It’s that time again when broadcasters and advertisers need to watch their commercials and promotions to avoid improper uses of trademarked phrases – with the Super Bowl only weeks away, the Winter Olympics to follow soon thereafter and March Madness to follow closely after that.  Already, Stephen Colbert is making jokes about not using the Olympic rings in promotional announcements (see the first segment of last night’s show), so you know that the issue is arising at media outlets across the country.  As we do every year when the Super Bowl and March Madness roll around (and every other year at Olympics time), 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 protected name of the event is used in the ad or promotion itself. (See past articles here and here). 

The Super Bowl and March Madness are both trademarked terms, and violations of the trademarks have been vigorously prosecuted by the NFL and the NCAA, respectively.  The US Olympic committee has gone one better, getting specific statutory protections in the US for the use of the term the Olympics and the interlocking rings that symbolize the games.  Sponsors of these events pay big bucks for the privilege of being associated with the events, and the organizations putting on the events rely on the money from these sponsors to fund their operations.  So they go out of their way to protect their trademarks.  I wrote the summer before last about my own experiences at the London Summer Olympics, where even the trademarks on the plumbing fixtures at the Olympic sites were obscured where the manufacturers had not obtained Olympics sponsorships.  So there are obviously limits on what can and cannot be said about these marks.  What are those limits? Continue Reading Super Bowl, the Olympics and March Madness – Watch Your Advertising and Promotions for Unauthorized Uses of Trademarked Phrases

The Supreme Court on Friday announced that is has decided to review the decision of a US Appeals Court in New York finding that the Aereo service of retransmitting over the Internet the signals of local television stations, without permission from or payment to those stations, was legal.  We wrote about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Aereo case here.  The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, which may signal that the case will be decided before the Court adjourns its term in June, was supported not only by the television stations who had sought to block the Aereo service and the program suppliers to those television stations (including many of the sports leagues), but also by Aereo itself.  As Aereo and its copycat service FilmOn X were being sued in every jurisdiction where they started to do business, the desire to get a quick and final resolution of the legality of their services is a natural one.  This is especially true as the Courts have been reaching different decisions, as demonstrated by the two cases decided only a month apart, one in Boston finding Aereo to be legal, and one in DC finding FilmOn X to be infringing on the copyrights of the TV stations who brought the lawsuit.  So what issues will the Supreme Court be deciding?

One newspaper editorial, from the Los Angeles Times, has suggested that this is a Betamax case for the 21st century.  The Betamax case, officially known as Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios, was the case that declared the VCR to be legal, and found that its original manufacturer, Sony, was not contributorily infringing on the copyrights held by Universal and other studios that brought the case.  But that comparison really does not hold up, as the Betamax decision was premised on several findings that simply cannot be made here.  First, the Court in the Betamax case found that the VCR was not in and of itself an infringing service, as it had substantial legal uses.  In fact, there was testimony in the record that many copyright holders actually were not opposed to the use of a Betamax to copy their programs for time shifting and other purposes.  In the Aereo cases, copyright holders are for the most part universally opposed to the service and, other than retransmitting copyrighted programs without consent, there does not appear to be another use for the service. Continue Reading Supreme Court Decides to Review Aereo – Why This is Not the New Betamax Case

A new month in a new year, and a number of new regulatory dates are upon us for broadcasters – and important dates for webcasters also fall in this month.  So now that the holidays are quickly becoming just a foggy memory, it is time to sharply focus on those regulatory obligations that you have to avoid legal issues as the year moves forward.  January 10 brings one deadline for all broadcast stations – it is a date by which your Quarterly Issues Programs lists, setting out the most important issues that faced your community in the last quarter of 2013 and the programs that you broadcast to address those issues, need to be placed in the physical public inspection file of radio stations, and the online public file of TV broadcasters.

Full power TV and Class A TV stations by January 10 also need to have filed with the FCC their FCC Form 398 Children’s Television Reports, addressing the educational and informational programming directed to children that they broadcast.  Also, by that same date, they need to upload to their online public files records showing compliance with the limits on commercials during programming directed to children. Continue Reading January Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters and Webcasters – Children’s Television Reports, Quarterly Issues Programs List, Webcaster Elections and Minimum Fees, the Return of Lowest Unit Rates and More!

The Good Wife is not usually where one turns for serious discussions of music copyright issues (nor is Stephen Colbert’s Christmas special where we found copyright issues discussed several years ago).  But I was surprised to find this Sunday that the principal plot line of The Good Wife was focused on a music rights dispute.  After watching, I wondered how many people in the show’s audience had any idea of what the legal issues being discussed were really all about.  In fact, copyright law, as confusing as it can sometimes be, is an unusual topic for a plot line on a TV show.  It is not as universally understandable as is a criminal trial, a custody case or some civil suit for damages.  In fact, as we’ve written before, the complexity of copyright law makes compliance difficult even for those involved in the industry.  The Good Wife episode itself made that complexity a comedic point throughout the program, as even the musicians involved in the plot line several times remarked that they, too, were clueless as to the rights issues involved in this fictional case.  But, with a couple of days to reflect on the program, I thought that it might be worth expounding on some of the copyright issues involved, as they illustrate some of the rights that are included in the copyrights to every piece of music.

As we have written before, what makes copyrights in music so confusing is that there are several copyright holders in each recorded song, and each copyright holder has different rights, often administered by different organizations.  We write much about the public performance rights in sound recordings (usually payable to SoundExchange by noninteractive digital music services, and to the record companies by interactive services) and in musical compositions (usually payable to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, though some large publishing companies have started to pull their catalogs from these organizations to license directly).  But The Good Wife did not deal with the public performance right, but instead with other rights in music.  The two rights principally dealt with were the right to authorize the making of a reproduction (often referred to as a “mechanical right“) and the right to make a derivative work.  The first is the right of the copyright holder to authorize others to use their compositions or recordings to make copies.  In the TV case, the issue involved the rights held by the writer of the song to authorize others to make cover versions of that song and to reproduce those versions (e.g. through CDs, downloads or other digital reproductions).  The right to make a derivative work is the right that the copyright holder has to authorize others to take parts of the original work but to make more than cursory changes to that work, e.g., keeping the melody and changing the words, or as in the TV case, keeping the words but changing the melody (in the TV case, taking a rap song and giving it a real pop song melody).  Continue Reading Learning Copyright Law from TV’s The Good Wife – Compulsory Licenses, Derivitive Works and Parody and Fair Use

It is the beginning of another year – and a time to look ahead to look ahead at what broadcasters should expect from Washington in the coming year.  With so many issues on the table, we’ll divide the issues into two parts – talking about FCC issues today, and issues from Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Washington’s alphabet soup of regulatory agencies in the near future.  In addition, watch these pages for our calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters in the next few days.

Each January, we publish a list of issues for the coming year, and it is not always the case that these issues make it to the top of various piles (literal or figurative) that sit in various offices at the FCC.  As set forth below, there are a number of FCC proceedings that remain open, and could be resolved this year.  But just as often, a good number of these issues sit unresolved to be included, once again, on our list of issues for next year.  While some issues are almost guaranteed to be considered, others are a crap shoot as to whether they will in fact bubble up to the top of the FCC’s long list of pending items. So this list should not be seen as a definitive list of what will be considered by the FCC this year, but instead as an alert as to what might be coming your way this year. Issues unique to radio and TV, and those that could affect the broadcast industry generally, are addressed below. Continue Reading What’s Up in Washington For Broadcasters in 2014? — Part 1, FCC Issues

The Copyright Royalty Board today published in the Federal Register its notice announcing the commencement of the next proceeding to set webcasting royalty rates for 2016-2020.  The Notices (here for webcasting and here for “new subscription services” – subscription webcasting and other similar pay digital music services, other than satellite and cable radio whose royalties were set in another proceeding about which we wrote here) were notable as they were not simply an announcement that the proceedings were beginning and a recitation of the procedure for filing a petition to participate (essentially a written filing setting out a party’s interest in the outcome of the proceeding and the payment of a $150 filing fee). Instead, the order sets out a series of questions for consideration by potential participants, asking that they consider some fundamental issues about the nature of the royalty to be adopted in this proceeding.  Petitions to participate must be filed by interested parties with the CRB by February 3. 

The questions asked by the Judges really revolve around two issues that have been raised many times in prior proceedings.  These questions are noteworthy only because the Judges are asking the parties to consider whether the CRB should address issues that have been litigated in prior proceedings – issues that some might have considered to be settled by these prior cases.  First, the Judges ask if the CRB would be justified in adopting a percentage of revenue royalty, rather than the per song, per listener royalty metric that has been used in the three prior proceedings. Asking that question raises several other sub-issues that are set out in the orders including:

  • Whether it is too difficult to determine what the revenues of a webcaster are, an issue that can be troublesome if the webcaster has multiple lines of business where determining which revenues are attributable to webcasting and which are attributable to other services might be complicated (though collection agencies like ASCAP and BMI are able to administer their royalty schemes, usually using a percentage of revenue rate).
  • Whether a percentage of revenue royalty is unfair to the artists because it does not pay each artists an equivalent amount for each song that is played, thought the Judges ask parties to address whether all music is worth the same amount (see our article here about the difficulty in assessing the value of music and the controversies that it raises).
  • Whether a percentage of revenue royalty encourages the webcaster to use too much music, as services not paying on a per song per listener basis might not need to be efficient in monetizing their music use unless, as suggested by the Board, there are substantial minimum fees adopted to encourage the webcaster to make money off of its use of the music.

In addition, the Board asks if there should be different rates for different types of webcasters – are some more efficient than others?  Can royalties be maximized by “price discrimination” – charging less to certain webcasters to get whatever can be received from them, while charging a higher royalty rate to other services that can afford to pay more?  In effect, there has been price discrimination in the webcasting market, but such discrimination has come about after there have been decisions perceived as adverse to webcasters, when webcasters and SoundExchange have come together, often as the result of political pressure, to negotiate alternative rates pursuant to a Webcaster Settlement Act (or the Small Webcaster Settlement Act in the initial proceeding).  See our summary of the differing royalty rates currently paid by webcasters pursuant to these negotiated deals, here.  Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Calls for Petitions to Participate in Proceeding to Set Webcasting Royalties for 2016-2020 – Posing Many Questions for Potential Participants

Closed captioning of video programming repurposed to the Internet has been an obligation of television stations for over a year.  Thus far, most stations have been able to comply with the requirements – as those requirements have only applied to full programs that were captioned when broadcast over the air, and then carried over to the Internet, either in whole or in segments that comprise essentially all of the program.  Now, the FCC is asking if any program excerpt should be captioned when transmitted over the Internet.  In a Public Notice released this week, the FCC asked whether the obligation to caption television programming transmitted through IP technologies should be extended to clips of such programming as well.

In asking for comments, the FCC noted that, when Congress adopted the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, which gave the FCC authority to mandate Internet captioning of TV programs, Congress required only the captioning of full programs, but it said that the limitation to full programs was intended only “at this time,” suggesting that the FCC could extend the requirements to clips at some point in the future.  Thus, the Commission is asking if this is the time to look at an extension of the obligations.  In undertaking this examination, the FCC is posing numerous requests for information from interested parties. Continue Reading Mandatory Captioning of IP Delivered Clips of TV Programs? The FCC Seeks Information About Extending Internet Video Captioning Obligations

The FCC this week announced groups of mutually exclusive (“MX”) LPFM applications, i.e. those groups where applications are for the same or adjacent channels where the grant of one application in the group would preclude other applications in that same group.  The Public Notice is here, and the list of MX groups is here.  The importance of the FCC’s announcement for LPFM applicants is that it gives the applicants 60 days, until February 14, 2014, to amend their applications to make minor changes that will resolve the MX situations (e.g. moving to an adjacent or IF channel or making a slight site change that will eliminate the interference with the other applications that would result if the applications were granted as they now stand). 

Applications left in the MX group at the end of the 60 day period will be subject to a “point system” analysis, granting the application which has the highest number of points in the FCC’s system for deciding between mutually exclusive applicants (giving points for the following:

  • (1) having an established community presence of at least two years;
  • (2) pledging to originate locally at least eight hours of programming per day;
  • (3) pledging to maintain a publicly accessible main studio that has local program origination capability;
  • (4) certifying that you qualify for a point under both the local program origination and the main studio criteria;
  • (5) certifying that neither you nor any party to your application has an attributable interest in another broadcast station; and
  • (6) being a Tribal Applicant proposing to locate your transmitting antenna site on your Tribal Lands).

Note that no amendment that is filed now can improve an applicants comparative position under these point system criteria.  Applicants are locked into the points that they claimed when they initially filed their applications.  Continue Reading FCC Announces MX Groups for LPFM Applications – Amendments Possible, So Full-Power FMs Should be Watchful

The LPFM applications are in, and counted, and the FCC is actively processing them.  A recent public notice from the FCC about the processing of these applications puts FM broadcasters on notice that they should be checking what was filed in their market areas to make sure that there are no interference issues for their full-power stations or existing translators  The FCC’s public notice about the processing of LPFM applications is available here http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-2308A1.pdf

 As you will see, the FCC is first looking to identify “singleton” applications, i.e. those that are not subject to any competing applications.  Once the FCC determines that an application is a singleton, its status in the FCC database will change from the application simply having been “received” to it having been “accepted for filing.”   The acceptance for filing triggers a 30 day petition to deny period, during which broadcasters can object to potential interference from the LPFM or for other violations of the FCC rules on LPFM.  Broadcasters should be looking at local applications, for issues like second-adjacent channel waivers or other issues so that objections can be filed during the petition to deny window against those applications that might be troublesome.  Continue Reading FCC Processing of LPFM Applications Continues – FM Broadcasters Beware of Potential Interference Issues

In two decisions released this week, the FCC proposed to fine two broadcast groups $20,000 each for EEO violations.  In recent years, when the FCC releases fines for broadcast EEO violations, they seem to be trying to emphasize a point as to some aspect of the EEO rules by releasing multiple decisions at the same time all having the same theme.  In the cases released this week, the point that was common to both fines was that the broadcaster had not regularly sent information openings about job openings to community organizations that asked to be notified about such openings.  It was this failure, plus the failure of the stations to discover the problem through the self-assessment that is supposed to be regularly undertaken by a broadcaster of its EEO program, and the failure to report the problem to the FCC, that led to these fines, issued to two large broadcasters – Maryland Public Television (see the FCC opinion here) and AM/FM Broadcasting (see the FCC opinion here).

The FCC’s EEO program for broadcasters has three prongs. The first requires that the broadcaster adopt an outreach program to notify all significant groups within its community of job openings at the station.  The FCC is looking for an outreach program that reaches beyond the “old boy’s network,” to recruit new people from diverse segments of the community to work at broadcast stations.  In the past, many of the EEO fines that were issued focused on this first prong of the program – fining stations that either did not reach out to community groups about openings for most of its jobs (see, for instance, our article here), or where the outreach was insufficiently broad (see, for instance, our article here about fines issued to stations that had relied solely on in-house recruiting or online sources which, alone were deemed insufficient.  The cases this week went to prong 2 of the EEO program – the obligation to notify groups about job openings when those groups ask that they be notified. Continue Reading Two $20,000 FCC Fines for EEO Violations Demonstrate the Importance of Notifications of Job Openings to Community Groups