Has anyone ever been sued?

[orbb]

is anyone here actually working with any bands who could possibly afford a lawyer?

Ha!! Great point. I get calls all the time from people all hopped up to sue, and when I tell them my rate, their enthusiasm disappears quickly.

[drewbass]

hi orbb,
why are you quoting ucc? this is strictly personal services.
you must remember gibson v. cranage- what does that case tell us?
drew

[Professor]

Orbb, thanks for the input. I didn't even know we had a workin' lawyer on-board.
Now I have to be more careful about what I say.
Really though, it helps a lot to see what the actual perspective could be from that end. Of course, I still think that we can basically ignore these issues from studio sessions, because that's a controlled environment and if we screw something up then we can always go back in for another pass, or offer up some makeup studio time as a warranty.
From the description of that original TV Show deal, it sounded like it was a videographer at a live, one-time-only event. And that's where my curiosity is pulling me. What would the liability be if I show up at somebody's performance, and I screw up and lose the performance recording? or the wedding photos? or the Bar Mitzvah video? or whatever. Yeah, a poor rock band might not sue, but an angry mother-in-law might, and there's always some lawyer out there hungry enough to take a $25k service liability case, isn't there?

I don't mean to scare anyone. But I do want to consider whether something like this could be a possibility. I don't know if people sue photographers for failing to make their ugly children beautiful, or their tone-deaf trophy-wives rockstars, but I could see someone suing for lost wedding photos.

-Jeremy

[Fletcher]

I got sued once by a studio owner who told me I couldn't work in his studio anymore [I had done a July 4th weekend/3 day booking without an assistant from the studio and there were beer cans and pizza boxes all over the place... we blew up an Auratone and an NS-10 and the studio owner wanted me to A) pay for the speakers and B) clean his studio from top to bottom after I sold 50+ hours for him on a holiday weekend with no assistant... and told him to go fuck his mother].

When he told me I couldn't work in his studio anymore I had over 200 hours of time booked which I took with me to the next studio where I was allowed to work. The studio owner sued me for "stealing" clients from his studio [they had booked time at the facility because they wanted to work with me, and that was where I was working at the time... when he said I couldn't work there anymore I called my clients and told them about the change of venue].

I counter sued for the days I missed work because I had to juggle my schedule and couldn't work because I had to office bullshit rather than making records. The studio owner sued me for $8,000- [$40/hr. x 200] and I counter sued for $2,000 [40 hours of missed work at $50/hr., my current rate].

The judge heard the evidence... made me pay for the fried Auratone and NS-10 then awarded me the $2k in lost revenue from the missed work time. He reasoned that if the studio owner hadn't thrown me out then the work [that I brought in the door in the first place] would have been happy to stay there... but that I really shouldn't have blown the speakers [the NS-10's weren't fused properly, the Auratone I blew plugging into the output of a 50w Marshall]... bottom line, I walked out with a little over $1,800 and the studio owner didn't talk to me for 5 or 6 years [win/win from my perspective!!].

Only time I've ever been sued... I hope its the last, or if it happens again I hope its as much bullshit as it was that time.

[orbb]

hi orbb,
why are you quoting ucc? this is strictly personal services.
you must remember gibson v. cranage- what does that case tell us?
drew

As I stated in my post it was an A N A L O G Y. I didn't say it was applicable, but it sets a general implied warranty standard.

However, if you walk out with tape or a disc, there is some sale of product, although it is 98% services.

Give me a cite, I'll look at the Gibson case.

[Professor]

I thought this seemed somehow relevant - I'll explain why after...

MIAMI (AP) - Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author who posted what he considers a defamatory paragraph about him on the Internet reference site Wikipedia.
Zoeller's attorney, Scott D. Sheftall, said he filed the lawsuit against a Miami firm last week because the law won't allow him to sue St. Petersburg-based Wikipedia. The suit alleges someone used a computer at Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami education consulting firm, to add the information to Zoeller's Wikipedia profile.
"Courts have clearly said you have to go after the source of the information," Sheftall said. "The Zoeller family wants to take a stand to put a stop to this. Otherwise, we're all just victims of the Internet vandals out there. They ought not to be able to act with impunity."
Wikipedia, which describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," leaves it to a vast user community to catch factual errors and other problems.
The paragraph in question has been removed, but the information has been picked up by other Web sites. The lawsuit said it alleged Zoeller abused drugs, alcohol and his family with no evidence to back up the statements. The derogatory information was first added in August 2006.
According to the lawsuit, the profile was last "vandalized" on Dec. 20 from a computer with an Internet address assigned to Josef Silny & Associates.
Josef Silny was shocked to learn his company was targeted in the lawsuit."I can't imagine anybody doing that," Silny said. "This is completely out of left field."
He has asked his computer consultant to investigate the complaint.
...
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said no one has contacted the site about the lawsuit. He said volunteer editors are aggressive about cleaning up inaccuracies reported to the site.
"We try to police it pretty closely, but people do misbehave on the Internet," Wales said.

Several folks have mentioned that they figured lawsuits by clients wouldn't stand up because they can't sue us for failure to fix bad performances, or that the bands would just be too poor to hire a lawyer. Then I read this, and I imagine someone in the band sitting at computer during a dinner break, checking his MySpace page, uploading the video stuff to YouTube, tapping out a few notes on the ol' blogs, maybe even visiting TapeOp. And then a month later, some pro athlete has his $250k-per-year lawyer suing for libel or defamation of character or something because something on the blogs turned into "internet news".
Honestly, I don't mean to be scare-mongering, though I guess I might be a little. And I certainly haven't changed any of my policies lately. But I recognize that we are living in a sue-happy world where often times, it doesn't matter what is "right" or what "makes sense", only who hires the more expensive lawyer first. I like to think that I have some protection because I have a big, bad, university legal department that would defend me, but I have to be realistic and figure that they would much rather hang me out to dry if it seemed like the most cost-effective measure, or the best way to avoid media attention. Actually, as I'm sitting here thinking about it, I guess there's a big, bad, employee code book that is piled deep enough that none of us can make it through the day without violating one or a dozen different rules, so I imagine the choice would probably be 'fire first, figured things out later'.
Oh well.
Here's to hoping all those students don't sue me if their audition disc doesn't get them into the right grad school.

-Jeremy

[orbb]

I thought this seemed somehow relevant - I'll explain why after...

MIAMI (AP) - Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author who posted what he considers a defamatory paragraph about him on the Internet reference site Wikipedia.
Zoeller's attorney, Scott D. Sheftall, said he filed the lawsuit against a Miami firm last week because the law won't allow him to sue St. Petersburg-based Wikipedia. The suit alleges someone used a computer at Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami education consulting firm, to add the information to Zoeller's Wikipedia profile.
"Courts have clearly said you have to go after the source of the information," Sheftall said. "The Zoeller family wants to take a stand to put a stop to this. Otherwise, we're all just victims of the Internet vandals out there. They ought not to be able to act with impunity."
Wikipedia, which describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," leaves it to a vast user community to catch factual errors and other problems.
The paragraph in question has been removed, but the information has been picked up by other Web sites. The lawsuit said it alleged Zoeller abused drugs, alcohol and his family with no evidence to back up the statements. The derogatory information was first added in August 2006.
According to the lawsuit, the profile was last "vandalized" on Dec. 20 from a computer with an Internet address assigned to Josef Silny & Associates.
Josef Silny was shocked to learn his company was targeted in the lawsuit."I can't imagine anybody doing that," Silny said. "This is completely out of left field."
He has asked his computer consultant to investigate the complaint.
...
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said no one has contacted the site about the lawsuit. He said volunteer editors are aggressive about cleaning up inaccuracies reported to the site.
"We try to police it pretty closely, but people do misbehave on the Internet," Wales said.

Several folks have mentioned that they figured lawsuits by clients wouldn't stand up because they can't sue us for failure to fix bad performances, or that the bands would just be too poor to hire a lawyer. Then I read this, and I imagine someone in the band sitting at computer during a dinner break, checking his MySpace page, uploading the video stuff to YouTube, tapping out a few notes on the ol' blogs, maybe even visiting TapeOp. And then a month later, some pro athlete has his $250k-per-year lawyer suing for libel or defamation of character or something because something on the blogs turned into "internet news".
Honestly, I don't mean to be scare-mongering, though I guess I might be a little. And I certainly haven't changed any of my policies lately. But I recognize that we are living in a sue-happy world where often times, it doesn't matter what is "right" or what "makes sense", only who hires the more expensive lawyer first. I like to think that I have some protection because I have a big, bad, university legal department that would defend me, but I have to be realistic and figure that they would much rather hang me out to dry if it seemed like the most cost-effective measure, or the best way to avoid media attention. Actually, as I'm sitting here thinking about it, I guess there's a big, bad, employee code book that is piled deep enough that none of us can make it through the day without violating one or a dozen different rules, so I imagine the choice would probably be 'fire first, figured things out later'.
Oh well.
Here's to hoping all those students don't sue me if their audition disc doesn't get them into the right grad school.

-Jeremy

For the most part, Lawyers only sue people that they think they can get money from, especially if they are working on a contingency. We are not generally sue-happy; we are businessmen, and will sue if it will benefit the client's cause, but also if it makes economic sense to us. I get calls all the time from people who probably have a claim, but it doesn't make economic sense for them or me to file a lawsuit. They are horrendously expensive.

So if I client came to me to sue you over a bad recording, I would ask myself a series of questions, such as:

1) Is there a cause of action, or is this a difference of opinion?
2) What are the damages? It would not likely be be the profits from the album that was supposed to be Rumors, it would be the cost of re-recording, or remixing.
3) Even if I did sue you, do you have any money to pay a judgment? I'm not doing the client much good if I get him a judgment and you wipe it out immediately in bankruptcy, or have no money to pay it.

Most people think lawyers are like tornadoes - we randomly go about, destroying things. That's not the case, for the most part. It's much more logical and goal driven. If the goal can't be reached, then we will generally tell the client up front and not take the case.

[Professor]

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the lawyers are the ones who are sue-happy. It's the people who hire the lawyers who are. And I have no doubt that most good lawyers would turn down things that seem frivolous, impossible to win, or not profitable. But I have to figure there is always someone out there hungry enough to give it a try.

But thanks for the info.

-Jeremy

[joelpatterson]

The thinking man's tornado!

[lunatic]

is anyone here actually working with any bands who could possibly afford a lawyer?

YES! Kind of. We have a client, an Americana Rock Band, and the lead singer and song writer is a lawyer. Good thing he likes our work. The even better thing is that they pay on time.

[Mark Alan Miller]

I've recorded several bands with lawyers in them. One even was a group of four of 'em! (IIRC)