Discussion of FCC, copyright, advertising and other legal issues of importance to radio and television broadcasters and other media companies
Principal Editor: David O’Connor
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
The Copyright Royalty Board this week published notice in the Federal Register that SoundExchange is auditing two broadcast companies who are streaming their signals online to assess compliance with the statutory music licenses provided by Sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act for the public performance of sound recordings and ephemeral copies made in the digital transmission process by commercial webcasters. A notice was published last month indicating an audit of five other broadcast companies. Notices of audits are annual events. But, as the number of broadcasters selected for audits this year is higher than in past years, we thought that we should republish some of the observations that we have made in the past about these audits.
SoundExchange may conduct an audit of any licensee operating under the statutory licenses for which it collects royalties. Such audits cover the prior three calendar years in order to verify that the correct royalty payments have been made (the notice issued this week audits the named broadcasters for 2022-2024, while the audits announced last month were filed in late 2024 and are for the years 2021-2023). The decision to audit a company is not necessarily any indication that SoundExchange considers something amiss with that company’s royalty payments – instead SoundExchange audits a cross-section of services each year (see our past articles about audits covering the spectrum of digital music companies who have been subject to these audits – here, here, here, here and here). Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Announces SoundExchange Audits of Broadcast Companies Streaming Their Signals – How Do These Audits Work?
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
When in January I offered my predictions as to the issues that the new FCC would be considering this year, payola and musical artists complaining of being coerced to play for free at radio station concerts or other events was not on the bingo card. That changed early this past week when Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn sent a letter to FCC Chair Brendan Carr stating that she had received many complaints from musical artists complaining that they were being coerced to play for free at radio station events with threats that, if they did not participate, on-air play of their music would be reduced.
The Senator’s letter suggested that this was a violation of the FCC’s payola rules that prohibit broadcasters from making programming decisions based on the receipt of anything of value for airplay without disclosing that consideration on the air. The letter’s implication is that receipt of the artist’s concert appearance for free would constitute the consideration and, if that consideration was not disclosed when increased airplay occurred, the station would be in violation of the payola policies. The letter suggested that the FCC take action to ensure that such coercive tactics were not used to secure free appearances by musicians at radio station events. In what seems like record time, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau responded to the Senator’s letter by issuing an Enforcement Advisory about the issue. What does that Advisory provide and what are the FCC’s policies payola and sponsorship identification?Continue Reading FCC Enforcement Advisory Warns of Payola Concerns in Coercing Bands to Play at Broadcast Station Events with Threats of Decreased Airplay – and Reminds All Broadcasters, Radio and TV, of Sponsorship Identification Requirements
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
The AM for Every Vehicle Act has been introduced in the new Congress after dying when the last session of Congress ended in December without it getting to a vote, despite having the announced support of a majority of both the House and Senate. Pending bills do not carry over to a new session of Congress. Thus, the bill had to be reintroduced in the current Congress – which it was last week by Senate co-sponsors Ed Markey (D-MA) and Ted Cruz (R-TX). The National Association of Broadcasters quickly released a statement supporting the bill’s reintroduction, stating that the bill “will protect AM radio’s role as an essential public safety tool and ensure Americans can continue to rely on this life-saving resource in their vehicles.”
Opposition to the bill remains, with opponents arguing that it interferes with automakers’ ability to innovate and provide car buyers with the technologies that they want. As part of that opposition, Gary Shapiro, the head of the Consumer Technology Association, sent a letter to NAB CEO Curtis LeGeyt, opposing the mandate, arguing among other things that AM is an outdated technology and suggesting that the CTA would support a performance royalty making broadcasters pay SoundExchange royalties for their over-the-air broadcasts if the NAB continued to push the AM legislation. While the legislation is essentially the same as that considered in the last Congress, we should again look at what it provides. Continue Reading The AM for Every Vehicle Act Introduced in the New Congress – What Does It Provide?
Here are some of the regulatory developments from the past week of significance to broadcasters, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
Mitchell Stabbe, our resident trademark law specialist, today takes his annual look at the legal issues in Super Bowl advertising and promotions (see some of his past articles here, here, and here). Take it away, Mitch:
As a life-long fan of the Baltimore Ravens (the life of the Ravens, not my life), my interest in the Super Bowl XVII has waned a bit. The opposite is true for those who seek to profit from the playing of the game. Accordingly, following are updated guidelines about engaging in or accepting advertising or promotions that directly or indirectly reference the Super Bowl without a license from the NFL. But, first, a trivia question. Who won Super Bowl I. (Answer at end)
The Super Bowl means big bucks.
There are currently four primary television networks that broadcast and stream NFL games in the United States (CBS/Paramount+, Fox, ABC/ESPN/ESPN+ and NBC/Peacock). It is estimated that, with the new contract which took effect last year, each will pay the NFL an average of over $2 billion per year for those rights through 2032, including the right to broadcast the Super Bowl on a rotating basis.
The investment seems to pay off for the networks. Reportedly, it will cost more than $8 Million for some of the 30-second spots during this year’s Super Bowl broadcast, up from last year. It has also been reported that last year’s game brought in advertising revenue totaling more than the $600 M from the prior year (with as much as an additional $60 million from ads run when last year’s game went into overtime). These figures do not include income from ads during any pre-game or post-game programming. (In addition to the sums paid to have their commercials aired, some advertisers spend millions of dollars to produce an ad.) In addition, the NFL receives hundreds of millions of dollars from licensing the use of the SUPER BOWL trademark and logo.
Given the value of the Super Bowl franchise, it is not surprising that the NFL is extremely aggressive in protecting its golden goose from anything it views as unauthorized efforts to trade off the goodwill associated with the mark or the game. Accordingly, with the coin toss almost upon us, advertisers should take special care before publishing or engaging in advertising or other promotional activities that refer to the Super Bowl. Broadcasters and news publishers have greater latitude than other businesses, but still need to be wary of engaging in activities that the NFL may view as trademark or copyright infringement. (These risks also apply to other named sporting events, for example, making use of the phrases “Final Four” or “March Madness” in connection with the annual NCAA Basketball Tournament.)Continue Reading 2025 Update on Super Bowl Advertising and Promotions
Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
The FCC released an Order this week announcing an upcoming increase in application fees to be paid on any “feeable” application. For commercial broadcasters, that includes applications for technical changes in facilities, applications for assignments or transfers of control of broadcast companies and stations, license renewal applications, requests for Special Temporary Authority when a station…
