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

Last week, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued an Advisory reminding broadcasters about their obligation to provide sponsorship identification information to their audiences whenever they receive something of value in exchange for airing any programming.  The Enforcement Bureau’s advisory was quite concise, basically just reminding broadcasters of their sponsorship identification obligations.  But the FCC also highlighted two other issues – (1) that broadcasters have an obligation to exercise reasonable diligence to make sure that any third-party program providers also include sponsorship identification when they are paid to include material in programs that they provide to the station and (2) the FCC can impose substantial fines on stations that do not live up to these obligations.

On the question of exercising reasonable diligence in insuring that program providers meet the sponsorship identification obligations, the FCC pointed to this language form Section 317(c) of the Communications Act:

The licensee of each radio station shall exercise reasonable diligence to obtain from its employees, and from other persons with whom it deals directly in connection with any program or program matter for broadcast, information to enable such licensee to make the announcement required by this section.

This means that a broadcaster needs to ask any party providing syndicated programming to a station to ensure that the rules are met.  The same obligation would apply to time brokers who place programming on the station.  The station owner needs to be sure that these programmers are aware of their obligations under the sponsorship identification rules, and that they observe those obligations.  Reminders to program providers, and review of the programs that they provide, would seem to be part of this reasonable diligence obligation.  We have previously written about this requirement – see for instance our article here.
Continue Reading FCC Issues Reminder On Sponsorship Identification Requirements – Including Obligation to Ensure Syndicated and Brokered Program Providers Comply With the Rules

With Dr. Seuss recently in the news for the decision of his estate to pull from publication certain books that were racially insensitive, we thought that we would go back and look at another decision involving the good doctor that we did not get around to reviewing when it came out at the end of last year – the decision that a book, Oh, The Places that You Will Boldly Go, a mash-up of Dr. Seuss and Star Trek, was an infringement on the Seuss’ copyrights and did not qualify for fair use treatment.  Who knew that Dr. Seuss would play such a prominent role in legal and public policy!  As we summarize below, and as we have written before (see for instance our articles here and here), fair use is not a simple concept or one that is as broadly applicable as many in the media industry seem to think.

The decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Boldly Go case overturned a lower court opinion finding the book to be a parody of the original Seuss work (Oh, the Places You Will Go), and thus entitled to fair use protection.  The 9th Circuit found that Boldly Go was not a fair use, but instead an improper exploitation of the copyrighted work.  The Court reached its decision by reviewing the factors set out in Section 107 of the Copyright Act that are required for a fair use analysis.  This decision is one which all media companies should review carefully, as it makes clear that fair use is not as broad of a concept as apparently believed.  Importantly, fair use does not cover any use that may be an amusing adaptation of an original work.  For instance, I am often asked by radio companies whether taking a song and substituting a new set of lyrics that provide some funny commentary on some newsworthy topic is fair use.  As is evident from the analysis undertaken in the Boldly Go case, unless the “parody” is making fun of the original copyrighted work, it may well not qualify as a fair use and thus may be subject to a claim of copyright infringement.
Continue Reading Dr. Seuss and Fair Use – Just Because You Make a Funny Version of a Copyrighted Work Does Not Mean that You Will Escape an Infringement Claim

Last week, the FCC issued a hearing designation order, sending to an Administrative Law Judge the question of whether an AM station’s license renewal application should be granted.  The hearing seeks to gather evidence as to whether the renewal should be granted despite the station’s record, under its current licensee, where it was operating for only 36% of the time that the licensee owned the station prior to the renewal being filed, and for only 2 days in the 9 months in 2020 after the renewal was filed.  During much of the period that the station was operating, it operated at less than full power (according to the FCC, often without receiving an STA for that low power operation).

Because of these prolonged periods of silence, the FCC asks whether the licensee was really serving the public interest.  For example, if a station is not operating, it cannot cover local issues or broadcast EAS warnings.  Over the last several years, there have been several cases where the FCC has designated for hearing or revoked licenses of stations with records of non-operation for extended periods during a license renewal term, finding that broadcasters cannot warehouse spectrum.  See our articles here and here about some recent examples.  If a broadcast channel is not used by a licensee, these hearings are held to determine if the public interest might not be better served by taking the channel from its current licensee and awarding it to some other party who will make use of it.
Continue Reading FCC Hearing Designation Order Reminds Broadcasters that Long Periods Where They are Not Operating May Lead to License Renewal Problems

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’s Enforcement Bureau reminded stations of their obligation to comply with all sponsorship identification rules and to disclose information

…

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.

  • Global Music Rights (GMR) has offered commercial radio stations an extension of their interim license for the public performance of

…

In a Public Notice, the FCC has reminded all analog LPTV stations and TV translators that they need to convert to digital by July 13, 2021 or cease operations.  The Notice reminds operators of these stations that, if they cannot meet the July 13 deadline, they can request an extension by March 15.  Upon a showing setting out that their inability to meet the deadline was for reasons beyond their control, the Commission may grant an extension of up to 6 months to construct the digital facilities (though, even if their conversion deadline is extended, the analog operations must cease by July 13).

One issue left unresolved by the FCC is the status of “Franken FMs,” those analog LPTV stations on Channel 6 whose audio is used to provide an FM radio service on 87.7 on the FM band.  As we wrote here, the FCC asked for comments on a request to allow these stations to continue to provide an analog audio signal even after the digital conversion deadline to allow these audio services to continue.  Though the deadline is getting close, there thus far has been no response by the FCC on that request.
Continue Reading FCC Reminds Analog LPTV/TV Translators of July 13 Digital Transition Deadline – Extensions Due by March 15

In two Notices of Violation issued on one day this week, an FCC Field Office cited Low Power FM operators for using transmission systems that, in addition to transmitting signals on their authorized channels, were also emitting signals on other channels that posed the potential for interference with other users on those other frequencies – sometimes not even broadcast frequencies.  In one case, the FCC noted that it was the FAA that reported the interference (the other notice released the same day is available here).

All broadcast transmissions have the potential for these spurious emissions on channels other than the ones for which a station is authorized, especially if a station is near other stations as frequencies can interact to produce these unintended emissions.  When constructing and operating any broadcast station, care should be given to ensure that these off-channel emissions are not of a signal strength beyond that permitted by the FCC rules as interference can occur and the FCC can potentially impose fines.
Continue Reading FCC Notes Violations for Two LPFM Operators for Spurious Emissions – Make Sure that Your Station is Transmitting Only Within Its Assigned Frequency

Global Music Rights, one of the newest performing rights organization licensing the public performance of musical compositions, has agreed to extend its interim license with commercial radio broadcasters.  That license is set to expire at the end of March (see our article here).  This interim license has been offered and extended for the last several years to allow stations to perform GMR music while GMR litigates with the Radio Music Licensing Committee over whether GMR is subject to any sort of antitrust regulation of the rates that it sets (and GMR’s countersuit over whether the RMLC itself violates the antitrust rules as a buyer’s cartel, by allegedly organizing all the buyers of GMR’s music to hold out for a specific price).  We wrote about that litigation here.  With the pandemic, the lawsuit which should have already gone to trial is likely not going to be heard until possibly next year, as discovery in the case has been postponed until later this year.

Today, the RMLC notified radio broadcasters that GMR will again extend its interim license while the litigation plays out – but GMR wants a 20% increase in the royalties that it receives.  RMLC made clear that this is not a negotiated rate – it is one that GMR has imposed with no input from RMLC.  Stations should expect to hear from GMR about the extension by March 15.  If they do not, stations interested in the extended license should reach out to GMR.  Many stations are confused by this royalty, so we thought that we would provide some background.
Continue Reading GMR Offers to Extend Its Interim License With Commercial Radio Stations – But It Wants a 20% Increase in Royalty Payments

In recent months, we have seen concerted attempts to reign in digital and social media from all along the political spectrum – from Washington, in the states and even internationally.  We thought that we would look at some of those efforts and their motivations today.  We will look at many of these issues in more detail in future articles.

Towards the end of last year, the Trump Administration sought to strip social media platforms of Section 230 protections because of their alleged bias against conservative speakers (see our articles here and here).  A similar perception seems to underlie the recently proposed Florida legislation that seems to create for social media a policy similar to the equal opportunities (or “equal time”) policy that applies to broadcasters – a social media service cannot “de-platform” a political candidate if it allows the opposing candidate access to that platform.  That proposed legislation also has announced goals of requiring clear rules for access and editing of political views on such sites.  A press release about that legislation is here, though the actual text does not yet seem to be available for review.
Continue Reading Everyone Seems to Want to Regulate Online Media – But Can They?  Setting the Stage- Looking at the Range of Regulatory Proposals

At its March 17 monthly Open Meeting, the FCC will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking to modify certain aspects of the Emergency Alert System used by many of those regulated by the FCC including broadcasters, cable companies, and wireless communications devices such as mobile phones.  The FCC is reviewing these issues as required by the National Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress at the end of 2020.  As part of its mandate, Congress also asked that the FCC review whether it would be possible to require “streaming services” to become EAS participants.  A Notice of Inquiry asking that question is included with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asking specific questions about the feasibility of that extension of EAS requirements.  A draft of the proposals to be considered by the FCC at the March meeting is available here (the draft is subject to change before the meeting).

The proposed changes include some that may be relevant to broadcasters.  These include the requirement that State Emergency Communications Committees meet at least yearly to review state EAS plans and certify to the FCC each year that they have in fact met.  The FCC will consider and approve all changes to state EAS plans but will no longer make those plans public on the FCC website, as there is a fear that publication of these plans could be used to subvert the emergency alerts.
Continue Reading FCC To Consider Emergency Alert System Changes and Evaluate the Ability of Streaming Services to Participate in EAS