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 about the sponsors of all paid-for programming. It is the station licensee’s responsibility to ensure that, if it receives anything of value in exchange for the airing of any on-air content, the station must disclose that consideration to its listeners.  Stations also have an obligation to inquire of each of their program providers, including syndicators and time brokers, to assure that none have received any undisclosed consideration for the inclusion of any content in programs that they provide.  (Public Notice)
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau reminded commercial broadcasters of their obligation to upload to their online public files every “sharing” agreement for the operation of a station whether involving time brokerage agreements (TBAs), joint sales agreements (JSAs), or shared services agreements (SSAs). These agreements must be placed in the public file within 30 days of execution and remain there for as long as the agreement is in force.  (Public Notice)
  • The FCC will conduct a hearing to determine whether a Georgia AM station’s license renewal should be denied. At issue is the station’s extended periods of silence since January 2018 when the current licensee took control of the station.  In recent years, the FCC has been aggressive with stations that have been silent for extended periods during their license term, denying license renewals or imposing other sanctions (like short-term renewals).  (Hearing Designation Order)
  • As part of the COVID-19 relief package signed Thursday by President Biden, $175 million was allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for COVID-related emergency assistance for public radio and television stations, including a provision for fiscal stabilization grants.  The infusion of funds is intended to help public broadcasters respond to the coronavirus, allow them to maintain programming and services, and to preserve small and rural stations threatened by declines in non-Federal revenue, like revenue from state governments and private sources lost due to the economic downturn. (R.1319 Section 7601)
  • The FCC’s Audio Division acted on a complaint of interference by a full-power station against a new FM translator. As part of its decision, the FCC required that the complaining station and the translator operator jointly conduct on-off tests to determine if the translator is the source of the alleged interference – and to report the results of the tests to the FCC.  The decision is a good review of the FCC’s policies for resolving translator interference complaints.  (Audio Division letter).  See our articles here and here for more on the FCC’s procedures for resolving engineering complaints about new FM translators.

Looking ahead to next week, Monday, March 15 is the deadline to file for a one-time extension of not more than 180 days of the July 13 date which is important for (1) analog low-power TV and TV translator stations which must transition to digital by that date and (2) construction permits for new digital LPTV stations granted prior to the TV Incentive Auction which expire on that date.  We wrote more about this deadline, here.  Also, with March Madness starting next week, if you are planning advertising or promotions around these basketball games, you should review the articles here and here from our Broadcast Law Blog to make sure that you do not run afoul of the NCAA’s enforcement of its trademark rights in the many catchphrases used in connection with the tournaments.

Yesterday, I wrote about the history of the NCAA’s assembling of the rights to an array of trademarks associated with this month’s basketball tournament.  Today, I will provide some examples of the activities that can bring unwanted NCAA attention to your operations.

Activities that May Result in a Demand Letter from the NCAA

The NCAA acknowledges that media entities can sell advertising that accompanies the entity’s coverage of the NCAA championships.  However, similar to my discussion earlier this year on the use of Super Bowl trademarks (see here) and my 2018 discussion on the use of Olympics trademarks (see here), unless authorized by the NCAA, any of the following activities may result in a cease and desist demand:

  • accepting advertising that refers to the NCAA, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, March Madness, The Big Dance, Final Four, Elite Eight or any other NCAA trademark or logo (The NCAA has posted a list of its trademarks here.)
    • Example: An ad from a retailer with the headline, “Buy A New Big Screen TV in Time to Watch March Madness.”
  • local programming that uses any NCAA trademark as part of its name
    • Example: A locally produced program previewing the tournament called “The Big Dance:  Pick a Winning Bracket.”
  • selling the right to sponsor the overall coverage by a broadcaster, website or print publication of the tournament
    • Example: During the sports segment of the local news, introducing the section of the report on tournament developments as “March Madness, brought to you by [name of advertiser].”
  • sweepstakes or giveaways that include any NCAA trademark in its name (see here)
    • Example: “The Final Four Giveaway.”
  • sweepstakes or giveaways that offer tickets to a tournament game as a prize
    • Example: even if the sweepstakes name is not a problem, offering game tickets as a prize will raise an objection by the NCAA.
  • events or parties that use any NCAA trademark to attract guests
    • Example: a radio station sponsors a happy hour where fans can watch a tournament game, with any NCAA marks and prominently placed on signage.
  • advertising that wishes or congratulates a team, or its coach or players, on success in the tournament
    • Example: “[Advertiser name] wishes [Name of Coach] and the 2020 [Name of Team] success in the NCAA tournament!”

There is one more common pitfall that is unique to the NCAA Basketball:  tournament brackets used in office pools where participants predict the winners of each game in advance of the tournament.  The NCAA’s position (see here) is that the unauthorized placement of advertising within an NCAA bracket or corporate sponsorship of a tournament bracket is misleading and constitutes an infringement of its intellectual property rights.  Accordingly, it says that any advertising should be outside of the bracket space and should clearly indicate that the advertiser or its goods or services are not sponsored by, approved by or otherwise associated with the NCAA or its championship tournament. Continue Reading March Madness Trademarks:  Tips To Avoid A Foul Call from the NCAA (2021 Update – Part 2)

Part 1 of my 2020 annual update on the use of trademarks associated with the NCAA Basketball Tournament was published on the same day that the NCAA announced it was cancelling the tournament due to the pandemic.  Fortunately for all concerned (the players, fans, the NCAA and the broadcasters), it appears that the tournament will proceed as scheduled, with the first men’s games beginning on March 18 and the first women’s games beginning on March 21.  Accordingly, this discussion should hold greater interest than it did last year.

So, with the tournament about to begin, broadcasters, publishers and other businesses need to be wary about potential claims arising from their use of terms and logos associated with the tournament, including the well-known marks March Madness®, The Big Dance®, Final Four®, Women’s Final Four®, Elite Eight,® and The Road to the Final Four® (with and without the word “The”), each of which is a federally registered trademark.  The NCAA does not own “Sweet Sixteen – someone else does – but it does have federal registrations for NCAA Sweet Sixteen® and NCAA Sweet 16®.

The NCAA also has federal registrations for some lesser known marks, including March Mayhem®, March Is On®, Midnight Madness®, Selection Sunday®, 68 Teams, One Dream®, And Then There Were Four®, and NCAA Fast Break®.

Some of these marks are used to promote the basketball tournament or the coverage of the tournament, while others are used on merchandise, such as t-shirts.  The NCAA also uses (or licenses) variations on these marks without seeking registration, but it can claim common law rights in those marks, such as March Madness Live, March Madness Music Festival and Final Four Fan Fest. Continue Reading March Madness Trademarks: Tips To Avoid A Foul Call from the NCAA (2021 Update – Part 1)

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 musical compositions by the songwriters that it represents. The extension through January comes at a price – a 20% increase in the royalty fees.  GMR offers these interim licenses while its antitrust litigation with the Radio Music License Committee is pending, where RMLC seeks to put checks on GMR’s right to unilaterally set prices.  We covered the issues broadcasters should consider in weighing this extension on our blog, here.
  • With the July 13 deadline for analog low-power TV and TV translator stations to transition to digital or cease operations and for the expiration of many construction permits for new digital LPTV stations granted prior to the TV Incentive Auction, the FCC reminded broadcasters subject to the deadline that their opportunity to file for a one-time extension of not more than 180 days ends on March 15. We covered the FCC’s Public Notice on this issue in more detail, including a discussion of the as yet unresolved issue of “Franken FMs” (radio services on 87.7 FM provided by analog LPTVs on Channel 6), here.  (Public Notice)
  • By March 15, comments are due on the minimum bid amounts and procedures proposed for Auction 109, which will auction construction permits for 136 new FM stations and 4 AMs. Reply comments are due by March 22 and bidding is scheduled to begin July 27.  (Federal Register)
  • Two Florida LPFM stations received Notices of Violation for transmissions on frequencies other than as permitted by their license. Stations must exercise care to ensure that their transmission facilities do not produce spurious emissions outside their licensed frequencies.  These emissions can cause interference to other broadcasters and to non-broadcast radio communications (one of the stations investigated here was reviewed because of a complaint from the FAA).  Read more about this on our blog, here.  (Orlando Notice of Violation)  (Miami Notice of Violation)
  • A handful of Republican congressmen have introduced a bill to prevent the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC found unconstitutional in 1987. We wrote, here, about what the Fairness Doctrine was and why, even absent congressional action barring its reintroduction, it is unlikely to make a comeback.  (R.1409)
  • Following last fall’s order designed to bring more structure and transparency to the Executive Branch (Team Telecom) review of proposals for foreign ownership of communications facilities including broadcast stations, the FCC has set the dates by which interested parties can comment on the standardized questions applicants will be asked, including national security and law enforcement questions. Comments are due by April 2 and reply comments are due by April 19.  (Federal Register)

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