent Agencies Act. Neither the words nor indeed the occupation remained in the Act’s final, enacted form. In that light, that after the proposals, studies, committees, analyzing, reanalyzing, and then more lobbying, debate and analysis, all reference to personal managers were removed from both the name and contents of the Talent Agencies Act. For a personal manager to later be compromised by the Act must be considered an unintended result.

=== And that, Broughcut, is that. Yet as much as I have been compromised, I recognize that I try to pay only the taxes I need to pay, so until the Court corrects the problem, if not paying me is legal, I must be mad at the system, not those who take advantage of it.

Rick, when do you expect a resolution on this?

Happy new year, etc.

So things are looking up - recently got representation (with CAA no less, WOOHOO!!! - and the best part, they headhunted me!) and have a couple of entertainment lawyers and managers talking to me too. Jerry Bruckheimer apparently wants to meet me. Fuck. I still can’t afford to pay my goddamn rent though, so I’m “grounded” :)

So I have a manager flying over to meet me next thursday, and this whole thread has made me a little nervous. The thing is, I think I want a manager. I think I like the idea. Money isn’t the issue. 10 or 15% - whatever. It’s worth it if I have one of those “career” things I keep hearing people talking about… If I was in it for the money then I wouldn’t be doing this in the first place.

The things that concern me are conflict of interest, and… well… I’m not sure what else really…

The guy I’m meeting sounds totally cool, (talked to him a bunch of times on the phone, my spider sense didn’t go off) is pretty well connected, and I’ve yet to hear anyone say a bad word about him. He also represents the writer of the two best scripts I’ve read since I started being sent scripts (about 30 so far) and his company have produced adaptations of two of my favourite books of all time. I’m still trying to figure out the drawbacks, because it sounds pretty good to me.

My agents say I don’t strictly need a manager, but it could help quite a bit.

Err… so do I need a manager?

And what are the questions I should be asking him?

Cheers in advance, Ruairi Robinson

Yeesh, was that tumbleweed?

Guess I missed the boat on this thread, or I’m boring as all hell. Meeting him today anyway. Thanks for all the helpful advice.

E.

…”lying, conniving�I don�t care. All fair game”. Craig this is from your mission statement, so I can see why you agree with talent not paying their managers when commissions are due.

Mr. Mazin,

You think the way the entertainment business is, is fine and well? Well just last week it was reported that for the sixth consecutive week US film box office receipts have dropped as opposed to the same time last year. The dirty little “secret” here is that due to the narrow concentration of power in the entertainment business, vis. “The big five” - WMA, CAA, ICM, ITA and Endeavor we have seen a gradual but definite decline in the product we see on screen. It’s the packaging stupid! Packaging has succeeded in destroying the quality of American film over the past thirty years. As long as you can convince the Ovitzes of your world that you are a good writer, you will make millions and if that Ovitzian powerhouse is a dope, and they usually are, we the public are stuck with watching garbage. Exhibit A here is Joe Eszterhas, who Ovitz picked from a Cleveland newspaper as the backbone of his packaging extravaganza. Nice brainstorm Mike! Why shouldn’t a reporter make a top notch screewriter? Let’s go to the videotape: Fist, Flashdance, Showgirls, Basic Instinct 1,2 and 3? God forbid! Excuse me a moment. After reading this list I’m a bit nauseous. No, I think Mr. Mazin, you should have an opportunity to write whatever and as much as your mind and fingers will allow you. But concentrating the power to produce works of art: writing and acting in the greedy hands of a few, has destroyed American film and a little thing like internet competition has ensured Hollywood’s demise financially. Under the present system, you and your elitist priveleged handful will be the true extinct dodos. Open up the competition, now!

So…the answer is to give managers all the rights of the evil Hollywood-destroying agents?

no. the answer is to follow the precepts that the Talent Agencies Act was originally founded upon. If agents are prohibited from packaging and managers are prohibited from employing their clients (BGE’s both representing and employing Jim Belushi, David Chase and Bill Maher, for example) that would go a long way towards solving these conflicts of interest. Allowing individual writers and actors to avoid paying their managers after they’ve benefitted from the labors is just letting greed and avarice triumph over fair play.

You have the great up-and-coming literary managment companies (Foursight, Energy, BenderSpink, Ripple Effect Management) and the major agencies (CAA, William Morris, ICM), but if I had to make a choice it would definitely be the agent or manager who understands what the movie-going audience wants to see. That’s why high-concept scripts rule over sub-standard material because you’re visualizing what the consumer will watch on a Friday night.