Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutt
the 'including, but not limited to' language pertains to other similar services talent may need to pay for - they listed a bunch. i think your interpretation is wrong.
and like MaDalton said, producers hate it when they lose a booking already scheduled because a higher paid job comes in after - the agency who cares about its' customers will honor the first booking.
|
Well thats unfortunate for the producer but the agent doesnt represent producers they represent talent and owe a legal duty to them.
As for your argument, let me assure you that its not only my interpretation of the law its actually how the Labor Commissioner in California feels about the issue.
I have had several discussions with Commissioner Garcia-Earley (presently she is the Commissioner that authors the significant talent agency legal decisions in California -
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DLSE-TACs.htm ) about this issue as well as other questionable behavior of agents in California such as fines, kills fees, the cashing of performer's checks ect...
Her position is that anything an agent does that violates or undermines the fiduciary duty owed to the talent is violation of the Talent Agencies Act.
Anyone that has a question about a certain practice can write to her and ask for an advisory letter. When she has time she will issue a public letter stating the DLSE position on a particular practice...
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/OpinionLetters-bySubject.htm