With the Federal Aviation Administration convening a task force to require the registration of most drones, I thought that it was worth taking another look at the current rules regulating the use of by media companies of what are more officially called unmanned aerial systems (“UAS”) and unmanned aerial vehicles (commonly called “drones”). We offered some discussion of the FAA process to license drone for commercial use a few months ago, here. Rachel Wolkowitz (see her bio here), one of the attorneys following these issues for our law firm Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP in Washington, DC, offers these broad observations on how drones can be used for newsgathering under current FAA rules, and offers some cautions for both current and future use.

The use of drones presents great opportunity, and potential risk, for newscasters. Drones can be cheaper to fly than helicopters, and potentially can get closer to the action. On the other hand, drone technology is still nascent and safer operating technologies – e.g. sense-and-avoid systems that use internal systems to find and avoid hazards – are still being developed. Federal, state, and local governments are struggling with the potential safety and privacy implications that follow from putting thousands of drones in the sky for a variety of uses.  They are creating a patchwork of laws, rules, and policies that have the potential to trigger liability for broadcasters.  Below, we provide a high-level discussion of some key legal considerations for operating drones for news gathering. Continue Reading Using Drones for TV News – What are the Legal Issues?

What legal issues should a broadcaster be concerned about when expanding its use of digital media?  Two weeks ago, I did a presentation for the CBI National Student Electronic Media Conference on issues for college broadcasters who are using digital media.  While this presentation was made to college broadcasters, most of the issues discussed are relevant to commercial broadcasters as well, especially to broadcasters who are expanding their digital presence – whether by increasing content on their websites, developing podcasts, or using social media to connect with their audience.  The slides for the presentation are available here, and address issues including the use of music on a website (see, for instance, our article about concerns over the use of music in podcasts), how broadcast stations brands (program titles and slogans) can draw unwanted attention from trademark holders who have registered similar marks, how media created for analog purposes may need new permissions to be used in other digital mediums, how fair use needs to be relied on sparingly in borrowing someone else’s content for your digital media production, cautions on the use of social media, and the steps that need to be taken by stations to avoid liability for user-generated content (see our articles here and here on user-generated content).

When I have given various forms of this presentation over the years, many broadcasters and media companies ask why they should be concerned about these issues, as they have operated in the digital media world for a couple of years, and never faced a problem occasioned by any of their online content.  When asked that question, I often think about how new digital media still is.  As set out in the slides, many of the biggest players in the industry – Pandora, YouTube, Netflix, etc. – are all about ten years old, or less.  As the biggest digital media players are less than a decade old, rightsholders have taken their time to ramp up their enforcement efforts.  But in the last 2 or 3 years, we are seeing more and more activity by rightsholders moving to protect their content when it is used without permission online – whether it be music, trademarks or even pictures.  Photographers have become very active in pursuing website operators who have posted pictures, often found elsewhere on the Internet, without permission from the photographer or other copyright holder of that photo (see our article here). Patent holders, too, are more active chasing perceived infringers, making it more and more important for media companies to assure that they get assurances of rights protections through indemnifications in contracts from technology providers (see our articles here and here).   Rightsholders of all types are more active, and more and more legal issues are arising from online content and operations – so be careful with all of your operations, and your digital operations in particular, to avoid potential problems.

In Friday’s Federal Register, the FCC published a summary of the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking looking to revise its policies regarding the ownership of broadcast stations by non-US citizens setting the date for comments on its proposal of December 21, with Reply Comments being due by January 20.  The FCC two years ago issued a Declaratory Ruling confirming that it would allow broadcasters to have foreign ownership (in a licensee’s parent company) of greater than 25%, overturning what was widely viewed as the Commission’s prior reluctance to approve that degree of foreign ownership of broadcast stations (see our article here for a summary of the FCC’s 2013 action).  But that decision left many unanswered questions, as the Commission decided to proceed on a case-by-case basis in reviewing any requests for approval under the new rules.  When it took almost two years for Pandora to get approval for its acquisition of a broadcast station, almost a year in processing a request under the 2013 ruling (see our article here on the filing of the Pandora petition), when Pandora did not even think that it exceeded the 25% foreign-ownership threshold but it could not prove its compliance based on the FCC’s 40 year old rules setting out the procedures used to assess the foreign ownership of broadcast stations, it was clear that some changes had to be made.  So, in approving the Pandora deal in May, the FCC said that it would conduct a further review of its rules regarding foreign ownership, a commitment that it moves to fulfill by the issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The NPRM suggests that the FCC will use for broadcasting, with some modifications, the procedures that it uses in assessing foreign ownership of non-broadcast FCC licensees.  While there are many details and nuances in its proposals, the FCC will still need a Petition for Declaratory Ruling to approve foreign ownership above 25% of a parent company of a broadcast licensee (foreign ownership of the licensee itself is flatly prohibited if it exceeds 20%). But it now proposes to adopt the non-broadcast presumptions that, when the FCC approves a foreign owner of more than 5% of a corporation, that approved owner can go up to 49% ownership without further FCC approval.  Similarly, if a foreign owner is approved in a control position, that owner would be able go to 100% without further approval.  But, on a practical level, perhaps more important was the FCC proposals about the mechanics of tracking foreign ownership. Continue Reading FCC Sets Comment Dates on Proposal to Relax Restrictions on Foreign Ownership in Companies Holding US Broadcast Station Licenses – What Is the FCC Proposing?

The FCC today issued a Public Notice reminding TV broadcasters (full-power, LPTV, translator and Class A stations, both commercial and noncommercial, if they have digital operations) that they must, by December 1, file a report on the ancillary and supplementary services that they provide and pay a fee of 5% of gross revenues received by the TV station for such services. Ancillary and supplemental services do not include non-subscription video channels delivered directly to the public, but would include any other services proved over the station’s spectrum from which the station receives compensation, including “computer software distribution, data transmissions, teletext, interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, or audio signals, [and] subscription video.” All stations must file the report – even if they don’t receive any such revenue (as they must state that fact on the report).

The Public Notice also noted that the old Form 317 is no longer used for the filing of this report. The report now needs to be filed on FCC Form 2100 Schedule G, using the FCC’s new “Licensing and Management System” electronic filing system (LMS). Stations that owe a fee must also submit a Form 159. Filing details are in the notice. Don’t forget the filing and the fee if required – as the FCC warns appropriate sanctions will be taken against stations that don’t file or file late.

The last week has been a busy one for the FCC in preparing for the December applications by broadcasters for participation in the TV incentive auction. The incentive auction will, of course, offer TV broadcasters money (in some cases, lots of it, at least initially) to vacate their spectrum so that the television band can be “repacked” – consolidated into fewer channels – with the reclaimed spectrum being divided into different size blocks and resold to wireless companies for wireless broadband uses. In the last week, the FCC has made public two forms that will be important to that effort – the Form 177 which (as we wrote here) will be filed in December by broadcasters initially interested in participating in the auction, and the Form 2100 Schedule 399, which will be used to claim reimbursement by TV stations that do not surrender their licenses but which are forced to change channels as part of the repacking. The Form 177, the form that broadcasters must submit if they want to take part in the reverse auction, is not easy to find, but is available here, on the website of the Office of Management and Budget, where it has been submitted for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act before it can be released to broadcasters for submission by the December 18 filing deadline.

Similarly, and a bit more publicly, the FCC has released the form, Form 2100 Schedule 399, which broadcasters who do not sell out in the incentive auction, but instead are repacked and forced to move to another channel, will use to claim reimbursement for such moves. The form reveals the categories of expenses for which reimbursement would be made. This form is also being submitted to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, according to the FCC Public Notice which provided notice of the form. Continue Reading Closing In on the Incentive Auction – Broadcast Application and Reimbursement Forms Available for Review, Reverse Auction Workshop and TV Interference Calculations

Late Friday, the FCC denied the request of several broadcasters to extend the time to comment on the FCC proceeding looking at the requirement of “good faith” in retransmission consent negotiations, though it did extend the time for reply comments by two weeks. The FCC is reviewing the good faith requirement, to determine if it should adopt new standards, either through the adoption of practices which per se violate the requirement, or by looking at practices which, when assessing the totality of the circumstances, do not constitute good faith. We wrote about the issues raised by the proceeding here, and in that article expressed surprise that comments were due just as TV broadcasters would be making their determinations about participation in the incentive auction. The NAB and a number of broadcast groups agreed, and asked for an extension of the comment deadline from December 1 to February 1. The FCC declined that request, only mentioning the incentive auction deadlines that coincide with the comment deadline in passing when describing the extension requests. The Commission did, however, grant an additional two weeks, to January 14, for reply pleadings, citing the holidays as the justification for that extension. So comments remain due on December 1, and replies are now due on January 14.

November is another of those months with no regular filing obligations – no EEO public file and Mid-Term reports, no noncommercial ownership reports, and no quarterly issues programs lists or children’s television reports. EEO public file reports and noncommercial station ownership reports, being tied to renewal dates, will be back in December. See our Broadcaster’s Calendar, here, for information about the states where stations have such obligations. For all commercial radio and TV stations, November also means that they should be completing their Biennial Ownership Reports, which are due on December 2 (extended from the November 1 due date by FCC action noted, see our article here). Those reports submit a snapshot of broadcast station ownership as of October 1, so they can be filed at any time in November.

The end of November also brings the effective date of the requirement that TV stations convert the text of their emergency alerts run in entertainment programs (like weather alerts) into speech, with that audio to be broadcast on the station’s SAP channel. See our articles here and here on that requirement. Continue Reading November Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Incentive Auction and Biennial Ownership Report Preparation, Reg Fee Comments, Music Issues, Text to Speech Emergency Information and More

The FCC requires each full-power broadcast station, commercial and noncommercial, to maintain a public inspection file.  Even though this is a longstanding FCC requirement, there are always questions about what goes into the file, and how long those materials must be retained.  The week before last, I conducted a webinar for about 20 state broadcast associations on the FCC’s public file requirements for broadcast stations.  The slides from that presentation, outlining the requirements for the file, and the required retention period for many of the documents that make up that file, are available here.

While many broadcasters wonder if the public file is really worth the time that it takes to maintain given the nonexistent traffic to view that file at most stations, the FCC has continued to insist on its importance – fining or otherwise sanctioning stations for missing or late filed documents.  See, for instance, this case admonishing a TV station for failing to get all of its documents into its online public file in a timely fashion (an admonishment is the equivalent of putting a demerit in the station’s permanent record that could be considered as a prior violation in assessing fines if the FCC finds the station in violation for some other offence).  Particularly at license renewal time, a complete public file can be crucial, as missing documents lead to big fines (see, for instance, our articles here and here), and failure to disclose those missing documents can lead to even more harsh penalties (see our article here).  So maintaining an accurate and complete public file is important.  Quarterly issues programs lists are often the most overlooked requirement. Continue Reading The Care and Feeding of the Broadcast Public Inspection File – Requirements and Retention Periods, A Presentation on the Issues

This week, many radio stations received a letter from SESAC, asking the stations to renew their last SESAC agreement for three years at a rate 5% lower than the rate at which they are currently paying. Sounds like a deal? But is there a catch? The SESAC letter makes clear that, by renewing the current agreement and accepting the discount, the station is agreeing that it will not be a part of any attempt by the Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”) to negotiate a rate with SESAC. The SESAC letter has drawn a strong response from the RMLC in a letter dated today, signed by Ed Christian from Saga Communications, the Chairman of RMLC, suggesting that stations not sign the SESAC renewal requests. What is this all about?

As we wrote several months ago, SESAC and the RMLC recently settled antitrust litigation where the RMLC argued that SESAC violated the antitrust laws by charging monopoly pricing for the multiple musical compositions that it bundled together for licensing purposes, and making it virtually impossible for stations to avoid paying these royalties as SESAC did not reveal its entire catalog, and licensed music that was almost impossible to avoid playing (like the jingles in some McDonalds commercials). SESAC agreed to settle the litigation – agreeing to negotiate industry-wide deals with the RMLC, and, if such deals could not be reached through voluntary negotiations, to have its rates set by an arbitration panel. SESAC has never before had its rates subject to oversight as, unlike ASCAP and BMI, SESAC is a for-profit company and is not subject to an antitrust consent decree that includes rate review by a US District Court. Many thought that the RMLC agreement with SESAC would result in a moderation of the SESAC rates. Many broadcasters considered SESAC rates to be too high relative to the fees paid for the much larger ASCAP and BMI catalogs given the limited catalog of music that SESAC licenses. So if SESAC agreed to negotiate rates with the RMLC, why is it now writing letters suggesting that stations not participate in the RMLC negotiations? Continue Reading Dueling Letters about SESAC Radio Station Royalties – What’s A Station to Do?

On Friday, the FCC finally took action in its long-awaited AM revitalization rulemaking proceeding.  Friday’s order came in three parts – one adopting certain changes to FCC technical FCC rules and also adopting procedures for AM stations to acquire FM translators, a second asking for comment on a series of additional proposals looking to further change certain AM rules, and a final section a more preliminary inquiry looking at longer term policy changes to the AM rules.  While not providing everything some AM proponents may have wished for, the order does promise some immediate help for AM stations – including steps to, in the short-term, bring FM translators to many of the AM stations that feel these translators are necessary for their continued survival.  Today, we’ll look at that aspect of the order – the proposals to make available FM translators to help AM stations.

As we have written (see our articles here and here), there was a major controversy at the FCC about whether or not to open a window, restricted to AM licensees, letting them file for new FM translators, or to instead provide a process where AM stations would need to buy existing translators to provide FM service for their stations.  In Friday’s order, the FCC promised both.  Initially, in 2016, it will open a two-part window during which it will waive its minor change rules so as to allow AM licensees to buy an FM translator authorization, and “move” that translator up to 250 miles from its present location, to its AM market to operate on any available FM channel in that market.  Later in 2017, it will open a more traditional window for any AM that was not able to acquire a translator in 2016 where that AM will be able to file an application for a new FM translator. There are many details associated with each of these windows. Continue Reading FCC Adopts AM Revitalization Order – Part 1 – The Upcoming Windows for AM Stations to Acquire FM Translators