Musician fights B.C. record producer for thousands in contract dispute
A Vancouver-based record producer who represents indie artists was on the hook for thousands of dollars in a recent B.C. tribunal dispute.
The applicant in the case is RLG, a singer-songwriter who hired a record label owned by the respondent, MR.
The legal fight centred around three specific contracts for various services.
RLG claimed that MR does not actually have a company and did not perform the work required under the contracts. She claimed damages of $3,673 for a refund regarding contracts she paid for.
In response, MR said he had always operated as a sole proprietorship and that all the services required under the contracts were performed.
Both parties entered into their first contract on June 25, 2023. The contract was between RLG and Big Records, the record label. Under this contract, RLG would pay US$2,695 for a one-year term, which would include social media support and an artist page on the record label’s website. Under the first contract, the record label would also provide three radio releases per year and would organically pitch RLG’s music to music supervisors.
The record label did not offer guarantees of success.
After the initial contract was signed, the parties signed two distribution agreements in August and September 2023. These would be for two of RLG’s songs. The record label was going to distribute each song as a third-party agent ot the Sony distribution network, and Sony would keep 25 per cent of the distribution fee. Remaining revenue would be sent to RLG.
In June 2024, RLG emailed MR about the social media aspect of the first contract. The email stated that while MR initially provided social media services, nothing had been posted in eight months. RLG added that she was having conflicts with one of the label’s employees.
In one of the emails, MR accused RLG of slander against his employees.
The tribunal found no evidence of any social media posts for RLG after November 2023, and that MR breached the initial contract by not offering support after that month.
RLG’s second accusation was that MR did not pass along the royalty funds he received from Sony. The tribunal found a second breach of the initial contract due to MR not providing RLG with any of the quarterly reports.
On May 3, 2024, RLG emailed MR due to concerns that she had not received updates about the “shopping” of her music. She also refers to an email from MR in which he admitted there’d been no work between November and January, and an agreement to provide services for an additional three months at the end of the term.
MR wasn’t able to provide any evidence that he provided the services that RLG requested, and MR was ordered to refund the US$600 she paid for the licensing contract.
RLG also took issue with some aspects of the promotional contract. One interesting part of that contract was that MR would get her song on the U.K. Official Top 100 Singles Chart. There were also 600 broadcasts promised by the contract, which RLG said there was no evidence of.
The tribunal actually found that DS, a “high-end sync licensing person,” had connections that helped the song actually reach #1 on the U.K. chart.
MR didn’t provide any evidence that the song was broadcast 600 times.
Turning to damages, the tribunal found that RLG was entitled to US$800 plus GST for a refund for the promotional contract, US$1,000 for the initial contract, US$630 for the licensing contract, and $840 for the promotional contract.
With fees and interest, MR was ordered to pay RLG $3,765.56 in damages.