Using music on your website, employees on Facebook or twitter, doing podcasts?  Everyone needs a guide to the legal issues that you may face as broadcasters move their content to new platforms.  At the Convention of the Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters, held in Oklahoma City on March 18-19, David Oxenford conducted a seminar on Legal Issues for Broadcasters Operating in a Digital World – dealing with legal issues that broadcasters need to take into account when moving their content and presence beyond their over-the-air signals.  The PowerPoint presentation used in that seminar is available here.  Other issues that were discussed in that session include:

  • Use of music on websites (see our guide to Music Rights for Digital Media Companies here)
  • Domain name issues (see our recent post on new domain names here)
  • FTC guidelines on disclosing consideration given to bloggers and other users of social media sites (see our post on that subject here)
  • Legal issues that arise from the social media (see Davis Wright Tremaine’s webcast on the social media, here)
  • Issues in connection with user generated content (see our posts here)

In addition, David conducted a separate seminar on FCC issues facing broadcasters.  A copy of the PowerPoint from that presentation is available here.  Issues discussed in that session included:

  • The FCC’s National Broadband Plan and its impact on television broadcasters (see our post here)
  • The proposed broadcast performance royalty (or performance tax, see our post here)
  • The FCC proceeding on the Future of Media (see our posts here and here)
  • The recent Citizens United decision and its impact on political broadcasting rules (see our description of that case here, and our Political Broadcasting Guide, here)
  • A variety of fines imposed on stations for violations of FCC rules – a summary of many of the recent fines can be found here.

 Broadcasters and others interested in the Digital Media should watch our Blog for future developments on all these issues and the many other legal matters of importance to their businesses. 

$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

The .co top level domain (TLD) is being opened to the general public, and one can envision a run on registrations similar to that experienced for .com.  It is easy to see why the Colombia country code, formerly available in that country only, may become very popular in the US and elsewhere.  For one thing, .co is the standard abbreviation for "company."   It is also a very common misspelling of .com.  It has been estimated that google.co gets 15,000 hits per day by mistake.   From April 26 until June 10, a window will open in which only registered trademark owners will be able to register their marks in the .co TLD.  Beginning in July, however, .co will be opened to the general public.  We suggest that any companies with registered marks protect those marks in the .co TLD in April, and those that do not should register their call signs, company names or nicknames as soon as possible in July.  If someone else registers your call sign or company name in the .co TLD before you do, it could be very difficult and costly to recover it.

It is difficult to believe that the first .com domain name was registered just 25 years ago this week.  By the end of 1985, only five .com domain names had been registered.   Ten years later there were 120,000 .com domain names.  Now, there are nearly 85 million registered .com domain names.  Beginning sometime next year (2011), ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is expected to allow companies to buy their own TLDs (meaning that your company name could follow the "dot" in a URL), although the cost is expected to be close to $200,000 per TLD.  However, Canon has already announced that it intends to apply for .canon, and it is expected that other large companies will follow suit.

Continue Reading New .co Top Level Domain to be Made Available

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.  As a handout, David provided copies of Davis Wright Tremaine’s Guide to The Basics of Digital Music Licensing, available here.  Discussion on the panel included the question of when there is a public performance versus when there is a reproduction of a copyrighted piece of music (see our post here), royalties for interactive streaming (see our post here), and the difference between a sound recording and a musical composition, rights to both of which are needed in most digital uses of music (see our post here).

At the RAIN Summit North, held at Canadian Music Week on March 12, David’s panel discussed the music royalty structure for Internet Radio companies in Canada. Panelists included the CEO of  Re:Sound (the Canadian version of SoundExchange, collecting royalties for the public performance of sound recordings) and the head of CMRRA-SODRAC (CSI), the Canadian Rights Society that collects for reproductions of musical compositions.  In Canada, broadcasters and Internet radio companies pay not only to SOCAN, the Canadian equivalent of ASCAP, BMI and SESAC in collecting for the public performance of musical compositions, but also to CSI for the reproductions of musical compositions made in servers, buffers and other digital reproductions. 

Just a reminder that all Video Programming Distributors — which includes broadcast television stations —  must identify a contact person for closed captioning issues, both immediate issues and general complaints, and file that contact information with the FCC by March 22, 2010.  As we’ve discussed previously, new FCC closed captioning rules recently went into effect that require video programming distributors to establish a contact for handling immediate closed captioning concerns, as well a contact for receiving written captioning complaints of a general or non-time sensitive nature.  In order to assist viewers and potentially facilitate the resolution of such captioning complaints, the rules require that video programming distributors publicize the appropriate contact information and also provide the information to the Commission, which will maintain a database open to consumers.  

Accordingly, by March 22, 2010, television stations must designate a contact person, post the necessary contact information on their web site (and in any phone directories the station may advertise in), and submit the information to the FCC.  The best way for stations to file this information with the FCC is to visit the FCC’s Web site and submit the information online. The Commission’s Web site contains a detailed form with step-by-step instructions that will walk applicants through the process.  Alternatively, the contact information can be e-mailed directly to the FCC’s Disability Rights Office at: CLOSEDCAPTIONING_POC@fcc.gov.

Video programming distributors must keep their contact information current and update both their Web sites and the Commission’s database within 10 business days of any changes to the information.  Further details about the contact information requirement and the revised FCC closed captioning complaint rules can be found in our earlier posting here. 

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 last week, incorporating music into recorded commercials also requires specific permission from rights holders – not just your routine payment to the PROs.  As music usually has two different classes of rights holders – those that hold the rights to the musical composition (the lyrics and music in the song, usually held by a publishing company), and the rights to the "sound recording" or "master recording" (usually held by the record companies), knowing who to ask for what rights can sometimes be complicated.  To help explain some of the basic issues of where to go for what rights, Davis Wright Tremaine has put together a Guide to the Basics of Music Licensing, available here. 

The Guide also addresses some of the controversial issues in music licensing, and the question of "fair use", a concept often cited but also often misunderstood.  So check out ourGuide for a basic introduction to the law governing music rights issues.