anonymous asked:

i feel a little bad that u believe in larry tbh... it's illegal for a managing company (like modest) to make a client of theirs do something based on their orientation, such as having a "beard". Also, if you love one direction so much, why can't you trust them when they say they are in a happy relationship? : /

Dear anon,

may I please introduce myself. I am Kat, I have a background in law and public policy, I do research and advocacy, and I started a blog (or two, three) a few years ago because I am also passionate about social justice. Since then I have been arguing that bisexuals are real (yes, having a male partner and a kid doesn’t make you straight), and so is Larry (yes, Louis and Harry are engaged to be married and have been forcefully closeted by their management company). I am in a generous mood today so I will summarize my arguments and help you find the most important stuff in the posts that I did tag. I apologize for having been messy with them

1. It SHOULD be illegal for a managing company to make a client of theirs do something based on their orientation and as a human rights lawyer, I have made the argument plenty of times (eg here) that the boys may have a case against Modest, BUT, it probably IS in their contracts anyway because, you know, contract law and the entertainment business aren’t very fair and the most powerful player will always abuse their power, so all they could do was go through lengthy procedures which would have killed their career OR sit out the ride with as little cooperation as possible. And the latter is what they did. They got the support of a more powerful player than Modest (Irving Azoff) and fought the battle indoors. Smart move. All of that in my (very incomplete) contracts tag

2. On the reasons we “cannot trust” @Louis_Tomlinson when he says he is in a happy relationship with Eleanor, I am sure that argument has been made much better by others than it has been by me. But in essence 1. Celebrities do not control their own twitter, their PR does because a lot of people’s wages and revenue depend on their public image 2. The entertainment industry, and people in it, will lie to you, they are not your friend, they are selling you a product and they will tell you whatever is needed to sell that product to you 3. I do not necessarily believe that Louis and Harry are the kind of entertainers who would do anything to sell their product to me and lying about their sexuality is - in my opinion - not something they like doing for it. I think they would much prefer not to. And this is exactly why I love them: because they have done strictly what they ahd to by contract, but did not cave to the pressure to conform. I find that inspiring as an LGBTQ person. 4. And when you are actively being closeted by your management company, you will be required to lie or misrepresent the truth. The fact that Louis is lying to me when he represents Eleanor as his girlfriend in interviews does not mean that Louis is not trustworthy as a person, or that he is not worthy of my love. Citing from this post here : “People’s motivations depend on the context. We see a guy who is confident and comfortable and trying to be truthful in most contexts and that knowledge makes it difficult to imagine that he would be uncomfortable/deliberately lying in another context. I don’t think that’s so farfetched though.” The simple motivation to Louis’ lying being: he is contractually obliged to do so. And one more thing about the closet, because it is important to me, a lot of people like to blame the person in the closet for lying, but you have to remember no one goes to hide in a closet because they are lying cowards. No one. Everyone who breaks out of it though is a fucking amazingly brave person. Please remember that in the months to come.

It has been a pleasure, anon, I hope you read all the links and visit again.

Yours sincerely


PS = note to self - I think it’s time I updated my blog with decent tags and a tags page if someone is still trying to convince me with these arguments.

allesisterleuchtet replied to your post: anonymous asked:I still dont unde…

fyi Azoff MSG is all in one so yes, also label. And I agree - manufactured via XFactor/SiCo may be a factor for many to separate them from ‘real’ bands, ‘real’ music - it’s not the pop genre per se. Going to be very difficult though.

I have a few questions then. Please bear with me.

I’m going to refer to this post, and in particular to the last comment written by lourryetc, which I found very helpful, because I understand nothing about business. (So, thank you.)

“It is in Sony’s best interest to make that selling price - those future cash flows - as small as virtually possible. If they state that 1D will continue into the future, they have to include those cash flows into their analysis and that would increase their selling price by two or three times. It’s in their best interest to tell Syco that they expect 1D to fade away. That does not mean that is theiractual business plan […] and thus they don’t have to pay as much, and they get 1D at a much lower price.”

[…] “Now, once they have 1D under their control, which this proposal states happened on APRIL 1ST, it is in Sony’s best interest to get in 1D’s graces. They want this band to continue. I can’t think of a single reason why any record label would want to let them go. If the OT4 is inclined to quit, it is in Sony’s best interest to convince them otherwise. ”

My questions, as someone who knows NOTHING about business and music industry, are:

  • Since Azoff has both a management and a label, would 1D sign with him for both things?
  • Or did Sony manage to convince 1D to sign with them?
  • So would Azoff take over as their manager only?
  • Would sign with a record label and a management separately be safer?
  • Azoff, thanks to the connection to Billboard and People, seem to be invested in the band. In which role, at least right now?
  • The changes we’ve seen, are they a result of Sony and Azoff working together?  (It makes sense, if we take into consideration that all the interviews in which Harry went rogue were part of the promo of Four).
  • Does this mean that we’re watching a double transition period — on one hand, from Syco to Sony, and on the other hand, from Modest Management to Azoff?
  • Would Azoff be invested in the band, supposing that he is, unless he knew for sure it’s going to pay off in the end?

I’m going to add — I do think they’re trying to rebrand. I think they’re trying to build up Louis, Liam, and Niall’s names, to make them known to an older demographics, while letting Harry stay off the spotlight for a while. There are changes. Some things, now, MAKE SENSE. Finally. I think we needs to sit back and observe what’s going to happen now.

anonymous asked:

Hey, just a quick q about contracts in general! Can a mgmt team really prevent someone from coming out if they want to? They can definitely advise against it etc.. but isn't saying "oh no you can't come out" a human rights violation? Don't you think H&L would've come out already if they had wanted to? :C

This is an interesting question, actually.

Can a closeting provision (either explicit or implicit) be in a contract? Totally. Would a court uphold it? We don’t know yet! There’s no precedent for that kind of case (as far as I know?).

Do I think they would have come out already if they want to? Noooooooo. If they did, and Modest sued them, it could be an absolute nightmare. I don’t think this fandom understands how terrible lawsuits really are, especially when they involve as much money as this one would.

That said, if Harry and Louis have legal grounds to sue Modest when this is all said and done, and their claim is still timely, blah blah blah, and they’re willing to go through that process, and they WIN, it could have an enormous impact on…a lot of things in this world, really.

As soon as the news of Zayn’s leave was out, i started this hyphotesis post because i needed to understand what the hell had happened with Zayn’s label contract (everyone was sure Zayn’s leave was a confirm Modest contract has ended, but i didn’t understand why nobody was wondering about Syco’s contract) In the meantime we got the news of Zayn’s going solo and those articles in the Sun, so i think we have more hints to what likely happened. I apologize if there are other news i’m no aware of, that exclude some hypotheses, but i have still to check my dash of the last three days. In any case, that’s it

1) He left

   a) He already knew from some time

- He waited for Modest Contract to be over but had to pay to be out from the label contract

- He waited for Modest Contract to be over and he was out from the label contract on the condition he signed a different contract (edit: for a solo career)

    b) He already knew from a long time

- He waited for Modest Contract to be over and on September 2013 he signed a different label contract extension from the other boys, shorter than theirs.

- He waited for Modest Contract to be over and on November 2013 he signed a different label contract extension from the other boys, for a solo career under their label

    c) It was a last minute decision

- Coincidentally Modest’s contract was over and he had to pay to be out from the label contract

- Concidentally Modest’s contract was over and he was out from the label contract on the condition he signed a different contract (edit: for a solo career)

- He had to pay to be out from both contract

- He was out from both contracts on the consition he signed a different contract (edit: for a solo career)

2) He was fired

In any case, as usual, most shady boy band ever.


When Emily Brunner and Caitlin Turowski were hired by Jimmy John’s sandwich shop, prominent among their many employee orientation forms were noncompete agreements (NCAs) that they were required to sign. According to court documents, these agreements outlined when, where, how, and by extension, if they could work for “competing food establishments” — a category that, according to the NCA, included any “food service venue that derives 10 percent or more of its revenue from sandwiches, submarines or wraps.” If the competitor was within 3 square miles of any Jimmy John’s, Caitlin and Emily could not work there for a period of two years following their departure from the fast-food chain.

Companies like Jimmy John’s are forcing even low-level employees into outrageous contractual agreements

Watch on

Here’s the interview that’s the source of the gifsets going around today. I don’t hear Zayn say “on Friday.”

It’s still possible that the contract does end in April 2015, which would fit with OTRA tour dates, but I don’t think we have a firm basis for a date of resigning.

ryanlrussell asked:

How do you have the rights for your own books? Did you do the original contracts with the publisher so that you retained the rights or they reverted? Or did you do a distribution-only deal? Or maybe buy them back after a certain amount of time? All the books I've done for one publisher were traditional publisher-owned and royalties.

Mmm, let’s take this one bit at a time.

Assuming you’re talking about an original work by you, in your own universe, and not something licensed: 

You own the copyright. In such circumstances, your book is not “publisher-owned.” They have purchased (or let’s say “leased”) the rights from you to publish the book, in various forms, until the terms of the contract run out. The only exception to this rule is when you don’t own the copyright – when you’re doing something in someone else’s universe. (See “Work for hire” below.)

Now when you own the copyright in a work, you set up with the publisher, at the contract stage, exactly what rights you’re going to allow them to have. (Or else you later mutually emend an existing contract to take into account new ways to handle new situations, such as ebooks.)

The contract lays out what specific rights of publication the publisher is paying you your advance for – what regions and what forms of publication – and it’s assumed that those rights are theirs until the contract terminates, usually with the book going out of print and/or reverting. (It all depends on the contract. Also, different publishers and different regions revert in different ways. In the US reversion normally has to be specifically requested, and normally you can’t do this while the book is in print. In the UK it operates a little differently: reversion is assumed to have happened a while after a book falls out of print. Not sure of the timing… it’s been a while since this last happened to me.)

The contract negotiations are therefore a bit of a see-saw game, with each side trying to get or keep as much power over rights as it can, while still keeping the other side interested in participating. This is where having a good agent pays off, because there are endless rookie mistakes that an overeager self-negotiating writer can easily make that can be really bad for them down the road. The agent will say to the publisher things like, “You can have North American and UK print rights (or UK and Australia/New Zealand, or fill in the blank…) but we keep everything else.” Then that leaves you (or your agent’s foreign rights department) free to do your own deals elsewhere. (Rule 1: Never sell world rights to anything. Never, never, never, NEVER. This is what got under my skin about that Amtrak thing last year.) Or the agent can say to the publisher: “You can have audio rights but we’re keeping rights to film and graphic representations.” …Or one of a thousand other tweaks to whatever template contract you’ve been offered. (Rule 2: Never accept a template contract without having it looked over by a professional. These days in particular, first-time-out contracts are much more grabby in terms of rights than they used to be in the ancient day when I first broke into print and dinosaurs walked the Earth.)

At the end of the day, though, what rights you manage to keep in your contract will be a function of how much the publisher wants you and how much you want them. There is endless room for give and take in all kinds of areas, and no two contracts will be exactly alike – or should be – any more than any two writers are exactly alike. Some have more pull, some have less; some publishers are willing to give up more to get a given writer than they will give up for another one. Such is life.

…Now. If you are doing licensed work in someone else’s universe, then the situation is rather different. They own the copyright, not you, and so in all the most important ways they will be calling the shots. The only way you get to work in such a universe is by signing a contract that commits you to “work for hire” in one mode or another: you essentially become an employee working in someone’s (virtual) office, and you no more acquire ownership by doing that work than you acquire ownership in their office building. Normally your agent will attempt to compensate for you doing work in which you don’t have copyright by getting you the biggest advance possible, and (ideally) by getting you some royalties… something increasingly rare these days in work-for-hire land. But be qute clear: there is no shame in doing work for hire, any more than there is in writing for TV (and the two are very alike in many ways). If you want to do it, you find out how to get the most out of the situation, and then you go for it. Because in this business, if you don’t go where your heart takes you, you won’t go anywhere much. In my opinion.

…Anyone interested in this general topic in terms of how it can/will affect their own work will need to do a ton of research, as the field is in constant flux around us: but I strongly recommend going over to Kristine Katherine Rusch’s website and reading everything on it about contracts. Kris may not be a lawyer, but her experience on this subject as it affects writers in the here and now, especially independents, is damn nigh encyclopedic. 

Hope this helps.

12:50 Thursday| spent all morning sleeping and watching TV but now feeling slightly better. Time for a little contracts. I’m merging two subjects together so I get a better understanding of how to write a contract and what elements create the contract.
I love when my subjects overlap nicely

anonymous asked:

“maybe it wouldn’t be so crazy” I'm admitting that if they are capable to stop interacting in public to manipulate some fans perception maybe they would be capable of lying and covering other truths(and it wouldn't be too far fetched). It did happen in the past in other boybands. It's 2014 though and times have changed and I'm not sure their situation, if they were gay and in a relationship together, would require so many precautions. It's sad if it were true.--

–Plus, the boys don’t seem the types who would get themselves in such a big tangle of lies. But what do I know. (With“other certain extents”I meant bearding, lying etc and “different things” I meant them being in relationships with girls, them not being a couple etc)


The first half of your message is such a great point (and it’s really nice to see someone who’s clearly skeptical about Harry and Louis being the one to make the point). If they could go to great effort to influence public perception about the nature of Harry and Louis’s relationship in one way, why couldn’t they do the same, but in reverse? This is literally a billion-dollar brand we’re talking about, in an industry that’s built on lies and the manipulation of public perception. There is no reason to think the powers that be wouldn’t work very hard to protect a secret they think would jeopardize an incredibly profitable brand.

As for the “they don’t seem the types” argument – I think this fandom seriously underestimates the power of contract and seriously overestimates the power that the boys had when they first signed with Syco and Modest!. Remember, they only placed third on The X-Factor, and there hadn’t been a massively successful boy band in years. They were incredibly young, and desperate to have careers in the industry. They had virtually no power, and I’d guess they would have been willing to agree to a lot of provisions that might not have been their personal preferences. They would have had to be in order to have careers at all.

In this industry, it doesn’t matter very much what people seem the type to do, especially when we’re talking about their initial contract (I’m keeping a close eye on the changes between this tour and last and thinking about which power dynamics have changed). The entertainment industry covers up enormous amounts of truths (dude, Hollywood closeting often includes marriage and babies – don’t tell me that Elounor-level bearding is too much effort for a billion-dollar boy band), and people accept it without question because they don’t want to believe they’re being deceived. But they are.

Also! Not everybody is ready to be out of the closet! I think we’ve seen plenty of indications that Harry and Louis have both been pounding on the closet door at various points in time, but it’s completely possible that at least when they started their careers, they weren’t ready to be out to the whole world (and given the homophobia I’ve seen in some parts of this fandom, I certainly can’t blame them). If that’s the case, the last thing they need from their fans is condemnation of any lies in which they were complicit. Remember: staying closeted is not cowardice.

Finally, while it’s true that it’s 2014 and public perceptions of homosexuality are improving daily, the entertainment industry – especially the big moneymakers like One Direction – is still incredibly closeted. If Harry and Louis come out soon, I think it will be more attributable to their own need to be out of the closet than to any changes in society.

lapelosa said:

I think some of the gaps between intense periods have been very blatant, like Aug to Nov, and then in Feb it started up again. But it’s been more about continuous subtle working on people, with intense periods interspersed, and then cooling down again to keep people from getting too worked up too soon. I think of it like moving a glacier, constant incremental movements with occasional avalanches. And yes since Nov/Dec 2013.

(About this)

Yeah i agree. At the time i didn’t realize it might be a three months cycles, but the changes have always been there to me (me, Kat, Ed and Ceren had so many convos about this) and when i  read your three months cycles theory, and i saw May/August/November/February  i realized those months seemed recurrent, because i had started the little changes tag after November 2013 (as also Kat noticed in that post)  and the headlines masterpost on February 2014.

So, a three months cycles plan, starting November/December 2013 (when they likely signed the extension with Modest) , using subliminal persuasion, like Jess suggested.

Looking forward to see what will happen in May (if it was a one and a half years plan) and in November (if it was a two years plan). And “surprise”, also the speculation about the timing of the extension seems coming full circle.

Anyway, i love your analogy. Every time the movements are bigger and more powerful. Also like throwing a stone into the water, every time further, hence making more concentric circles. 

I just wanted people to get this info too. As I grew up in the nineties and the Stone Roses were a huge influence on The British scène of that time, I recognized the shirt - I also knew the documentary - but fourcryingoutloud is right: it is an interesting story in reference to 1D. Not necessarily because Louis meant this as a reference - Stone Roses are just a really cool band - like Joy Division etc, the other stuff he wears t-shirts of. But it’s significant in the sense that they had so much trouble with their management and contract that, by the time they got out of it, their ‘wave’ had passed. Pretty sure this story was at the back of my head when I wrote a post about why it would be wiser for Louis and Harry to sit out a three (or five) year contract with MM and then change managements rather than try to break free early, even if the conditions are homophobic and murdering. Legal trouble in cases like these can mean a dent in or the end of one’s career for all the wrong reasons.

fuzzypurplestuff asked:

On the subject of them making the choice to take the money. Yes, they signed the contract, but remember how clear that glass closet was for a very long time. I think the rules were changed on them. The way the contract was enforced was clearly changed in 2012.

Anon said:

For that anon: I’m sorry but no, I can’t blame them. Harry and Louis were 16 and 18 when they signed that contract, probably they didn’t understand what that would entail. Also I think they never really thought that it would ever go this far. I can’t blame two boys when their own management abused them. Not when I see how much they were miserable in these past years during their stunts. Not when they are fighting day after day. Nothing will ever justify what they’ve done to them. Nothing.

anonymous asked:

About kat's comment on niall's tweet, I don't really get it. what is a 360, and how does pertain to their label and Taylor, whoever that is?

Sorry anon for the delay (i missed a lot of messages lately)

As Kat’s said (suggesting also Azoff as advisor), and as Daylet speculated a long time ago with me here One Direction might sign a 360 deal with Syco.

In short, Syco along with the traditional services of a record label would also provide services as a publisher and merchandiser and in return would be paid a percentage of the income from other income sources. So, they would not need a management.

Anyway, to explain what a 360 deal is ( given that i’d hate to use a bad legal english) i’m going to copy an article  on “About Careers”

360 deals are contracts that allow a record label to receive a percentage of the earnings from ALL of a band’s activities instead of just record sales. Under 360 deals, also called “multiple rights deals,” record labels may get a percentage of things that were previously off limits to them, like:

  • Concert revenue

  • Merchandise sales

  • Endorsement deals

  • Ringtones

In exchange for getting a bigger cut from the artists they represent, the labels say they will commit to promoting the artist for a longer period of time and will actively try and develop new opportunities for them. In essence, the label will function as a pseudo-manager and look after the artist’s entire career rather than only focusing on selling records.

360 deals are controversial for a lot of reasons. First of all, they’re often seen a cynical money grab by labels that are facing dwindling sales and high overhead. The charge is that labels have survived a long time without these kinds of deals, so it would seem that they’re suffering from a failure to manage their businesses and react appropriately to the changing industry - asking the bands to foot the bill hardly seems fair. Other people object to the whole “band branding” notion that makes 360 deals so potentially profitable for labels. A great example is The Pussycat Dolls. Sure, the branding has been a huge success - but where exactly does the music fit into the picture?

Labels counter that these deals let them sign different kinds of artists because they don’t have to be so focused on recouping their investment from album sales. They can stop chasing the instant number one and work with artist in the long haul because they don’t need to rely on big sales figures alone to make signing the artist profitable.

Controversial or not, 360 deals are becoming increasingly common in major label contracts.

ontangledshores asked:

i think maybe itll be a glass closet type. so theyll be able to be closer and basically be a couple w/o holding hands, kissing, any solid evidence, until after the tour and they dont have stadiums to sell and time to themselves after the fact.

Actually i agree. It looks like they’re slowly undermining every slayer of the closet, going backwards in time (we are now around August 2012 with touching and sitting together at Awards) so i can easily picture a glass closet like during X Factor until the end of the Tour.

And then, after the Tour ends (and after the contract with Modest ends, whenever it will be -as i said i think October 2015-)…


But i won’t be shocked if it will be happen befor that.