In odd numbered years like 2015, most broadcast stations don’t think about the FCC’s political broadcasting rules. But they should – and we have been receiving many calls from clients about the perhaps surprising number of elections that are taking place this year.  These include many races for state and local political offices, everything from school boards and city council to state legislative positions, plus the odd special election to fill vacancies in Congress or some other office.  As we have written before, most of the political rules apply to these state and local electoral races as well as to the few Federal elections that are taking place to fill open Congressional seats.

Candidates for state and local elections are entitled to virtually all of the political broadcasting rights of Federal candidates – with one exception, the right of reasonable access which is reserved solely for Federal candidates. That means that only Federal candidates have the right to demand access to all classes and dayparts of advertising time that a broadcast station has to sell. As we wrote in our summary of reasonable access, here, that does not mean that candidates can demand as much time as they want, only that stations must sell them a reasonable amount of advertising during the various classes of advertising time sold on the station. For state and local candidates, on the other hand, stations don’t need to sell the candidates any advertising time at all. But, once they decide to sell advertising time to one candidate in a state or local race, almost all of the other political rules apply.  Continue Reading Reminder – Political Broadcasting Rules Apply Even to State and Local Elections

This week, several notices of the intent to audit the records of several webcasters and other digital music services were published in the Federal Register, indicating that SoundExchange was planning on having the royalty payment records of these services reviewed.  Notices were sent to services including Live365, iHeartMedia and CBS).  Those notices have prompted several calls asking what this is all about.  We have written before about these audits (see our article here).  It is a somewhat routine process, where each year SoundExchange picks several webcasters whose records it will have reviewed.  Under the rules adopted by the Copyright Royalty Board, SoundExchange can elect to audit a webcaster (or other digital music service – and some of the notices this week were for services that were not webcasters – one to a background music provider or what is referred to as a “business establishment service”, here).  SoundExchange can, and usually does, elect to review three years of records.  They can only review any service once for the same time period, so effectively a service can be audited only once every three years.

Under the rules, an independent CPA is to do the audit.  Once the audit is complete, it must be provided to the music service for comment.  Then, it is up to SoundExchange and the service to work out what to do if there are discrepancies identified by the audit with which the service does not agree.  The rules do not provide for any independent adjudicator to referee what happens if there is a disagreement.  SoundExchange pays for the audit, unless the audit determines that the service underpaid by 10% or more, in which case the costs can be transferred to the service. Continue Reading SoundExchange to Audit iHeart, CBS and Other Webcasters and Digital Music Services

Last week, the Copyright Royalty Board asked for comments on a proposed settlement agreement between Sirius XM and SoundExchange, and some articles about that announcement have not been entirely clear about what the deal covers.  It has nothing to do with webcasting royalties for 2016-2020, which are still being litigated (see our article here about the proposals of the parties in that case).  Nor does it have to do with the royalties payable for Sirius’ primary satellite radio service, which were just upheld by the Court of Appeals (see our article here).  Instead, these royalties have to do with a very narrow part of Sirius’ business – providing music channels packaged and sold to consumers along with video services like cable and satellite TV.

Some who closely follow these issues (and the coverage of CRB issues on this blog) may think that the rates for these services were set at the same time as the Sirius rates for their satellite music service, as the CRB at that time set the rates that were applicable to Music Choice, which also offers a music service bundled with cable or satellite video programming (see our articles on the recent decision on the appeal of the rates, and the article on the CRB decision itself here).  Even though Music Choice offers pretty much the same service, their rates are different – as Music Choice was classified as a “preexisting subscription service” in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, while the service that Sirius provides is classified as a “new subscription service” paying at a different royalty rate set by the CRB using a different royalty standard.  How did this happen? Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Announces Settlement between Sirius and SoundExchange for New Subscription Services Packaged with Cable and Satellite Video – How Different Royalty Standards Result in Different Royalty Rates

With the Martin Luther King Day holiday just passed, it seems appropriate to review the FCC’s EEO rules, which look to promote broad access to broadcast employment opportunities.  The FCC’s EEO rules no longer seek exclusively to promote minority employment, but instead seek to have stations reach out to all groups within the area they serve to try to attract people from diverse sources into broadcasting – rather than allowing stations to simply recruit through word-of-mouth and traditional broadcast sources (e.g. referrals from consultants and friends).  We have written about the FCC audit process by which it will review the EEO performance of approximately 5% of all broadcast stations each year (see, e.g. our articles here and here) and also about recent fines for stations that did not comply with the FCC requirements in specific areas.  With EEO review also expanding this year through the filing of FCC Form 397 Mid-Term Reports by radio station clusters with 11 or more full-time employees located in certain states (see the list of states on our Broadcasters’ Regulatory Calendar), it might be good to review the basics of the FCC’s EEO requirements.

The FCC requirements, beyond forbidding any station from engaging in overt discrimination, also requires broad outreach to a station’s community to recruit for open employment positions at any station, as well as efforts to educate the community about the duties of and qualifications for  positions at broadcast stations, whether or not a station has any job openings.  These requirements apply to any station employment unit (a group of commonly-owned stations serving the same general geographic area and having one or more common employees) with 5 or more full-time (30 hours per week or more) employees.  What do the outreach rules require of stations? Continue Reading Reminder: A Broadcaster’s FCC EEO Obligations

Who says that the Internet is not regulated?  Whether to treat Internet video providers by the same rules that apply to cable and direct broadcast satellite systems is the subject of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the FCC just before Christmas, notice of which was published in the Federal Register today, setting the comment dates on the proposal.  Comments are due by February 17, and replies by March 2.  This proceeding could have a substantial impact on Internet video providers – potentially extending FCC jurisdiction to a whole host of services not currently subject to its rules, and potentially subjecting Internet video services to all sorts of rules that apply to traditional MVPDs (multichannel video programming distributors), including the FCC’s EEO rules, captioning rules and CALM Act compliance.  Even the political broadcasting rules, which the FCC notes in the NPRM only specifically apply to cable and direct broadcast satellite rather than to MVPDs generally, could potentially be looked at in the future for these services should they come under FCC jurisdiction.  At the same time, the rules could also have an impact on program suppliers and broadcast networks, as various rules dealing with access to cable and broadcast programming could extend to Internet video providers, potentially conflicting with existing contractual obligations and even the Copyright Act.  What are some of the specific issues being considered?

The issues raised in the Notice are many – including the very fundamental one as to whether the FCC even has the authority to include Internet delivered video (what the FCC refers to as Over the Top or OTT providers) under the rules for MVPDs.  While the general definition of MVPD would seem to cover Internet video (as it covers anyone who makes multiple channels of video programming available for purchase by subscribers), it is not that simple.  As with any Federal law, one can’t just stop the analysis with a quick read of the statute.  The statute, in at least one place, defines a “channel” as a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum capable of delivering a TV channel.  And the FCC has defined a TV channel as one comparable to what is delivered by broadcast TV.  It’s that reference to “electromagnetic spectrum” that has tripped up previous services seeking an expansion of the MVPD definition.  In the case of Internet-delivered service called Sky Angel, the FCC staff 5 years ago determined that, as it was not a facilities based system – it did not control that electromagnetic spectrum on which its programming was delivered – it could not be an MVPD.  The full Commission sought comments on the staff decision then (see our article on that request for comments on Sky Angel here and here,) and, with the recent Aereo decision (see our articles here and here) and its aftermath, and the seemingly daily announcement of new online video service offerings from everyone from CBS to HBO to Dish and Disney, the FCC seems now ready to move with this expansion of its authority to cover video on the Internet.  Because of the potential for very similar video services to have very different regulatory burdens (cable and satellite could be subject to all the FCC MVPD rules, while the same programming, delivered by an Internet service, might have none of those obligations under the current regulatory interpretations), the majority of the FCC want to move forward with this proposal.  But it asks for comments on whether it really has the authority to do so.  Continue Reading FCC Regulation of Internet Video? – Dates Set for Comments on Treating Over-the-Top Video Providers like Cable and Satellite TV

With the college football champion now decided, and the NFL league championships this coming weekend to decide this year’s Super Bowl teams, it’s that time when we post our warning about being careful with using the phrase “Super Bowl” in your promotions and commercials.  Both copyright and trademark issues can arise at Super Bowl time.  Trademark is usually the biggest concern, as there are always issues when broadcasters and advertisers don’t watch their commercials and promotions to avoid improper uses of a trademarked phrase like “Super Bowl.”  But copyright issues can also arise when broadcasters or others make a commercial use of part of the game’s TV coverage, or hold commercial paid viewing parties where proper rights to display the telecast has not been obtained.

First the trademark issues that arise not only with the Super Bowl, but also with other big brand events like March Madness which will begin to be hyped soon after the Super Bowl.  As we do every year when the Super Bowl and March Madness roll around, we remind broadcasters to scrutinize their advertising and promotions to avoid anything that appears to imply a tie-in with any of these events – especially where the trademark-protected name of the event is used in the ad or promotion itself. (See past articles here, here and here).  Continue Reading Beware of the Trademark and Copyright Issues in Ads and Promotions Involving the Super Bowl

A consent decree, requiring $50,000 payment to the FCC by the licensee and programmer of a noncommercial radio station, demonstrates two potential problem areas for broadcasters involved in LMA or Time Brokerage (TBA) arrangements.  First, for noncommercial licensees it makes clear that the programmer cannot be paying the licensee any more for the programming time on the station than the costs of operation of the station itself – the licensee cannot “profit” from the LMA payments and use money for other non-broadcast activities of the licensee.  Second, for any party engaged in an LMA, it is important for the licensee to maintain control over station operations – even if the bulk of the programming is coming from its LMA partner.

The lesson of this case for the noncommercial licensee is that an LMA can’t be looked at as a revenue-generating activity for the licensee.  In this case, the licensee received significant LMA payments that were about twice the amount of the actual costs of its operation of the station.  These excess payments were to be credited to the ultimate purchase price of the station should the programmer choose to exercise an option at the end of the LMA term.  However, these payments were apparently not characterized as option fees, but instead as LMA payments. Continue Reading $50,000 Penalty for LMA Operations – No Payments in Excess of Expenses for Noncommercial Licensees, and a Reminder that Licensee Must Remain in Control

There are times that the FCC, though its Daily Releases, appears to be trying to make a point.  And Friday was one of those days, when it simultaneously released four separate orders, each fining the owner of a tower used for communications purposes for failures to maintain the required tower lights on those towers.  Three of the fines were for $8000, and one for $6000, and three were against broadcasters and one was against a non-broadcast licensee.  The facts of each of the cases are slightly different – but together they make clear that the FCC demands that tower lights be maintained in operating condition, and will take few excuses for the failure of those lights to remain operational during required operating hours.

Two of the cases are particularly instructive as to the strict liability of the tower owner.  In one case, the owner of the tower argued that it should not be fined, as it maintained a system to monitor tower lights, a system that had just been inspected and found to be in operating condition a few days before the FCC inspection which discovered that a light was out on the tower.  Such monitoring systems are permitted by the rules as a substitute for daily visual monitoring of a tower’s lights.  However, the FCC found that the station was not being fined for the failure to monitor the tower lights (as that obligation was met through the automatic monitoring system), but instead for the failure of the lights to be lit –a strict liability standard seems to be used to justify the fine. Continue Reading Four Fines Up to $8000 for Tower Lighting Issues – A Message on the Importance to the FCC of Safety Issues

With the obligation of television stations to file the quarterly Children’s Television Reports on FCC Form 398 by Monday (as the usual January 10 date is on a weekend) and the simultaneous requirement to place into their online public file documentation of compliance with the commercial limits in Children’s programming, it is worth reminding stations of the seriousness with which the FCC continues to view its children’s television rules.  There have been a number of fines and enforcement actions against TV stations in recent weeks, highlighting the need for stations to be vigilant about compliance with all aspects of the children’s television rules.  While the license renewal cycle, during which most of these issues come to light, is coming to an end in 2015 and stations that have already been renewed won’t face renewal scrutiny for at least another 5 years, issues that arise even this far out from the renewal window can haunt the station at the next renewal.  Moreover, with the public inspection files of stations now online, the FCC or other interested parties can view station’s compliance with these obligations at anytime from anywhere, and can easily file FCC complaints.  So TV stations cannot let down their guard simply because their license renewal has been granted.

In the past week, we saw one interesting case, where the FCC proposed to fine a station $3000 for failing to include the “E/I” symbol in the educational and informational programming directed to children on two of its multicast channels.  The FCC rejected arguments by the licensee that the programming on those channels was in Korean, and thus the E/I symbol would not make sense to the Korean viewers of the programing.  The Commission reasoned that, if the station wanted an exemption to the rules, where it could identify the programming as educational and informational in Korean text, the station should have asked for a waiver of the rules.  Continue Reading Remember Children’s Television Compliance Obligations – The FCC Does Not Forget

Today is Elvis Presley’s 80th birthday, so it seems appropriate to revisit the issue of pre-1972 sound recordings, and to take a deeper look at the recent decisions by courts in New York and California finding that there is a public performance right in these recordings.  The NY decision in a case brought by Flo & Eddie of the band the Turtles, coming after the California cases, is in many ways the more interesting of the cases.  In the California case, the Court interpreted a California statute on copyright ownership as signaling that the California legislature intended to provide the entire bundle of ownership rights that would be accorded to any other piece of property, which the California Courts found would include the right to publically perform the recording.  While that may be debatable (as one does not usually think of a public performance right in connection with the ownership of tangible property – you don’t perform a house or a car), the decision at least is based on statute.  But the NY court did not find any such specific statute to which it could point to find a public performance right, instead concluding that the performance right was somehow inherent in the common law and therefore existed unless there was a specific carve-out of that right by statute.  This reasoning, to me, simply does not stand up to review.

The NY Court itself spends an entire footnote chronicling the history of the public performance right in the United States.  It notes that there was initially no public performance right at all recognized by the Copyright Act, until Congress provided one for dramatic works (e.g. plays) in 1856.  No such right was accorded to musical works (the musical composition – the words and music of a song) until 1897 when Congress specifically provided such a right by law.  For sound recordings, the public performance right did not exist in the US until 1995, when it was first extended to a limited class of digital recordings.  From these facts, the Court goes on to conclude “It was thus an accepted part of the background law that public performance rights would, absent a deliberate effort to exclude them, extend to sound recordings.”  Presumably, the Court is talking about the background law in 1972, when Congress first accorded any protection at all to sound recordings by granting a Federal right to control reproduction and distribution of such works – but Congress specifically excluded any performance right for another 23 years. Continue Reading On Elvis’ Birthday – Looking at the Issues with Pre-1972 Sound Recordings