我國藝人經紀雖已行之有年，但卻無一部法律或法律條文將之妥適規範，而係透過委任或代理規定落實，在此介紹美國加州藝人經紀規範作為日後立法或從事實務工作者之參考。
美國加州藝人經紀條文實際上係明文規範在加州勞動法裏，且藝人經紀人須取得執照，方能執行藝人經紀業務。
In “What Artists and Talent Managers Should Know About California’s Talent Agency Act: Part One,” we discussed the differences between talent agents and managers and the ways that Talent Agency Act disputes can be avoided. Here we will discuss the potential results that come from a Talent Agency Act violation, as well as one exception to the act’s strict regulations.
之前在加州藝人經紀法之前篇提到，藝人經紀人與藝人經理人之差別及爭議如何避險。接下來我們來討論，違反藝人經紀法之潛在結果，以及該法嚴格規定下之例外。
Consequences of a Talent Agency Act Violation
違反藝人經紀法之效力
If the Labor Commissioner or arbitrator finds that there has been a violation of the Talent Agency Act, he or she has three options. First, the decision-maker can completely void the parties’ contract. If the central purpose of the contract is found to be illegal, then the contract as a whole cannot be enforced. Voidance of the contract is not mandatory, but if the entire contract revolves around the solicitation and procurement of employment by the talent manager, then voidance is very likely. (Note that in many instances, even where the contract is voided, the arbitration clause – if there is one – requiring that the dispute be decided privately by an arbitrator, is not void and survives.)假如勞動委員會或仲裁人決定有違反藝人經紀法之情，違反者有3個選擇：1. 假使契約核心目的違法，以致契約全部無法履行，則裁決者可使契約完全無效。契約無效非強制性的，但假設整個契約是以藝人「經理人」身分去招攬及獲取工作及從事相牽連事務，則無效之可能性是非常大。
If the contract merely contains an illegal provision, and the illegality is collateral to the main purpose of the contract, then the commissioner or arbitrator can order that the illegal provision be stricken from the contract. For example, in Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Rosa Blasi (2008) 42 Cal. 4th 974, in declining to void the parties’ contract, the court ruled that a personal manager who spends 99 percent of his time engaged in counseling a client and organizing the client’s affairs is not insulated from the act’s requirements if he spends one percent of his time procuring or soliciting; conversely, however, the 1 percent of the time he spends soliciting and procuring does not thereby render illegal the ninety-nine percent of the time spent in conduct that requires no license. See id. at 997. The court concluded, for the personal manager who truly acts as a personal manager, “an isolated instance of procurement does not automatically bar recovery for services that could lawfully be provided without a license.”
假設契約僅有一個違反條款，同時係附隨於契約主要目的下，則該委員會或仲裁人可命該違法條款從契約刪除。舉例：Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Rosa Blasi (2008) 42 Cal. 4th 974案，其拒絕認定雙方訂立之契約無效，理由是：藝人經理人花了99%時間為藝人提供諮詢、規劃擬從事之事業（演藝或歌唱事業之規劃），即便經紀人將1%的時間用於招攬或獲取工作，亦不能逕此認為其行為逸脫加州藝人經紀法之構成要件外，相反地，該1%用於招募或獲取工作而需要經紀人執照的業務行為，並不會使得前述花了99%時間所所從事的業務，因此無效。法院判定，身為藝人經理人並以經理人身分為藝人招攬工作，並不當然因為未取得「經紀人」執照而無法受有報酬（可能的解決之道為，報酬仍得請求，但無經紀人執照而從事經紀人核心業務，要受到行政上處罰）。
Separately or in addition to voidance or severance, the commissioner can order the talent manager to disgorge the profits that he or she gained from the violation. In other words, if a talent manager solicits a television role for a client and accepts a ten percent commission on the amount the client makes per episode, he or she may be forced to return those commissions. As one can imagine, this can be disastrous to a talent manager who isn’t well-advised.
除了使其無效或切割違法條款使其獨自有效外，委員會尚可命藝人經理人吐出其因違法條款而得之利潤。亦即，倘藝人經理人為藝人爭取到一部電視劇的角色，每演一集可從其報酬取10%為佣金，此時將被強制返還佣金。由此，可得想見的是這樣場景對藝人經理人勢必係一個災難。
The “Safe Harbor Exception”安全港之免責規定
有許多所謂藝人之經理人（非經紀人）從事經紀人方可從事諸如為藝人招攬工作機會之業務，因而觸法，受到處罰，未免施之過苛，爰刪除刑法之規定。
In 1982, the California Legislature amended the Talent Agency 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 do so in conjunction with a licensed talent agent. However, the exception has been interpreted very narrowly by the courts, and will “only apply if the unlicensed person is acting ‘in conjunction with and at the request of the licensed talent agency,’ and the only covered activity that such unlicensed person may engage in consists of ‘the negotiation of any employment contract.’” Massey v. Landis, TAC 42-03 (emphasis supplied). The safe harbor exception “does not extend to nor encompass activities which consist of approaching third parties and soliciting them to offer engagements to an artist.” Todd v. Meagher, TAC 13418.
1982年，加州立法機構修正藝人經紀法，新增1年的消滅時效，針對違反法者，刪除刑事處罰，並對未取得藝人經紀人執照而為藝人招攬工作之「經理人」新增「安全港」條款。不過，法院對安全港定採嚴格認定，即無照經理人欲適用該條文必須是受到有執照之經紀人要求並從事勞動契約協商有關業務方能免責，參Massey v. Landis, TAC 42-03 (emphasis supplied)。案全港免責條款並未擴張到亦未含括到招攬第3人，並使其與藝人締結契約，參 Todd v. Meagher, TAC 13418.。
