In a Press Release issued on November 1, the Radio Music License Committee announced the results of its arbitration with SESAC.  Despite the arbitrators’ decision that rates for commercial radio broadcasters are going up modestly, RMLC declared the decision a win.  How can an increase in royalties be a win?  Let’s provide some background on this decision and why the radio industry may breathe a sigh of relief.

First, it is important to set the background for the decision.  As we wrote here, in 2015, RMLC and SESAC settled an antitrust lawsuit brought by RMLC, agreeing that rates for the public performance by commercial radio broadcasters of the catalog of SESAC music would be set by binding arbitration.  Every four years, a proceeding is held to set the royalties to be paid by a broadcaster for music used in its over-the-air programming and on internet streams of that signal. 

The royalty currently paid by commercial radio stations was set by a settlement between RMLC and SESAC before arbitration in 2020 (see our article here).  That agreement, under which music radio stations have been paying .2557% of revenue, expired at the end of 2022.  As RMLC and SESAC could not mutually agree to new royalties, the recent arbitration was held to set royalties for the period from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026.  The decision announced on Friday set those royalties at .2824% of revenue.  Why is this increase from .2557% to .2824% considered a win?Continue Reading RMLC Announces Arbitration Decision on SESAC Royalties for Commercial Radio Stations for 2023-2026

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’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing the opening of a filing window for construction permits for new

It seems like virtually every panel at every broadcast and media convention, at some point, ends up involving a discussion of Artificial Intelligence. Sessions on AI are filled to capacity, and sessions unrelated to the topic seem to have to mention AI to appear relevant.  Whenever there is a topic that so thoroughly takes over the conversation in the industry, we lawyers tend to consider the legal implications.  We’ve written several times about AI in political ads (see, for instance, our articles here, here and here).  We will, no doubt, write more about that subject (including addressing further action in the FCC’s proceeding on this subject about which we wrote here, on the Federal Election Commission’s pending action on its separate AI proceeding, consideration of which was again postponed at its meeting last week, and on bills pending in Congress to address AI in political advertising). 

We’ve also written about concerns when AI is used to impersonate celebrities and to create music that too closely resembles copyrighted recordings (see, for instance, our articles here and here).  When looking for new creative ways to entertain your audience, a broadcaster may be tempted to use AI’s ability to have a celebrity “say” something on your station by generating their voice with some form of AI.  As we noted in our previous articles, celebrities have protected interests in their identity in many states, and there has been much recent activity, caused by the advent of easily accessible generative AI that can impersonate anyone, to broaden the protections for the voice, image, and other recognizable traits of celebrities.  A federal NO FAKES Act has also been introduced to give individuals more rights in their voice and likeness.  So being too creative with the use of AI can clearly cause concerns.Continue Reading Using Artificial Intelligence in Developing Broadcast Programming – Watch for Legal Issues

Last week, as we noted in our monthly look ahead at the regulatory dates of importance to broadcasters in August, the reinstatement of the rule prohibiting the duplication of programming on FM stations went into effect.  The FCC Order reinstating the rule is interesting both for its substance, and for the parties pushing for that reinstatement – principally representatives of the music industry.  As we note below, even though the rule is now back in effect, the NAB has asked for reconsideration of that action.

First, let’s look at what the rule provides.  The reinstated rule prohibits any commonly owned or operated (e.g., through a time brokerage agreement) commercial FM station from duplicating more than 25% of its weekly programming on another FM station if there is overlap of the 3.16 mv/m (70 dbu) contours of the two stations, and that area of overlap constitutes 50% of the 3.16 mv/m predicted coverage area of either of the overlapping stations.  Program duplication is not limited to simultaneous transmission of the same programming – the rule by its terms defines “duplication” to include the broadcast of the same programming any time within a 24-hour period.  Continue Reading FM Programming Nonduplication Rule Goes Back into Effect – A Win for the Music Industry While the NAB Objects

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from this past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

Earlier this year, we posted updated guidelines about engaging in or accepting advertising or promotions that directly or indirectly allude to the Super Bowl without a license from the NFL or the Final Four Tournament without a license from the NCAA.  See here, here and here.  Now, it is time to think about these issues in the context of the 2024 Paris Olympics!

The guidance from our prior blog posts addressed the following subjects, and offered warnings about conducting any of these activities when tied to any trademarked phrase referring to events like the Super Bowl or March Madness:

  • Advertising that refers to the event or other associated trademarks;
  • Advertising that uses non-trademarked terms that will be understood by the public to refer to the event;
  • Conducting or sponsoring events and parties for viewing the event;
  • Sweepstakes or giveaways that use the name of the event as part of its name or offer prizes that include game tickets;
  • Offering “special” coverage relating to the event, accompanied by advertising;
  • Congratulatory advertising; and
  • Whether disclaimers will provide a defense to a claim.

The concepts advanced in those discussions apply equally to the Olympics, but the US Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC), formerly the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), has a unique weapon in its arsenal, so there are additional considerations of which you should take note.

Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act

In addition to having trademark rights based on registration and use of its marks, the USOPC is the beneficiary of a special federal statute, the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which grants it the exclusive right to use various words and logos commercially or in connection with an athletic event, performance or competition.  These marks include “United States Olympic Committee,” “Olympic,” “Olympiad,” “Pan American,” “Cities Altius Forties,” “Paralympic,” “Paralympic” and the symbol of the International Olympic Committee – the five interlocking, blue, yellow, black, green and red rings (shown below).

As a result, unlike other trademark owners, to make a claim against a third party’s use of a mark, the USOPC does not need to assert that the use of the mark is likely to create consumer confusion, dilute the distinctiveness of the USOPC’s marks or tarnish the USOPC’s marks.  If any of the marks are used, even in a context far removed from the events beginning in Paris this weeknd, liability can be found.  Only if the mark being used is similar, but not identical, to an Olympic insignia, must the USOPC show a likelihood of confusion.Continue Reading Ring! Ring! Ring! Ring! Ring!   It’s the Olympics Calling!

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from this past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The National Religious Broadcasters, American Family Association, and the Texas Association of Broadcasters jointly requested that the FCC stay the

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from this past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, which required Courts to defer to expert regulatory agencies, like the

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 FTC announced that it will hold a 45-minute webinar on May 14 at 11:00 a.m. ET to provide an
  • The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing to fine Nexstar Media Group,