On Line Media

Subscribe to On Line Media via RSS
  • The National Association of Broadcasters filed a Petition for Rulemaking asking the FCC to require that full-power television stations complete
…
  • In an effort to exert more control over independent federal agencies, including the FCC, President Trump signed an Executive Order
…
  • The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has scheduled for March 19 the oral argument on the appeals
…
  • Payola on broadcast stations suddenly was in the news this past week.  Early in the week, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
…

For years, we have warned about the need to license music in podcasts – and how such licenses need to be obtained directly from copyright holders.  We’ve noted demand notices sent to podcasters causing those podcasters to pull their programs from various distribution platforms (see, for instance, our articles here and here).  We warned that, as podcasts are on-demand performances and are permanently “fixed” with other audio, the public performance rights given by the licenses that broadcasters and some other services obtain from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, GMR, and even SoundExchange, are insufficient to cover broad uses of music in podcasts (see, for example, our articles here and here).  A Press Release yesterday from NMPA (the National Music Publishers Association that represents publishing companies that generally hold the copyrights in musical works – the musical compositions that provide the word and music in a song) announces that the organization has sent a take-down notice to Spotify asking it to remove from podcasts hosted by Spotify “thousands of unlicensed uses of NMPA members’ works.”  The Press Release indicates that over 2,500 notices have been sent, and that more are on the way.

This action should reinforce our concerns about the use of unlicensed music in podcasts.  But, contrary to the suggestion that the NMPA letter makes that licensing “is not hard to do,” for many podcasters, it is in fact hard.  There is no central organization, like the PROs or SoundExchange, that provides blanket licenses that cover all music uses in podcasts.  A podcaster who wants to use a popular song in a podcast has to find the copyright holder (or, more frequently, the copyright holders) to both the sound recording (the artist who recorded the music or their copyright holder, often the record company) and to the musical work (the composer or composers and lyricists or their publishing companies, which normally hold the copyrights) and get their permission to include the song in the podcast – most often at a price.  This often involves significant research to find the proper rightsholders. Continue Reading NMPA Calls for Takedowns of Spotify Podcasts Using Unlicensed Music – A Reminder to Podcasters of the Perils of Music in Their Productions

Last week, U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) introduced the American Music Fairness Act (see their Press Release for more details), with a companion bill to follow in the House.  If adopted, this legislation would impose a new music royalty on over-the-air radio stations.  The royalty would be payable to SoundExchange for the public performance of sound recordings.  This means that the money collected would be paid to performing artists and record labels for the use of their recording of a song.  This new royalty would be in addition to the royalties paid by radio stations to composers and publishing companies through ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR, which are paid for the performance of the musical composition – the words and music to a song. This new legislation is virtually identical to that introduced in the last Congress (see our article here), and is another in a string of similar bills introduced in Congress over the last decade.  See, for instance, our articles here, here, here and here on previous attempts to impose such a royalty.

As in the version of the bill introduced in the last Congress, in an attempt to rebut arguments that this royalty would impose an unreasonable financial burden on small broadcasters, the legislation proposes relatively low flat fees on small commercial and noncommercial radio stations, while the rates applicable to all other broadcasters would be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board – the same judges who set internet radio royalties payable to SoundExchange by webcasters, including broadcasters for their internet simulcasts.  Under the bill, the CRB would review rates every 5 years, just as they do for webcasting royalty rates.Continue Reading It’s Back!  American Music Fairness Act Proposing New Music Royalties for Over-the-Air Broadcasting Introduced in the New Congress

  • FCC Chairman Carr sent a letter to NPR and PBS announcing that he has asked the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to
…

Washington DC is not the only place where there are regulatory or political decisions made that affect broadcasters and advertising for candidates or political issues.  We’ve written many times about state laws that govern the use of AI in political advertising, with more than 20 states already having laws on their books and more considering such legislation in legislative sessions this year (see our articles here and here).  We have also noted that there are a number of states that have laws requiring media companies, including digital media companies, to keep records of political advertising sales and, in some cases, to make those records available to the public (see, for example, our article here).  While there are few federal elections in 2025, there are state and local elections in many states – and most of these laws are targeted to those state and local elections, so broadcast stations and cable systems regulated by the FCC need to be aware of these state laws.  But most of these laws reach far beyond FCC-regulated entities and apply to digital and even print media – so all companies need to be paying attention to their requirements.  And a number of recent actions highlight these concerns.

No state has been as active in enforcing such requirements as Washington State.  In a December decision seemingly overlooked by much of the trade press, the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld a decision fining Facebook parent company Meta $24.6 million for its failure to comply with the extensive political disclosure rules adopted by that state.  This decision upheld a summary judgement by a state trial court finding Meta liable for a $24.6 million penalty for violating the state’s public disclosure rules that apply to political advertising (for more on the trial court decision, see our article here). Continue Reading Washington State Court of Appeals Upholds $24.6 Million Penalty Against Meta for Not Meeting State Political Advertising Disclosure Requirements – A Warning to All Media Companies to Assess and Comply with State Political Disclosure Rules

It’s a new year, and as has been our custom at the beginning of each year, we dust off the crystal ball and take a look at what we think may be some of the significant regulatory and legislative issues that broadcasters will be facing in 2025.  This year, there is an extra layer of uncertainty given a new administration, both in the White House and at the FCC.  Already, it appears that a new administration will bring new priorities – some barely on the radar in past years – to the top of the list of the issues that broadcasters will need to be carefully monitoring.

One of those issues has been a possible FCC review of the meaning of the “public interest” standard under which all broadcasters are governed.  As we wrote when President-Elect Trump announced his pick for the new FCC Chair starting on Inauguration Day, Chair-Designate Brendan Carr has indicated that this public interest proceeding will be a high priority.  In his opinion, broadcasters, or perhaps more specifically the news media, have suffered from an erosion of trust, and it has been his expressed opinion that a reexamination of the public interest standard might help to restore public trust.  We noted in our article upon his selection that this is not the first time that there has been a re-examination of that standard.  It has traditionally been difficult to precisely define what the standard means.  In the coming days, we will be writing more about this issue.  But suffice it to say that we are hopeful that any new examination does not lead to more paperwork obligations for broadcasters, as seemingly occurred whenever any broadcast issue was addressed by the current administration.  As we note below, there are several paperwork burdens that we think may disappear in the new administration, so we are not expecting more paper – but we will all need to be carefully watching what develops from any re-examination of the public interest standard.Continue Reading Looking Into the Crystal Ball – What Legal and Policy Issues are Ahead for Broadcasters in 2025?

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau announced that comments and reply comments are due December 13 and 18, respectively, in response to
…