Opinion ID: 2519626
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Talent Agencies Act

Text: Aside from guild regulation, the representation of artists is principally governed by the Act. (§§ 1700-1700.47.) The Act's roots extend back to 1913, when the Legislature passed the Private Employment Agencies Law and imposed the first licensing requirements for employment agents. ( Buchwald v. Superior Court (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 347, 357, 62 Cal. Rptr. 364; Talent Agencies Act, supra, 28 Pepperdine L.Rev. at p. 387; Regulation of Attorneys, supra, 80 Cal. L.Rev. at p. 493.) From an early time, the Legislature was concerned that those representing aspiring artists might take advantage of them, whether by concealing conflicts of interest when agents split fees with the venues where they booked their clients, or by sending clients to houses of ill-repute under the guise of providing employment opportunities. (See Stats.1913, ch. 282, § 14, pp. 519-520 [prohibiting agents from fee-splitting, sending artists to house[s] of ill fame or saloons, or allowing persons of bad character to frequent their establishments]; Talent Agencies Act, at pp. 386-387; Regulation of Attorneys, at p. 493.) Exploitation of artists by representatives has remained the Act's central concern through subsequent incarnations to the present day. (See Styne v. Stevens, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 50, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 14, 26 P.3d 343.) In 1978, the Legislature considered establishing a separate licensing scheme for personal managers. (See Assem. Bill No. 2535 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 1, 1978, § 41; Assem. Com. on Labor, Employment & Consumer Affairs, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2535 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 1, 1978, pp. 1-4; Entertainment Com. Rep., supra, at p. 8.) `Unable to reach agreement, the Legislature eventually abandoned separate licensing of personal managers and settled for minor changes in the statutory regime, shifting regulation of musician booking agents to the Labor Commissioner and renaming the Artists' Managers Act the Talent Agencies Act. (Stats.1978, ch. 1382, pp. 4575-4583.) In 1982, the Legislature provisionally amended the Act to impose a one-year statute of limitations, eliminate criminal sanctions for violations of the Act, and establish a safe harbor for managers to procure employment if they did so in conjunction with a licensed agent. (Former § 1700.44, as enacted by Stats.1982, ch. 682, § 3, p. 2815; Entertainment Com. Rep., supra, at pp. 8, 38-39.) It subjected these changes to a sunset provision and established the 10-person California Entertainment Commission (Entertainment Commission), consisting of agents, managers, artists, and the Labor Commissioner, to evaluate the Act and recommend to the Legislature a model bill. (Former §§ 1701-1704, added by Stats.1982, ch. 682, § 6, p. 2816, repealed by its own terms, Jan. 1, 1986.) In 1986, after receiving the Entertainment Commission Report, the Legislature adopted its recommendations, which included making the 1982 changes permanent and enacting a modest series of other changes. (Stats. 1986, ch. 488, pp. 1804-1808; Entertainment Com. Rep., at pp. 22-34; Sen. Com. on Industrial Relations, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 3649 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr, 15, 1986, p. 5 [bill would implement Entertainment Commission's recommendations in full].) So the Act has stood, with minor modifications, for the last 20 years. In its present incarnation, the Act requires anyone who solicits or procures artistic employment or engagements for artists [3] to obtain a talent agency license. (§§ 1700.4, 1700.5.) In turn, the Act establishes detailed requirements for how licensed talent agencies conduct their business, including a code of conduct, submission of contracts and fee schedules to the state, maintenance of a client trust account, posting of a bond, and prohibitions against discrimination, kickbacks, and certain conflicts of interest. (§§ 1700.23-1700.47.) No separate analogous licensing or regulatory scheme extends to personal managers. ( Waisbren v. Peppercorn Productions, Inc., supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 252, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 437.) With this background in mind, we turn to two questions not previously addressed by this court: whether the Act in fact applies to personal managers, as the Courts of Appeal and Labor Commissioner have long assumed, and if so, how.