Podcasting

Subscribe to Podcasting

This week, I spent some time at the Podcast Movement Annual Convention, this year held in the DC area.  While the convention is always a good time to catch up with industry friends and to spot new trends (AI was, of course, a topic that was discussed on several panels as it is at virtually every media conference these days), it was also a reminder that with all that has been going on at the FCC and with other regulations, we have not written much about podcasting in the recent past.  Previously, we have covered many issues related to the use of music in podcasts (see, for instance, our articles here, here, and here).  We’ve written about other legal issues that need to be considered in connection with podcasting including getting releases from guests, making sure that ownership of the podcast is clear (an issue potentially of more importance if the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements in employment contracts goes into effect, as it could result in more changes in employment of employees working on podcasts, though the effective date of any noncompete ban is questionable based on a court action this week that throws out that ban – a decision likely to be appealed), and other issues that I covered in the slides from a presentation presented at the Podcast Movement conference several years ago that remain relevant.   Today, I thought that I would revisit another topic from my prior coverage of podcast legal issues, one that was given new urgency by another recent FTC ruling – sponsorship identification. 

Broadcasters are familiar with the FCC requirements for the identification of those who provide something of value to a station in exchange for any on-air content.  Fines can be issued (and big payments under consent decrees have resulted see, for instance, the cases we noted here and here) from broadcasters who do not follow the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules.  But broadcasters are not as familiar with the fact that the FTC also has rules about sponsorship identification requirements that go beyond the FCC’s obligations, looking at questions including the truthfulness of endorsements and testimonials for products and services.  FTC enforcement can be as severe, if not more severe, than that of the FCC (see, for instance, the FTC’s fines we wrote about two years ago on Google and a broadcaster for having DJs talk about their use of Pixel phones that they had not in fact used).  The FTC last week expanded on its policies by adopting a final rule prohibiting the purchase and sale of fake reviews and testimonials concerning products and services, and allowing the agency to seek civil penalties against knowing violators.  Among other things, the new rule prohibits activities including the buying or selling of fake consumer reviews or testimonials, buying positive or negative consumer reviews, using certain insiders to create consumer reviews or testimonials without clearly disclosing their relationships, creating a company-controlled review website that falsely purports to provide independent reviews, using certain review suppression practices, and selling or purchasing fake indicators of social media influence.  We plan to write more about this FTC decision in the near future, but it is important to note that these FTC policies apply with equal force to podcasters and any other online communications medium.Continue Reading Podcasters and Broadcasters – Disclose Those Sponsors! 

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 has sent an e-mail, apparently to all broadcasters, regarding the cybersecurity of broadcast stations that use the DASDEC

…

All media companies, including broadcasters, webcasters, podcasters and others, need to consider carefully their advertising production after the big penalties imposed on Google and iHeart for broadcast commercials where local DJs promoted the Pixel 4 phone.  Promotions included statements that clearly implied that the announcers had used the phone, including statements that it was “my favorite camera” and “I’ve been taking studio-like photos” with the phone.  But, according to the announcements of the settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and seven state attorneys general (see the FTC press release and blog article), the announcers had not in fact used the phone.  Google will pay the states penalties  of $9 million, and iHeart will pay about $400,000 (see example of the state Court filings on the settlement, this one for Massachusetts, for Google and iHeart).  Each will enter into consent orders with the FTC (Google order here and iHeart here) requiring 10-year recordkeeping and compliance plans to train employees, maintain records of advertising with endorsements, and reports to be filed periodically with the FTC.

The mission of the FTC is to protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition.  In that role, the FTC regulates deceptive advertising practices.  Over a decade ago, we highlighted the FTC’s update of its policies on “testimonial and endorsement advertising” that made clear that the FTC required that any sort of “celebrity” (interpreted broadly) endorser had to have a basis for the claims that they were making in their pitches for a product.  This notice also made clear that any statements made about the experience in using a product had to be accurate and, when making claims about the performance of a product, the endorser had to accurately state performance that users can expect to obtain when they use the product.  Just using a “your results may vary” disclaimer was not enough.  In the 2009 proceeding, the FTC emphasized the applicability of these standards to online promotions, requiring disclosures for not only traditional advertising but also for social media influencers and others who are paid to promote products through online channels.  Such payments (or any other valuable consideration the influencer receives) must be disclosed when pitching a product.
Continue Reading Big FTC Penalties on Google and iHeart for Deceptive Endorsements in Broadcast Commercials Mandate Care in Crafting Your Local Advertising

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

  • Following up on its proposals from last summer to clean up radio technical rules that were inconsistent, outdated, or inaccurate,

…

Last week, we discussed the controversy started by Neil Young removing his music from Spotify because of its carriage of Joe Rogan’s podcast.  In that article, we looked at the relationship between music royalties and the decision of Spotify and other music services to emphasize podcasts and other talk programming over music.  Today, we will look at how music rights and royalties impact decisions like those of Neil Young and other musicians who may have wanted to pull their music to support the protest over Rogan’s podcast.

At its most basic level, there is the question of how much the artists themselves stand to lose from the withdrawal of their music from a service like Spotify.  Young himself said that he would lose 60% of his streaming revenue from pulling his music, which one source estimated to be over $700,000.  Given the other streaming services that now exist, his music is still available and generating revenue on his catalog, though apparently less than the amount generated by Spotify.  The 60% number in and of itself is interesting as, while artists and other music representatives complain about the Spotify per song payouts (likely because they offer a free, ad-supported tier with lower payouts than those from subscription services), the wider variety of services offered by Spotify seem to bring in big numbers of listeners – likely including many who would not subscribe to a pay-music service. Thus, because of the sheer numbers of listeners, and assuming that Young is representative of other artists, Spotify is responsible for the majority of the streaming revenue that has allowed the music industry to enjoy in recent years some of their most profitable years ever.  Even with these banner payouts, as we noted in our article on the Spotify side of the equation, the music industry is still not satisfied, recently calling the payouts “appallingly low.”  More on that issue in an upcoming post on the discussions of a US broadcast radio sound recording performance royalty.
Continue Reading Spotify, Joe Rogan and Neil Young – Looking at the Rights and Royalty Issues Behind the Story (Part 2 – The Rights of the Artists to Pull Their Music)

The last two weeks have been filled with stories about Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and other artists pulling their music from Spotify in protest of its carriage of the Joe Rogan podcast.  While the political statements made by these actions generate the news, there are rights and royalty issues behind the story that are worth exploring.  While Washington Post articles here and here touch on some of these issues, looking at them in more depth helps to explain the importance that Spotify places on podcasts and why it would be reluctant to pull a podcast that has so many listeners (reportedly over 10 million per episode), even if the podcast has content that may be objectionable.  The issues raised by this controversy are also tied into two other stories that made the news for broadcasters this last week – Congressional hearings on the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act and on a potential sound recording performance royalty on over-the-air radio – topics we will cover in subsequent articles.

Let’s first look at the question of why Spotify, which started as a music service, has pushed so hard into podcasting.  We will follow up with a discussion of the issues on the artist side of the equation in a second article.  Spotify reportedly paid more than a hundred million dollars for the rights to the Rogan podcast.  It has also invested heavily in other podcast companies – including buying podcast technology companies including Anchor and Megaphone, and podcast content aggregators including Gimlet and the Ringer.  Deals with celebrities for their podcasts include those with former President Obama for his podcast with Bruce Springsteen, as well as an announced content creation deal with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.  Why would a music service spend so heavily to get into spoken word programming?
Continue Reading Spotify, Joe Rogan and Neil Young – Looking at the Rights and Royalty Issues Behind the Story (Part 1 – Why Spotify Has Been Promoting More Podcasts)

Last week, the NY Times ran an interesting article, here, about how many old TV programs now available on streaming services are missing music that was featured on the original broadcast.  This was because when the music rights were initially purchased,  their use was limited to over-the-air broadcasts or was limited to a short period of time, with the producers never envisioning that the programs would be available through on-demand streaming services decades after they originally aired on over-the-air television.  While not mentioned in the article, for many radio broadcasters one of the series most missed on streaming services is the industry favorite WKRP in Cincinnati.  That series took forever to get to digital outlets, and still does not appear to be on any subscription streaming service, reportedly because of music rights issues.  This article and the issues that it highlights should be a warning not just to TV producers, but also to anyone planning to use music in audio or video productions – including podcasts and online videos – that clearing music rights is essential to insure that these productions can be fully exploited  not only when they are first made available, but also in the future if they are repurposed for other platforms.

We have written before (see, for example, our articles here and here) about the need to get permission from the copyright holders in both the musical work (or musical composition – the words and music to a song) and in the sound recording (or master recording – the song as recorded by a particular band or singer).  Just signing up with a performing rights organization (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or GMR) is not enough because, while podcasts may involve the public performances of the musical works that these organizations license, they do not give rights to make the permanent fixed copies of those songs, synchronized with other audio in the podcast, that can be accessed and downloaded on demand.  These uses require the additional copyrights to reproduce and distribute music, and arguably to make derivative works, that can only be obtained from the copyright holder (see our article here describing why the PRO license itself does not give all rights needed to use music in podcasts).   Similarly, the rights to the sound recording must also be obtained from the copyright holder in the recording – and payments to SoundExchange do not cover the on-demand music uses involved in a podcast.  Thus, when the necessary rights are not obtained from the copyright holders, we have seen podcasts go silent after infringement claims are brought or threatened (see our article here).
Continue Reading Missing Music On Streamed TV Programs Highlights Rights Issues for Podcasters and Video Producers

Here are some of the regulatory developments of the last 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.

  • The FCC set the comment dates for its proposal for changing the cost to file various broadcast applications. The new

…

The use of music has long been an issue for those looking to provide music-oriented podcasts to the public.  As we have written before (see, for example, our articles here and here), clearing rights to use music in podcasts is not as simple as signing up with ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (or even adding GMR or SoundExchange to the mix).  These organizations simply cover public performance rights for music when, as our prior articles make clear, podcasts require additional rights to use music in ways not fully covered by the licenses that are offered by these organizations.  The rights to the use both the underlying musical composition and the actual recording of that composition by a band or singer must be obtained on an individual basis from the copyright holders.  That can often mean a search for both the publisher and record company who usually own those copyright in the musical composition and the sound recording, respectively.  This can often be a difficult search, especially if there are multiple songwriters of a composition (and hence multiple publishing companies which likely own the copyrights) or where the rights to the songs have been assigned over time from their original owners.  Plus, as we have written before, there is no easily accessible universal database yet in existence that provides up-to-date and complete records of who owns those copyrights.  All this combines to make the clearance of music for use in podcasts an arduous process – and almost prohibitive for any small podcaster who wants to use more than one or two pieces of music in connection with their show.

In an article in the radio industry newsletter Inside Radio this week, it appears that at least two music-oriented podcasts have attracted the attention of the music industry, receiving demands from the RIAA which has led to their ceasing of operations.  It appears that these cases demonstrate both the difficulty of clearing music for podcasts, and perhaps that, as podcasting is growing in attention, the legal issues associated with the use of music in those podcasts is coming to the forefront of the attention of the music industry.
Continue Reading Music in Podcasts – As Podcasts Shut Down Following Infringement Notices, Looking at the Required Music Rights

The Radio Music License Committee and SESAC yesterday announced an extension of the terms of the royalty agreement that is currently in place between the commercial radio industry and this performing rights organization.  As we wrote here, the agreement under which radio broadcasters have been paying for the last three years was arrived at after an arbitration process following the settlement of an antitrust proceeding, and resulted in a dramatic reduction in the amount of the royalties paid to SESAC prior to that litigation.  The antitrust settlement calls for arbitration every three years if RMLC and SESAC cannot voluntarily arrive at new royalties.  The initial three-year period expired at the end of the 2018.  The parties have been negotiating a deal that covers the period starting from January 1, 2019, and the new deal that they arrived at runs for four years through December 31, 2022.  The new blanket agreement is available on the RMLC website here and with instructions from SESAC here.  It principally carries forward the deal terms of the prior agreement.

Note that in many trade press reports there have been statements that the agreement covers the public performance of SESAC music, not just on over-the-air radio but also on the streams of broadcast stations and in other “new media transmissions.”  These new media transmissions, under the terms of the agreement, also include “radio-style podcasts.”  As we noted in connection with RMLC’s recent license agreement with BMI, these agreements cover the public performance rights in a podcast, but that is not the only music license that you need to use music in a podcast.  As podcasts are downloadable and playable on-demand, and they involve the synchronization of music and speech into a unified recorded work, the rights under Copyright law to make reproductions and likely the right to make derivative works of these recordings need to be secured.  These rights need to come directly from the copyright holders in both the musical composition (the words and music of a song) and the sound recording (that song as recorded by a particular band or singer).  The public performance rights from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are insufficient by themselves to give you the rights to use music in a podcast, which is why there are so few podcasts that make extensive use of major label recorded music.
Continue Reading RMLC and SESAC Agree to Extend Current License Agreement for Commercial Radio – Music Licensing Update for Radio