Music Rights

Subscribe to Music Rights via RSS

Last week, I participated in a discussion about music royalties for broadcasters at the Texas Association of Broadcasters Annual Convention in Austin. Speaking on the panel with me were the heads of the Radio Music License Committee and the TV Music Licensing Committee. These are the organizations that represent most commercial broadcasters in their negotiations with ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for public performance licenses for “musical works” or “musical compositions” – the underlying words and music to any song. In our discussion, there was a general summary of the licenses needed for the use of music by broadcasters, a summary of the status of some of the current royalty negotiations, and questions about other issues in music licensing. As this discussion raised a number of issues that I have covered in articles posted on this blog, I thought that it might be worth highlighting some of that past coverage so that those interested in any topic can read a bit more on these subjects.

The TV industry seems to have far fewer issues than radio, perhaps because radio is so much more music-dependent. While there is music in many TV programs, some of it is cleared (i.e. licenses have been negotiated) by the program providers (including some networks), so that stations need only worry about licenses for programming where the music has not been pre-cleared. Thus, TV stations have alternatives of blanket licenses for all programming (principally used by affiliates of networks where music has not been pre-cleared) or per-program fees where stations pay for music only in programs or program segments where music has not been licensed by the program suppliers.
Continue Reading Looking at Music Royalty Issues for Radio and TV Broadcasters

Global Music Rights, commonly known as GMR, is the newest Performing Rights Organization (PRO) in the US music business, licensing public performance rights to musical compositions of songwriters as diverse as various members of the Eagles to Pharrell Williams to George Gershwin. As we wrote here, in December, they offered a temporary license to the radio industry to allow radio stations to play their music if the stations pay a royalty reportedly based on a percentage of what stations pay to ASCAP and BMI. That license, which was accepted by many radio stations, expires at the end of September. Many stations were concerned as to what would happen on October 1, and whether they could continue to play GMR music. This week, that question was answered when it was announced that GMR has offered to extend the license for another 6 months at the same rates stations are now paying.

While this extension may answer the question of what happens on October 1, it certainly does not resolve all GMR issues. It seems pretty clear that, unless there is a major breakthrough, GMR and the Radio Music License Committee (the organization that negotiates performance royalties for commercial radio operators) will not come to an agreement on rates before the end of September. As we wrote here, RMLC has sued GMR, asking that a court make them subject to an antitrust consent decree much like SESAC where rates, if they cannot be voluntarily negotiated, would be set through arbitration (see our article on the results of the recent RMLC-SESAC arbitration here). GMR has countersued (see our article here), and litigation continues as it may well for years absent a settlement.
Continue Reading GMR Offers Commercial Radio 6 Month Extension of Interim License to Play Their Songs

It was announced this week that SESAC’s royalties for radio for the period starting at the beginning of 2016 through the end of 2018 have been slashed – being reduced to less than half what they were in 2015.  This decision came out of an arbitration process that resulted from the settlement of an antitrust lawsuit that the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) brought against SESAC (see our article here for a summary of the settlement).  Yet, despite the significant reduction in the royalties for radio operators, both sides declared victory (see RMLC press release here and press reports on SESAC’s reaction here).  Can both be right?  While the decision of the arbitrators is not public so we can’t know for sure the reasoning behind the result, it might be that there is something to each of these claims.

For radio, the victory is clear.  For commercial radio broadcasters, the royalties were significantly decreased, retroactive back to the beginning of 2016 year for stations that had elected to have RMLC represent them in this lawsuit.  Some stations had been enticed by an offer made by SESAC at the beginning of 2016 offering stations a new SESAC license at rates 5% less than they were in 2015 (see our article here).  Those stations may not qualify for the much greater royalty reduction available to the majority of commercial stations that opted into RMLC representation and are covered by the arbitration result.  The new SESAC royalties will also cover the use of SESAC music on broadcaster’s streaming platforms and HD broadcasts, uses for which broadcasters had previously had to pay SESAC separately.  Of course, stations still need to pay public performance royalties for musical compositions to ASCAP, BMI and, in many cases, GMR and public performance royalties for sound recordings, when streaming recorded music, to SoundExchange.
Continue Reading SESAC Royalties for Commercial Radio Slashed By More Than Half – Both SESAC and RMLC Claim Victory in Arbitration

The CLASSICS (Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service and Important Contributions to Society) Act was introduced in Congress last week to try to clear up some of the ongoing disputes over the public performance rights of pre-1972 sound recordings. Through litigation, certain copyright holders (including, most notably, Flo and Eddie of the 1960’s band The Turtles) have been seeking compensation from digital and analog music services for the public performance of pre-1972 sound recordings. These sound recordings are not covered by Federal law. As the obligation to pay SoundExchange only applies to recordings covered by Federal law, some digital services were not paying for the performance of these songs. The artists that have brought suit have contended that state laws did create an obligation to pay for the public performance of these recordings, even though there were no specific statutory provisions establishing those rights. Thus far, New York, Florida, Georgia and Illinois have found there to be no right of compensation under state laws (though some of these cases are on appeal). By contrast, California found that there was a right for compensation, though that case, too, is on appeal.

The CLASSICS Act looks to resolve these issues by pre-empting state lawsuits and establishing that services cannot play these recordings without either getting a direct license from the copyright holder to do so, or by paying SoundExchange royalties under the statutory license at the fees set by the Copyright Royalty Board. If a digital music service pays SoundExchange royalties and obeys the rules that apply to such royalties, it is not infringing on the rights of the copyright holder. It can also directly license these rights, but must pay half the license fee to SoundExchange to be distributed to the artists who performed on the recording (in the same manner that half the fees paid under the statutory license are distributed to the artists).
Continue Reading CLASSICS Act Introduced to Provide Pre-1972 Sound Recording Public Performance Clarity – What Issues Does It Leave Unresolved?

I was recently interviewed by Steve Goldstein of Amplifi Media, a firm that consults for podcast companies, on the difficulties with the use of music in podcasts. That interview has been turned into an article on Steve’s blog, here, discussing these legal issues. That article discusses the same issues that we’ve written about…

This week SoundExchange, the non-profit rights organization that collects the royalties paid by digital music companies for the public performance in the United States of sound recordings, announced that it had acquired CMRRA (the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency, Ltd). CMRRA licenses the reproduction rights to musical works in Canada. As we have written before, musical works or musical compositions are the lyrics and music for a song, while the sound recording is the actual recording of that song by a singer, band or other performer. We have also written before about the difference between the public performance right and the right to make reproductions of songs (including “mechanical rights”), rights that arise in different contexts and usually require a different type of license before a music service can use a song in its business. Why would a company that licenses the public performances of sound recordings in the US acquire a company that licenses reproduction rights in Canada?

SoundExchange’s public notice talks about its ability to “integrate and streamline the administration and distribution of sound recording and music publishing royalties.” And it also highlights that the deal will allow it to “offer a broad and comprehensive range of services to rights holders in both sound recordings and music publishing and music users alike across North America.” While SoundExchange suggests that it is the first company to offer a comprehensive range of services in licensing both sound recordings and musical works in North America, this deal instead seems to be part of a trend where rights collectives are merging to offer such comprehensive services in licensing both public performance rights and the rights to make reproductions, for both sound recordings and musical works.
Continue Reading SoundExchange Acquires CMRRA – What Does it Mean for Music Licensing?

In the Federal Register last week was a notice that SoundExchange intends to audit the royalty payments of Pandora for its Internet radio service. As we wrote at the beginning of the year, SoundExchange routinely decides to audit representative companies in various segments of the digital music industry. In January, for instance, they issued notices of audits for a number of broadcasters, pure webcasters, and other digital music services (see our post here about the audit notices released in January). These audit notices are usually released at the beginning of the year though, from time to time, we’ve seen SoundExchange decide later in the year to audit a particular service (see our article here).

What is involved in an audit? We wrote about the royalty audit process here. SoundExchange issues notice of an audit, and that notice must be published in the Federal Register. SoundExchange selects an auditor who, under the rules of the Copyright Royalty Board, must be a CPA. The auditor reviews the books and records of the service and issues a report, to which the service can respond. Neither the audit report nor the response are filed with the government or otherwise made public. The results of the audit are provided to SoundExchange for any appropriate action they may take. Under the audit rules, if a service has underpaid SoundExchange by more than 10%, in addition to any late fees it owes, it also has to pick up the cost of the audit. This audit notice reminds all digital music services to accurately measure their audiences and properly report to SoundExchange, as it is always possible that their royalty payments can be reviewed. As this notice makes clear, just because they were not targeted in January does not mean that they will not be reviewed at some other point during the year.
Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Announces Additional Webcaster Audit by SoundExchange – Reminder to Carefully Maintain Your Royalty Records as They Can be Reviewed at Any Time

We wrote here about the Congressional proposal to make the Register of Copyrights a Presidential appointee subject to Congressional approval, rather than a selection of the Librarian of Congress. That bill, HR-1695 (an updated version of which is available here), despite some expressed concerns from certain advocacy groups about the potentially making that position…

In the last month, there have been two bills introduced in the US House of Representatives seeking to impose a performance royalty for sound recordings on broadcast radio stations in the US. The bill introduced yesterday, The PROMOTE Act (standing for the Performance Royalty Owners of Music Opportunity to Earn Act – whatever that may mean, can be found here), seems to have garnered more attention, perhaps as it was promoted by its principal sponsor, California Congressman Darrell Issa, as giving performing artists the right to decide whether or not their music is played by radio stations. In fact, it does not do that, instead merely setting up a royalty system similar to that in place for Internet radio operators, allowing broadcasters to play music only if they pay royalties on “identical” rates and terms as do webcasters.

The PROMOTE Act proposes to add to the Copyright Act’s Section 106 enumeration of the “exclusive rights” given to copyright holders a provision stating that sound recording copyright holders (for most popular releases, that is usually the record company) have the exclusive right to authorize the performance of recorded songs by broadcast radio stations. That is in addition to the existing right to authorize the playing of these songs by digital audio transmissions (e.g. webcasters, satellite radio and digital cable services). But, like with the right to play music by digital services, that right to prohibit the playing of recorded songs is not absolute. Instead, like for the digital services, through a proposed amendment to Section 114 of the Copyright Act, broadcasters will have the right to play the songs if they pay a royalty set by the proposed legislation at “rates and terms” “identical” to those paid by webcasters. Let’s look at these issues more closely.
Continue Reading New Congressional Attempts to Impose a Performance Royalty for Sound Recordings on Broadcast Radio, Including the PROMOTE Act – What Do They Provide?

The Copyright Office is now a part of the Library of Congress, with the Register of Copyrights (the head of the Copyright Office) appointed by the Librarian of Congress. As part of its plans to review the Copyright Act, the House Judiciary Committee asked for comments earlier this year about structural reform of the Copyright…