Photo of David Oxenford

David Oxenford

Subscribe to David Oxenford's Posts

David Oxenford represents broadcasting and digital media companies in connection with regulatory, transactional and intellectual property issues. He has represented broadcasters and webcasters before the Federal Communications Commission, the Copyright Royalty Board, courts and other government agencies for over 30 years.

Follow:Read more about David OxenfordDavid's Linkedin ProfileDavid's Twitter Profile

$15,000 per station was the cost of a broadcast licensee’s failure to adequately supervise two stations of which he was the licensee, but which were operated pursuant to time brokerage agreements or LMAs. Like many stations in these tough economic times, this licensee decided to allow a third party to provide the bulk of the programming and retain the bulk of the sales revenues, in exchange for a payment. However, as the licensee remained the licensee, he was required to maintain and exercise control over the station’s operations, and maintain a meaningful staff presence at the station. In reviewing the operations of these stations, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau in recent decisions (here and here) concluded that the adequacy of that control was insufficient – providing a warning to other station licensees operating under LMA agreements that they must maintain operational control over the stations that they own.

The FCC has long said that a licensee must maintain a meaningful staff presence at a station, even if the station receives the vast majority of its programming from some other source – whether that is a network or programming provided under an LMA. Meaningful presence has required that at least two employees at the station be employed by the licensee, one of whom must be managerial and perform no services for the broker providing the programming under the LMA. This case makes clear that these required licensee employees must be physically present at the station’s main studio on a regular day to day basis – they cannot be located at some distant location supervising the station remotely or only periodically present at the main studio. Failure to have the station’s main studio manned by the required personnel in and of itself accounted for $7000 of the fine in this case.Continue Reading FCC Issues $15,000 Fines For Unauthorized Transfer of Control and Main Studio Staffing Violations for LMA Done Wrong

In a recent decision, the FCC upheld the dismissal of a noncommercial FM application filed during the 2007 NCE FM window, despite the fact that the application was not mutually exclusive with any other pending application. This somewhat unusual result came about following the selection of a winner from among a group of mutually exclusive noncommercial applications. That group of mutually exclusive applicants (or, as the FCC calls it, an “MX Group”) contained a number of applications in a “daisy chain.”   As an example, a daisy chain would be where Applicant A was mutually exclusive with Applicant B, and Applicant B was mutually exclusive with Applicant C, and Applicant C was mutually exclusive with Applicant D, but Applicants C and A were not themselves mutually exclusive.  In the case decided last week, there were actually 13 applications in the chain.  When the FCC used its point system for evaluating noncommercial applications, it selected a winner and dismissed all of the remaining applicants.  One of those dismissed applicants, The Helpline, asked the FCC to reconsider the dismissal of its application, arguing that, when you dismissed all of the applications that were mutually exclusive with the winning applicant, the technical facilities proposed by the Helpline would no longer be mutually exclusive with any application and thus could be granted as well. The FCC denied that request.

Why was that request denied? In its order establishing the rules governing the processing of noncommercial FM applications in the 2007 NCE window, the FCC decided that it would grant only one application out of any MX Group, even where not all of the applications in that group were mutually exclusive with each other. According to last week’s order, the Commission considered allowing the grant of more than one applicant in a group, but determined that doing so could lead to the grant of an application that is “inferior” to other applications, and which would not necessarily represent the best use of the spectrum, so they decided to grant only one applicant from each MX Group.Continue Reading FCC Decides Only One Application Will Be Granted From NCE MX Group – Even Where Second Application Can Technically Co-Exist With Granted Construction Permit

On March 16, David Oxenford spoke at a Continuing Legal Education Seminar on the FCC’s Political Broadcasting rules. The panel, sponsored by the Federal Communications Bar Association, included another attorney in private practice, an attorney from the NAB, Bobby Baker (the head of the FCC’s Political Broadcasting office), and a media time buyer for political candidates. The panel not only discussed the basic rules governing political advertising on broadcast stations, but also dealt with topics including the impact of the Citizen’s United case on FCC rules (see our post here on that topic), issues of what to do if a political spot contains objectionable content, and how stations should deal with complaints from candidates about the content of political ads. Many of these topics and others are discussed in the Davis Wright Tremaine Political Broadcasting Guide, available here.  The discussion also provided a useful reminder on certain aspects of the law regarding how much broadcast stations can charge political candidates for the purchase of advertising time on broadcast stations.

At the session, the political time buyer complained that broadcast stations were trying to charge political candidates premium prices for purchases of advertising time outside the “political window.” During the window, 45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, stations are required to charge candidates the “lowest unit rate” charged for any spot of the same class of time run on the broadcast station. Outside the window, broadcasters do not have to charge lowest unit rates but, as the buyer reminded the audience, they do still need to charge “comparable rates” to what the station charges advertisers for the same type of purchase. So, while candidates do not get volume discounts without buying in volume (as they do during the window), if they do buy in the required volume, they should get the same discount that other advertisers get. Stations should not “mark up” the rates charged to political candidates outside of the window.Continue Reading Reminders About Rates to Be Charged to Candidates At Communications Law Seminar

The FCC’s Media Bureau today asked for public comment on the Petition recently filed by a number of multichannel video providers – including seven large cable companies, both DBS companies, and Verizon – along with the American Cable Association and several public interest and trade organizations. The Petition seeks changes in the rules governing the retransmission consent process, including potentially requiring arbitration of disputes and limiting the ability of television stations to withhold their signals while the retransmission consent negotiation process is proceeding. Comments in this proceeding are due on April 19 and replies on May 4.

This Petition was prompted in part by several recent high profile retransmission consent negotiations, where television stations threatened to pull their signals from cable systems if their requests for compensation were not met. While television companies argue that being able to pull their signals is a necessary bargaining chip in the negotiation process, petitioners submit that the changed video marketplace makes this option unreasonable, as it can harm both the video provider and the local viewers who are deprived of the station’s signal while negotiations are ongoing.Continue Reading FCC Asks for Comments on Petition Seeking Reform of Retransmission Consent Process

In the last two weeks, David Oxenford has, at two different conferences, moderated panels on digital music rights and licenses.  At the Digital Music Forum East, in New York City on February 25, 2010, his panel focused on rights and licenses generally, featuring panelists from SoundExchange, BMI, the Harry Fox Agency, Rightsflow and MediaNet. …

The FCC today released its National Broadband Plan to Congress, and in it spelled out its suggestions for the future of television. Facilitating the deployment of ubiquitous, dependable wireless broadband service is identified as a fundamental goal of the Commission’s proposals. The authors of the Commission’s report have viewed the problems experienced by some wireless broadband providers in major markets as indicative of a coming shortage in wireless capacity. Specifically, the Commission is concerned that as more and more applications for wireless broadband are deployed, the capacity of existing wireless spectrum will be exhausted, foreclosing opportunities presented by wireless broadband. And, as detailed below, the Commission sees the television spectrum as providing a significant part of the answer to that perceived spectrum shortfall.

The opportunities for broadband are many, in the view of the authors of the study. The Commission sees growing demand and future applications for wireless broadband not just in the areas of entertainment and commercial applications, but also in education, health, energy conservation, civic involvement, and public safety, among others. However, the Commission fears that sufficient spectrum will not be available to meet all of these needs.Continue Reading FCC National Broadband Plan – What It Suggests for TV Broadcasters Spectrum

Broadcasters need to be aware that ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (the "performing rights organizations" or PROs) don’t cover them for all uses of music – especially uses that may be made on station websites.  Offering downloads, podcasts, and streaming video featuring music all require specific permission from music rights holders.  And, as we wrote just…

In one more indication that the Broadcast Performance Royalty (or "performance tax" as opponents of the legislation call it) is not dead yet is an article in yesterday’s New York Times reviewing the issues at stake in the proceeding.  What was perhaps most interesting about that article was the fact that it appeared only one page away from an article about Internet Radio service Pandora, and a discussion of how that hugely popular service was almost driven out of business by music royalties set by the Copyright Royalty Board in their 2007 royalty decision.  The article about the broadcast performance royalty mentions that one of the difficulties in assessing the impact of the proposed royalty is that no one knows how much it will be, as it would be set by the Copyright Royalty Judges on the CRB.  Yet the Times makes no mention of the controversy over the previous decisions of the Board in the context of the Internet radio royalties, and how such royalties almost impacted services such as Pandora.  

How much would the proposed royalties on broadcasters be?  We have written before on that subject,here.  Under previous decisions using the "willing buyer, willing seller" royalty standard which is set out in the legislation that has passed House and Senate Judiciary committees dealing with this issue, the lowest royalty for the use of music in any case before the CRB has been 15% of gross revenues.  Even using a standard seemingly more favorable to the copyright user (the 801(b) standard that assesses more than the economic value of the music but also looks at the impact that the royalty would have on the stability of the industry on which it is imposed), the royalties have been in the vicinity of 7% of gross revenues for both satellite radio and digital cable radio, the two services that are subject to royalties set using the 801(b) standard.  This is more than broadcasters currently pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC – rates which are also currently the subject of proceedings to determine if these rates should be changed (see our posts here and here).   Continue Reading Proposed Broadcast Performance Royalty Back in the News – Where is It Going?

David Silverman participated on a panel discussing the legal aspects of social media at the Great Lakes Broadcasting Conference in Lansing, Michigan on March 3, 2010. His PowerPoint presentation focused on the risks and benefits of using Twitter, Facebook and other social media in the employment context, including use by broadcasters. There are…

Using music in commercials is not as simple as just paying your ASCAP, BMI and SESAC royalties.  While many broadcasters think that paying these royalties is enough to give them the rights to do anything they want with music on their stations, it does not.  The payments to these Performing Rights Organizations (PROs) only cover the right to publicly perform music, i.e. to broadcast it.  They do not give you the right to take the music and "synchronize" it with other words or video material, e.g.  you cannot put music in a recorded commercial or otherwise permanently fix it into a recorded audio or video production.  Instead, to make such a production, the producer needs to get the rights to both the underlying musical composition (the words and musical notes) and, if you are planning to use a particular recording of a song, the rights to use that particular recording ( the "sound recording" or "master recording").  Getting these rights may very well require that you deal both with the record company or performing artist whose recording you plan to use, and the publishing company that represents the composer of the music.  And, as some artists may have concerns about having their music used to pitch some products, getting the rights to that artist’s version of a particular song may not be easy. 

Even using the tune of a familiar song in an advertisement, with different words, is not permitted without getting the rights to do so from the publishing company.  A copyright holder in a musical composition has the right to prepare "derivative works" of that composition.  A derivative work is one that uses the original copyrighted material, but changes it somehow – like putting new words to an old tune.  Many think that "fair use" permits the making of a parody of a song, so they are allowed to use the tune as long as they produce a new version that is funny.  However, in the copyright world, fair use is not that simple.  A parody, to allow use of the original tune, must be making commentary or criticism of the original song.  Being independently funny or amusing, or otherwise dealing with some independent social or political issue, does not give you the right to use the music without securing permission from the composer of the music first.  A recent story in the Hollywood reporter’s legal blog, THR,esq.com, told the story of a Congressional candidate, Joe Walsh, who thought that it would be cute to use the music of former Eagle Joe Walsh, to make fun of Democratic politicians.  As set out in that story, Eagle Joe Walsh’s attorney did not find the campaign song very funny, and sent a very strong letter objecting to that use (the LA Times site had at one point had a link to a video of a band playing the candidate’s version of the Joe Walsh song "Walk Away", but it now says that the video has been taken down due to a copyright objection). Don’t let your station be the recipient of such a letter – get the rights to use music in commercials or other productions. Continue Reading Using Music in Advertising or In a Video Production? Secure the Necessary Rights – ASCAP, BMI and SESAC Licenses Are Not Enough