Update: My Amicus Curiae Letter
As luck would have it, a decision came down from a case which was appealed (Blasi vs. Marathon Ent.) that questioned the very nature of the Talent Agent Act (TAA) just prior to our hearing scheduled for July 13th in front of the Labor Commissioner. The decision said that the courts should apply "severability." In other words, if it was shown that I procured just one job, then I would have to return the commissions for that one job only; not for the entire year as it had been previously applied. Since the law is up in the air, Silva/King/Cho decided to drop the case probably because of the possibility that the amount they might recover could be severely diminshed. Next step for Margaret and I is a mediation to try to come to an agreement as to how to dissolve our Corporation.
What is happening now regarding the TAA is that the Blasi vs. Marathon decision has been appealed by both sides to the California Supreme Court which is deciding whether or not to hear the case. Marathon, the management company, is trying to get the Court to say that it's unconstitutional for personal managers to be insinuated into the Talent Agent Act (TAA) altogether. Blasi (Rosa), an actress on a TV series called Strong Medicine, wants it back to where it was before, as a draconian punitive law in which a talent can retrieve all monies paid to her/his personal manager if it can be shown that the personal manager solicited or procured just one job as well as escape the obligation to pay commissions. Many people wrote letters to petition the Court to hear the case. Along with many of those letters, updates and discussions on the subject, decidedly one-sided, can be found here.
Here is the letter I wrote to the California Supreme Court. It is an exciting, once in a lifetime opportunity, to actually be a part of the shaping of the rules that will govern the entertainment industry from now on. A silver lining of sorts; that the situation I am in might be used for good.
August 24, 2006
Office of the Clerk
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: Marathon Entertainment v Blasi B179819
To the Jurists of the California Supreme Court,
My name is Karen Taussig. I have been in the entertainment business since 1985. I owned a licensed talent agency until 1997 at which point I dropped the license in order to become a personal manager. Last year the TAA was used against me in a complaint filed with the Labor Commissioner. Here’s my story in two parts as it relates to the TAA.
Part I: “Why didn’t you keep your license?”
As a licensed talent agent, I discovered, nurtured, and developed many stand-up comedians. I was able to help them get enough work to make a living as well as give them the experience they needed to develop and showcase their material. I was particularly drawn to the power of and the automatic following for a strong non-traditional (i.e. female, glbt, or minority) comedic voice. My clients would include the first female Asian-American and the first Latina to star in their own respective sitcoms as well as the first Latino to do stand-up on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and the first Hispanic MTV VJ, both of whom also had network talent deals.
As some of my clients became more and more successful, I thought it wise to drop my agent’s license and become a personal manager for many reasons. Among them, I had been doing many of the duties attributed to a personal manager anyway and I was either unable or perceived to be unable to compete with or provide the opportunities the large agencies were promising some of my clients (i.e. access to major casting directors; consideration for agency packages, etc.). This seemed like the logical next step in building a team on my clients’ behalf.
It also became apparent that in order to protect my clients’ visions, I would have to become involved in producing their projects which, as a talent agent, I would not be able to do. After the sitcoms were canceled and the talent deals went nowhere, we realized that the network system was not ready with non-traditional writers and producers for my non-traditional talent. In each case, the talent’s vision and voice became compromised. In order to protect that vision, I dedicated myself to helping my clients produce their own projects. I even ended up theatrically distributing the aforementioned concert film myself after it was passed on by every indie film and distribution company. I’m The One That I Want went on to make more money per print than any movie in history and, along with 3 other concert films, has been doing very well on cable and home video.
I do not believe I would have had the flexibility to provide my uniquely talented clients with what they needed had I not been able to become their personal manager; identify myself as such; or continued to hold my talent agent’s license.
Part II: Use of the TAA (aka “plan B” and “the nuclear option”) as a sword.
In my case, the TAA was used to try to intimidate me into accepting what I deemed to be an unfavorable allocation of the assets of the company that my ex and I owned together. In addition, I was owed commissions.
These are three exact quotes from my ex-client's attorneys:
They didn't even know whether or not I "violated the act!" The fact that I had been a talent agent and was thus most likely aware of the rules and that my ex-client had the same William Morris agent throughout didn’t even slow them down from invoking the dreaded and Draconian “Act.” I think they figured that every manager has probably violated the act and if that proves to be the case, as it was threatened, the consequences (i.e. having to return all commissions) would indeed be severe.
After countless stressful hours and tens of thousands of dollars spent in preparation for the upcoming hearing, the prospect of severability (thanks to the Marathon decision) was enough for them to drop the complaint for the time being. Many of the “incidents” in which I was accused of acting as a talent agent were unpaid appearances at non-profits like GLAAD, the ACLU and NOW, that presented my ex with awards for her activism. By the way, is that procurement? Is that something an agent should have to do?
In Conclusion
To me, it seems that something is really wrong if a "law" can be used in this way. When I went to a luncheon at The Beverly Hills Bar Association on the TAA, attorneys who had represented both sides just seemed giddy at the income potential from the poor managers who had to pay out the nose to hold onto what they earned and the ex-clients willing to gamble attorney's fees for the possibility of getting away with not only not having to pay commissions owed but actually getting back everything they paid the previous year!
I am writing this letter against my attorney’s advice because I am still in the middle of a dispute and I think they are afraid something I say here will be used against me in the litigation. I hope you review this law and see that its application to personal managers may be having a deleterious effect on the very people it was supposed to protect – the talent. By giving the power to procure only to those with an agency license, the powerful are being imbued with even more power at the expense of the independent voices. I don’t know if it’s coincidence or not but I am seeing far less voices that challenge the status quo being developed and diversity in network sitcoms is at a decade low. I, for one, am unlikely to return to this profession, for which I am most passionate; unless and until I know I am not in jeopardy under this law.
Please use this letter to add my voice of support to Marathon Entertainment’s petition to review the applicability of the rules and regulations of the Talent Agencies Act.
Thank you.
Karen Taussig
What is happening now regarding the TAA is that the Blasi vs. Marathon decision has been appealed by both sides to the California Supreme Court which is deciding whether or not to hear the case. Marathon, the management company, is trying to get the Court to say that it's unconstitutional for personal managers to be insinuated into the Talent Agent Act (TAA) altogether. Blasi (Rosa), an actress on a TV series called Strong Medicine, wants it back to where it was before, as a draconian punitive law in which a talent can retrieve all monies paid to her/his personal manager if it can be shown that the personal manager solicited or procured just one job as well as escape the obligation to pay commissions. Many people wrote letters to petition the Court to hear the case. Along with many of those letters, updates and discussions on the subject, decidedly one-sided, can be found here.
Here is the letter I wrote to the California Supreme Court. It is an exciting, once in a lifetime opportunity, to actually be a part of the shaping of the rules that will govern the entertainment industry from now on. A silver lining of sorts; that the situation I am in might be used for good.
August 24, 2006
Office of the Clerk
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: Marathon Entertainment v Blasi B179819
To the Jurists of the California Supreme Court,
My name is Karen Taussig. I have been in the entertainment business since 1985. I owned a licensed talent agency until 1997 at which point I dropped the license in order to become a personal manager. Last year the TAA was used against me in a complaint filed with the Labor Commissioner. Here’s my story in two parts as it relates to the TAA.
Part I: “Why didn’t you keep your license?”
As a licensed talent agent, I discovered, nurtured, and developed many stand-up comedians. I was able to help them get enough work to make a living as well as give them the experience they needed to develop and showcase their material. I was particularly drawn to the power of and the automatic following for a strong non-traditional (i.e. female, glbt, or minority) comedic voice. My clients would include the first female Asian-American and the first Latina to star in their own respective sitcoms as well as the first Latino to do stand-up on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and the first Hispanic MTV VJ, both of whom also had network talent deals.
As some of my clients became more and more successful, I thought it wise to drop my agent’s license and become a personal manager for many reasons. Among them, I had been doing many of the duties attributed to a personal manager anyway and I was either unable or perceived to be unable to compete with or provide the opportunities the large agencies were promising some of my clients (i.e. access to major casting directors; consideration for agency packages, etc.). This seemed like the logical next step in building a team on my clients’ behalf.
A television critic asked me, “Ms. Cho, isn’t it true that the
network told you to lose weight to play the part of yourself
on your own TV show?” – Margaret Cho, I’m The One That
I Want, Cho Taussig Productions, 2000.
It also became apparent that in order to protect my clients’ visions, I would have to become involved in producing their projects which, as a talent agent, I would not be able to do. After the sitcoms were canceled and the talent deals went nowhere, we realized that the network system was not ready with non-traditional writers and producers for my non-traditional talent. In each case, the talent’s vision and voice became compromised. In order to protect that vision, I dedicated myself to helping my clients produce their own projects. I even ended up theatrically distributing the aforementioned concert film myself after it was passed on by every indie film and distribution company. I’m The One That I Want went on to make more money per print than any movie in history and, along with 3 other concert films, has been doing very well on cable and home video.
I do not believe I would have had the flexibility to provide my uniquely talented clients with what they needed had I not been able to become their personal manager; identify myself as such; or continued to hold my talent agent’s license.
Part II: Use of the TAA (aka “plan B” and “the nuclear option”) as a sword.
We also recognize the legislature did not intend the Act to
be used as a sword to preclude representatives from their
earned commissions. - David Gurley for the Labor
Commissioner in the Determination of Controversy in
Jewel Kilcher vs. Inga Vainshtein (TAC 02-99)
In my case, the TAA was used to try to intimidate me into accepting what I deemed to be an unfavorable allocation of the assets of the company that my ex and I owned together. In addition, I was owed commissions.
These are three exact quotes from my ex-client's attorneys:
Accordingly, if our investigation concludes that you procured or negotiated even one engagement, [ex-client] would be entitled to demand that you account for and repay any and all commissions, fees, and other monies that you have received since October 2004 from or with respect to her. You would also be barred from recovering any monies from [ex-client], no matter when you received them.
As such, [attorney] and [ex-client] are now ready to move forward with what they are calling the "nuclear option": filing a complaint with the California Labor Commission regarding your booking activities on behalf of [ex-client] without a license. As you know, the consequences will be severe.
Perhaps my willingness to listen conveyed an ambiguous message to you. The negotiations are over, Karen. Please tell me to write it up or go to Plan B [filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner].
They didn't even know whether or not I "violated the act!" The fact that I had been a talent agent and was thus most likely aware of the rules and that my ex-client had the same William Morris agent throughout didn’t even slow them down from invoking the dreaded and Draconian “Act.” I think they figured that every manager has probably violated the act and if that proves to be the case, as it was threatened, the consequences (i.e. having to return all commissions) would indeed be severe.
After countless stressful hours and tens of thousands of dollars spent in preparation for the upcoming hearing, the prospect of severability (thanks to the Marathon decision) was enough for them to drop the complaint for the time being. Many of the “incidents” in which I was accused of acting as a talent agent were unpaid appearances at non-profits like GLAAD, the ACLU and NOW, that presented my ex with awards for her activism. By the way, is that procurement? Is that something an agent should have to do?
In Conclusion
To me, it seems that something is really wrong if a "law" can be used in this way. When I went to a luncheon at The Beverly Hills Bar Association on the TAA, attorneys who had represented both sides just seemed giddy at the income potential from the poor managers who had to pay out the nose to hold onto what they earned and the ex-clients willing to gamble attorney's fees for the possibility of getting away with not only not having to pay commissions owed but actually getting back everything they paid the previous year!
I am writing this letter against my attorney’s advice because I am still in the middle of a dispute and I think they are afraid something I say here will be used against me in the litigation. I hope you review this law and see that its application to personal managers may be having a deleterious effect on the very people it was supposed to protect – the talent. By giving the power to procure only to those with an agency license, the powerful are being imbued with even more power at the expense of the independent voices. I don’t know if it’s coincidence or not but I am seeing far less voices that challenge the status quo being developed and diversity in network sitcoms is at a decade low. I, for one, am unlikely to return to this profession, for which I am most passionate; unless and until I know I am not in jeopardy under this law.
Please use this letter to add my voice of support to Marathon Entertainment’s petition to review the applicability of the rules and regulations of the Talent Agencies Act.
Thank you.
Karen Taussig
posted by Karen at 9:37 AM
<< Home