MOTUnation.com

As a working musician, it is not uncommon to be given a contract for entertainment services which contains the clause "I will indemnify, defend and hold harmless" the organization hiring me for the performance. Any working musician I know would be financially ruined if they were contractually obligated to pay the legal defense of a corporation, college, or what have you.

My attorney has recommended not to sign these. He says, if possible, negotiate to have that part of the contract removed, which I have done in many situations. I have also turned down gigs because of my refusal to accept these terms.

Now that I understand what this "defend and hold harmless" means I am a little put off by a large organization asking a self-employed musician to indemnify them. I find it even more offensive that while I'm setting up for a show, someone hands me a "waiver of liability" to sign after my gear is already set up on the stage.

Personally I feel it would be great if working musicians would stand up for ourselves and each other by refusing to sign and submit to these lopsided terms.

I know that under the surface of this issue is the topic of business liability insurance. Have you priced it recently? Nice, huh? I tried to get it two years ago. For a touring group, or local band playing lots of corporate and hotel dates I can see that liability insurance is a good idea. Most groups I know don't have it.

What do you think? Am I going overboard on this? I welcome your comments and insights.

Robin

It's nice if you can get this kind of clause written out of a performance
agreement. Without naming exact names, a certain superstar tour that I signed
on for in 2009 had this language in the contract. When I objected to it, I
was told, "that's the agreement, either sign it or you don't have the gig".
So I signed the agreement.

I think that's what it comes down to in the real world. You need the gig,
they refuse to take the language out, then you either sign the agreement
or you don't work.