Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

At more and more broadcast conventions, station owners have been asking questions about their legal liability for the use of social media.  What is their liability for the use of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or other services?  Could owners have liability if their station maintains its own page on which friends and followers may post statements which are defamatory or which could otherwise give rise to a lawsuit?  Can an employee's actions on his or her own pages be attributed to the station?  Should stations restrict the use of social media by their employees on company time, or can that itself give rise to liability?  These are the same questions being asked by employers in other industries, and Davis Wright Tremaine is conducting two free on-line seminars on December 9 and December 15 to answer these questions.

While these seminars are not directed exclusively to broadcasters, they will address topics that broadcasters will find helpful in answering their questions on the use of social media.  Specific topics to be discussed include:

• Social media mechanics: How does social media work and what are employees doing on these sites?
• Employer liabilities: What new types of legal risks are created by employees using social media? How can employers protect themselves?
• Expectations of privacy: Do employers who blog or use social media in the workplace still enjoy a right to privacy? What can employers lawfully do to monitor or control online activities?
• Social media policies: What are the options and what should it contain? Is it necessary for your company to have a written policy?
• Managing defamation: If you or your company is defamed online, what can you do? What should you do?

More information on these free on-line seminars is available here.  To register for these free seminars, go the the registration site here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the next few days, concerns about the protection of children from indecency and violence could lead to a report from the FCC to Congress urging use of the V Chip and other parental controls in devices other than television sets.  Remarks several weeks ago by FCC Chair Julius Genachowski suggesting that the FCC might want to look at content regulation beyond the broadcast medium, a view reiterated in an interview yesterday in TV NewsCheck, also suggest that  concerns about the exposure of children to indecency and other troubling programming on cable, online and by wireless devices may lead the FCC into unprecedented extensions of its regulation of entertainment content beyond the broadcast media.  An article today from Bloomberg News confirms that the FCC will be starting an inquiry to see if the television program ratings should be extended to cable and wireless entertainment services.  This extension of Federal regulation to protect children is occurring at the same time that similar concerns are being expressed by state legislatures, including the adoption of a recent law in Maine that effectively prohibits direct marketing to minors.

The report due this week follows a Notice of Inquiry issued by the Commission in March, as required by the Child Safe Viewing Act, legislation passed by Congress.  The law required that the FCC solicit public comment on "advanced blocking technology", the next generation of the V Chip, to see if these technologies can and should be extended to video programming other than broadcast television, including online communications, wireless communications (including video delivered to mobile  devices), DVRs and other video recorders, DVD players, and cable television.  The FCC Notice also asked why the current V Chip has seemingly not been used much by parents.  The FCC even asks if rules should be extended to video games - which were not specifically named in the legislation.  This would seemingly extend the FCC's jurisdiction far beyond its current limits.  The FCC's report is due by August 29. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As you may have heard, Facebook is going to allow users to register names in their Facebook URL, replacing the former random ID numbers.  This policy, announced in a Facebook blog post earlier this week will become effective on a first come, first served basis beginning Saturday, June 13 at 12:01 am.  This new policy creates the danger that Facebook users may try to register as their user name words or phrases that could infringe on a company name, trademarked slogan, or even a broadcast station's call signs.  To prevent others from using your company's name, call sign or other trademark, Facebook has created a form allowing rights holders to register their marks ahead of time.  To protect your intellectual property in the easiest manner possible (without the need for costly infringement lawsuits of other actions), companies should take advantage of the procedures outlined by Facebook itself, and register with the company.

A couple of caveats:  

1. User names have to be at least five alphanumeric characters.  This means that four letter call signs cannot be used as user names unless used with a suffix or frequency.  Since periods are the only punctuation allowed, acceptable user names might be WXYZ.FM, or FM98.1, for example. 
2. In order to prevent someone from using your trademark in advance, it appears that it must be a registered mark.  However, a separate form appears to allow intellectual property rights holders to reclaim a user name, even if it is not a registered trademark.  Thus, if your company name, mark or call sign is unregistered, you can either register it as your own Facebook user name or wait until someone else does that and complain after the fact.  You do not need to be a Facebook user to submit the intellectual property rights forms described above.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This past week, I attended the BIAfn Winning Media Strategies Conference in Washington, DC.  During the course of the conference, there was much talk about how broadcasters and publishers need to provide unique service to their communities in order to survive in the competitive media marketplace.  The point was made over and over again that, in each market there are unique attributes and personalities that a station should be covering in its programming, and should be exploiting even more broadly through their digital assets, to tie it to its community.  Only by doing so will the station be able to survive in the new media environment - and by doing so, the station may be able to thrive.  In fact, I was stuck by a statement by USC's Adam Clayton Powell III that domination of the local online and digital media marketplace was "the broadcasters to lose."  In other words, the broadcaster has such unque promotional abilities with its current audience that it can establish its brand in the online and in the mobile world far easier than other media players.  But there were also the repeated warning that there is more and more competition for this local digital market from new entrants and other media entities and that, if the broadcasters did not take advantage of their current advantage, the local service would come from someone else.  What most stuck me was that there was no question that the superservice to local needs would be coming from someone - broadcaster or not - as a result of marketplace developments, not because of any government mandate.  The broadcaster has to adapt to and compete in this new media marketplace or become culturally and economically irrelevant.  The broadcaster needs to serve the local market to meet these challenges, not because some Washington agency has ordered him to do so.  And the broadcaster needs to serve his community in a way that the public will find compelling, not in a way that the government thinks is best.

At BIAfn, the presentation that made the greatest impact was probably that of Greenspun Media from Las Vegas, which has reinvented a secondary newspaper and a Low Power TV station as an on-line powerhouse, uncovering the aspects of the community that would draw the largest audience and covering that information in great detail.  The Las Vegas Sun site not only covers hard news, but also the gaming industry, University of Las Vegas sports and even state government issues in a way that its audience seems to find interesting.  Even a history of Las Vegas, in great detail, is included.  And video plays a big part of the site, with the company in development of a hip news and events program, 702.tv, that will soon be a daily program on the television station and online (featuring local "celebrities" doing the weather, including strippers and Neil Diamond sound-alikes).  While some attendees at the conference thought that Las Vegas presented unique opportunities that might not be available in all communities, many were immediately speculating on the opportunities in their own communities to find unique personalities and events that could be developed on-air and on-line in ways to maximize their connection with their audience. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

A decision by a US District Court in New York was just released, setting the rates to be paid to ASCAP for the use of their composers' music by Yahoo!, AOL and Real Networks.  The decision set the ASCAP rates at 2.5% of the revenues that were received by these services in connection with the music portions of their websites.  These rates were set by the Court, acting as a rate court under the antitrust consent decree that was originally imposed on ASCAP in 1941.  Under the Consent Decree, if a new service and ASCAP cannot voluntarily agree to a rate for the use of the compositions represented by ASCAP, the rates will be set by the rate court.  The Court explained that they used a "willing buyer, willing seller" model to determine the rates that parties would have negotiated in a marketplace transaction  - essentially the same standard used by the Copyright Royalty Board in setting the rates to be paid to SoundExchange for the use of sound recordings by non-interactive webcasters (see our post here for details of the CRB decision).  The ASCAP decision, if nothing else, is interesting for the contrasts between many of the underlying assumptions of the Court in this rate-setting proceeding and the assumptions used by the Copyright Royalty Board in setting sound recording royalty rates.

First, some basics on this decision.  ASCAP represents the composers of music (as do BMI and SESAC) in connection with the public performance of any composition.  This decision covered all performances of music by these services - not just Internet radio type services.  Thus, on-demand streams (where a listener can pick the music that he or she wants to hear), music videos, music in user-generated content, karaoke type uses, and music in the background of news or other video programming, are all covered by the rate set in this decision.  Note that the decision does not cover downloads, presumably based on a prior court decision that concluded that downloads do not involve a public performance (see our post here).  In contrast, the CRB decision covered the use of the "sound recording" - the song as actually recorded by a particular artist - and covers only "non-interactive services," essentially Internet radio services where users cannot pick the music that they will be hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Website operators who allow the posting of user-generated content on their sites enjoy broad immunity from legal liability.  This includes immunity from copyright violations if the site owner registers with the Copyright Office, does not encourage the copyright violations and takes down infringing content upon receiving notice from a copyright owner (see our post here for more information).  There is also broad immunity from liability for other legal violations that may occur within user-generated content.  In a recent case, involving the website Roommates.com, the US Court of Appeals determined that the immunity is broad, but not unlimited if the site is set up so as to elicit the improper conduct.  A memo from attorneys in various Davis Wright Tremaine offices, which can be found here, provides details of the Roommates.com case and its implications.

In the case, suit was filed against the company, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, as the site had pull-down menus which allowed users to identify their sex, sexual orientation, and whether or not they had children.  Including any of this information in a housing advertisement can lead to liability under the law.  The Court found that, if this information had been volunteered by users acting on their own, the site owner would have no liability.  But because the site had the drop-down menus that prompted the answers that were prohibited under the law, liability was found.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

While US webcasters may think that they have legal issues - whether it be the Internet radio music royalties that have been such a concern (see our coverage, here) or the copyright and other liability issues that surround user-generated content on various websites (see our story here), they face nothing like new rules that were recently adopted for webcasters in China.  The new rules require government permits from two separate Chinese government agencies before webcasting operations can begin.  In addition, the rules appear to require ownership and control of webcasting operations by state-owned companies.  A memo on these new rules, prepared by attorneys from Davis Wright Tremaine's Shanghai office, can be found here.

These rules apply to streaming audio and video delivered to mobile and wireless devices.  The rules also require yet another permit for sites that contain news content, and require taping of programs (a proposal made by our own FCC in connection with broadcast programs to monitor for indecency) to monitor for program content that may offend government requirements.  Clearly, it's a different system than that in place in the US - one which website operators interested in an operation in China should study carefully.  Again, details can be found in the memo prepared by the attorneys in our Shanghai office.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As more and more broadcasters create and use websites (and, to some extent, are required to post more information on those sites by the FCC, see our post here), they should be cautious about the legal liabilities that arise from these sites.  For instance, as websites are used to gather personal information for listener's clubs, news alerts or for e-commerce purposes, the site owners need to be concerned about privacy issues. Many states are now requiring privacy policies to be posted on websites that gather personal information.  In a recent decision, the Federal Trade Commission entered into a consent decree with a website owner who had not abided by the privacy policy that it posted, requiring that the site owner hire security consultants and regularly file reports, for the next 20 years, with the FTC on its efforts to comply with its policies.  This case is a demonstration that website owners should not casually adopt privacy policies without fully understanding and adhering to their terms.

Davis Wright Tremaine's Privacy and Security blog features a summary of this consent decree and explains the ramifications of the decision.  Broadcasters and other website owners should learn from this decision that they should not blindly copy a privacy policy that they find on some other website and adopt it as their own.  Instead, they need to carefully craft a privacy disclosure that honestly discloses their policies and practices.  In this case, the website owner promised that personal information would be maintained in a secure fashion, yet the FTC found that simple hacking techniques were able to get access to that information.  For website owners who are collecting private information, and promising privacy and security, to avoid legal issues in the future, make sure that you are living up to your promises. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Each year, Internet radio stations must pay a minimum fee to SoundExchange, and that fee is due by January 31.  These minimum fees are applied against  the obligations of a Internet radio service to pay royalties for the use of sound recordings on their stations.  SoundExchange does not send bills, so webcasters must remember, on their own, to make the payments.  For commercial webcasters (including broadcasters who stream their signals on the Internet), under the Copyright Royalty Board decision released last March, a minimum fee of $500 per channel is due.  While SoundExchange and certain large webcasters agreed to cap this minimum fee liability at $50,000 no matter how many channels a webcaster transmits (see our post here), this agreement has yet to be submitted to the CRB for approval.  Minimum payments are also due from noncommercial and small webcasters.

Under the CRB decision, noncommercial webcasters also owe a minimum fee of $500 per channel.  Small webcasters, who earlier this year accepted the SoundExchange offer about which we wrote here, owe a minimum fee of $2000 if they had 2007 revenues of less than $50,000, and minimum fees of $5000 if their 2007 revenues exceeded $50,000.  Note that details about these minimums are difficult to locate on the SoundExchange website.  Nevertheless, the current rules require that these payments be made.  Future settlement negotiations may adjust some of these minimums but, as of this moment, the failure to pay the minimum fees could, at a minimum, subject an Internet radio service to penalty fees and interest payments. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

With 2008 almost upon us, webcasters streaming music on the Internet need to remember that the way of computing and paying royalties to SoundExchange will shift on January 1- a change that may be especially important for broadcast stations.  Under the Copyright Royalty Board decision reached last March, webcasters must pay royalties computed on a per "performance" basis.  A performance is a per song, per listener computation.  In other words, if an Internet radio station plays a song and 15 listeners are logged into the station at the time that the song plays, there would be 15 performances on which the royalty would need to be paid.  While broadcasters objected that they did not (and in many cases could not) track the number of performances that were made by their stations on the Internet, the CRB, on reconsideration of their initial decision, only went so far as the give stations an interim rate based on the number of  "Aggregate tuning hours" that a station served (e.g. one listener listening for one hour, or two for a half hour each would both be the equivalent of one aggregate tuning hour).   See our post, here, on the CRB's reconsideration decision.  The aggregate tuning hour (or ATH) metric is one that is more readily obtain from a content delivery network or other bandwidth provider, and a metric that has been used since the first royalties were established in 2002.  Yet as of January 1, as the interim ATH rate applied only to 2006 and 2007, that method of payment will no longer be available, and many webcasters are wondering what to do to compute the per performance royalty.

Neither the CRB decision nor SoundExchange, which collects the royalties, explained what a webcaster who cannot count performances is to do when the option to pay based on aggregate tuning hours disappears.   The royalty for January performances is due to be paid to SoundExchange on March 16 (45 days after the end of the month), and a webcaster preparing to file its royalty statement on that day will need to have a performance count to include on its statement.  Many Internet radio companies have been trying to determine how to count performances and, while there are some services that offer to provide software to do so, it is my understanding that none are foolproof and, in some cases, they may not be able to get a complete count of performances.  And many smaller stations may not be able to afford such systems.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link