Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
Under the Talent Agencies Act it would be a conflict of interest...
California Labor Code section 1700.40;
|
Under the Talent Agencies Act it would be a conflict of interest...
California Labor Code section 1700.40;
Quote:
(b) No talent agency may refer an artist to any person, firm, or corporation in which the talent agency has a direct or indirect financial interest for other services to be rendered to the artist, including, but not limited to, photography, audition tapes, demonstration reels or similar materials, business management, personal management, coaching, dramatic school, casting or talent brochures, agency-client directories, or other printing.
(c) No talent agency may accept any referral fee or similar compensation from any person, association, or corporation providing services of any type expressly set forth in subdivision (b) to an artist under contract with the talent agency.
|
I interpret these clauses differently. The clauses forbid a talent agency to refer the talent they represent to any business which they have a financial interest in. Their examples are of businesses that the talent pays for services rendered TO them NOT businesses for which the talent provides its services to. What the law prevents is a talent agency sending a client to a photography studio they own to get head shots taken.
In the case of Manwin owning a talent agency - when Manwin sends one of their talent to a Manwin production company the purpose is for the talent to provide services and get paid for those services - totally different than what those clauses speak to.
Now if Manwin owns all or part of an STD testing facility and a talent agency, that clause forbids them to send their talent to their own testing facility.