Music Rights

Subscribe to Music Rights

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

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 FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announced that October 4 is the deadline for EAS Participants to file
…

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.

…

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
…

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.

  • Congress passed, and the President signed, a continuing resolution to extend funding for the Federal government, including the FCC, averting
…

Today’s post will be a bit more into the legal weeds than many of our articles, addressing the standards used by courts to review the decisions of administrative agencies like the FCC.  Last month, there was a Supreme Court argument in a case called Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce that the popular press suggested was going to end the regulation of media companies.  Even the media trade press seemed to think that the decision could cut back on regulations that come from the FCC and other agencies.  As with much popular coverage of legal issues, the real-world impact of the case, while certainly significant in legal practice, is probably overstated.

The Relentless case challenges a judicial precedent in place since a 1984 decision in another case, Chevron [U.S.A.] Inc. v. NRDC, Inc.  The policy adopted in that case, referred to as the “Chevron Doctrine,” says that the courts will defer to the decision of an administrative agency interpreting an ambiguous Congressional statute unless the agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law.  What that basically means is that, if a policy adopted by Congress is capable of many different interpretations, the Courts will defer to the interpretation of the expert agency that is supposed to enforce that statute, unless the interpretation cannot be squared with the language of the statute or the record before the agency.  We’ve written many times on this blog about this doctrine without necessarily identifying it by name, usually in connection with appeals of a Copyright Royalty Board or FCC decision and how difficult it is to convince a court to overturn these actions.Continue Reading What Does the Supreme Court’s Review of the Chevron Doctrine Mean for Media Companies Challenging Decisions of the FCC and Other Government Agencies? 

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 announced the circulation for Commissioner review and approval of two decisions of interest to broadcasters, signifying that we
…

We often write about issues concerning the royalties paid by radio stations for their various uses of music.  It is not just paying the royalties that are important, but stations must also observe all of all the other obligations under each of their license agreements.  The Radio Music License Committee asked us to remind commercial…