Wednesday, December 19, 2012

TRIPS Agreement


The areas of intellectual property that it covers are: copyright and related rights (i.e. the rights of performers, producers of sound recordings and broadcasting organizations); trademarks including service marks;geographical indications including appellations of origin; industrial designs;patents including the protection of new varieties of plants; the layout-designs of integrated circuits; and undisclosed information including trade secrets and test data.

The three main features of the Agreement are:
  • Standards. In respect of each of the main areas of intellectual property covered by the TRIPS Agreement, the Agreement sets out the minimum standards of protection to be provided by each Member. Each of the main elements of protection is defined, namely the subject-matter to be protected, the rights to be conferred and permissible exceptions to those rights, and the minimum duration of protection. The Agreement sets these standards by requiring, first, that the substantive obligations of the main conventions of the WIPO, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) in their most recent versions, must be complied with. With the exception of the provisions of the Berne Convention on moral rights, all the main substantive provisions of these conventions are incorporated by reference and thus become obligations under the TRIPS Agreement between TRIPS Member countries. The relevant provisions are to be found in Articles 2.1 and 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which relate, respectively, to the Paris Convention and to the Berne Convention. Secondly, the TRIPS Agreement adds a substantial number of additional obligations on matters where the pre-existing conventions are silent or were seen as being inadequate. The TRIPS Agreement is thus sometimes referred to as a Berne and Paris-plus agreement.
  • Enforcement. The second main set of provisions deals with domestic procedures and remedies for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Agreement lays down certain general principles applicable to all IPR enforcement procedures. In addition, it contains provisions on civil and administrative procedures and remedies, provisional measures, special requirements related to border measures and criminal procedures, which specify, in a certain amount of detail, the procedures and remedies that must be available so that right holders can effectively enforce their rights.
  • Dispute settlement. The Agreement makes disputes between WTO Members about the respect of the TRIPS obligations subject to the WTO's dispute settlement procedures.
In addition the Agreement provides for certain basic principles, such as national and most-favoured-nation treatment, and some general rules to ensure that procedural difficulties in acquiring or maintaining IPRs do not nullify the substantive benefits that should flow from the Agreement. The obligations under the Agreement will apply equally to all Member countries, but developing countries will have a longer period to phase them in. Special transition arrangements operate in the situation where a developing country does not presently provide product patent protection in the area of pharmaceuticals.
The TRIPS Agreement is a minimum standards agreement, which allows Members to provide more extensive protection of intellectual property if they so wish. Members are left free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of the Agreement within their own legal system and practice.


Certain general provisions   Back to top

As in the main pre-existing intellectual property conventions, the basic obligation on each Member country is to accord the treatment in regard to the protection of intellectual property provided for under the Agreement to the persons of other Members. Article 1.3 defines who these persons are. These persons are referred to as “nationals” but include persons, natural or legal, who have a close attachment to other Members without necessarily being nationals. The criteria for determining which persons must thus benefit from the treatment provided for under the Agreement are those laid down for this purpose in the main pre-existing intellectual property conventions of WIPO, applied of course with respect to all WTO Members whether or not they are party to those conventions. These conventions are the Paris Convention, the Berne Convention, International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome Convention), and the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (IPIC Treaty).

Articles 3, 4 and 5 include the fundamental rules on national and most-favoured-nation treatment of foreign nationals, which are common to all categories of intellectual property covered by the Agreement. These obligations cover not only the substantive standards of protection but also matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property rights as well as those matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights specifically addressed in the Agreement. While the national treatment clause forbids discrimination between a Member's own nationals and the nationals of other Members, the most-favoured-nation treatment clause forbids discrimination between the nationals of other Members. In respect of the national treatment obligation, the exceptions allowed under the pre-existing intellectual property conventions of WIPO are also allowed under TRIPS. Where these exceptions allow material reciprocity, a consequential exception to MFN treatment is also permitted (e.g. comparison of terms for copyright protection in excess of the minimum term required by the TRIPS Agreement as provided under Article 7(8) of the Berne Convention as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement). Certain other limited exceptions to the MFN obligation are also provided for.

The general goals of the TRIPS Agreement are contained in the Preamble of the Agreement, which reproduces the basic Uruguay Round negotiating objectives established in the TRIPS area by the 1986 Punta del Este Declaration and the 1988/89 Mid-Term Review. These objectives include the reduction of distortions and impediments to international trade, promotion of effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights, and ensuring that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade. These objectives should be read in conjunction with Article 7, entitled “Objectives”, according to which the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations. Article 8, entitled “Principles”, recognizes the rights of Members to adopt measures for public health and other public interest reasons and to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.

Substantive standards of protection   Back to top


Copyright   Back to top

During the Uruguay Round negotiations, it was recognized that the Berne Convention already, for the most part, provided adequate basic standards of copyright protection. Thus it was agreed that the point of departure should be the existing level of protection under the latest Act, the Paris Act of 1971, of that Convention. The point of departure is expressed in Article 9.1 under which Members are obliged to comply with the substantive provisions of the Paris Act of 1971 of the Berne Convention, i.e. Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the Appendix thereto. However, Members do not have rights or obligations under the TRIPS Agreement in respect of the rights conferred under Article 6bis of that Convention, i.e. the moral rights (the right to claim authorship and to object to any derogatory action in relation to a work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation), or of the rights derived therefrom. The provisions of the Berne Convention referred to deal with questions such as subject-matter to be protected, minimum term of protection, and rights to be conferred and permissible limitations to those rights. The Appendix allows developing countries, under certain conditions, to make some limitations to the right of translation and the right of reproduction.

In addition to requiring compliance with the basic standards of the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement clarifies and adds certain specific points.

Article 9.2 confirms that copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.

Article 10.1 provides that computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971). This provision confirms that computer programs must be protected under copyright and that those provisions of the Berne Convention that apply to literary works shall be applied also to them. It confirms further, that the form in which a program is, whether in source or object code, does not affect the protection. The obligation to protect computer programs as literary works means e.g. that only those limitations that are applicable to literary works may be applied to computer programs. It also confirms that the general term of protection of 50 years applies to computer programs. Possible shorter terms applicable to photographic works and works of applied art may not be applied.

Article 10.2 clarifies that databases and other compilations of data or other material shall be protected as such under copyright even where the databases include data that as such are not protected under copyright. Databases are eligible for copyright protection provided that they by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations. The provision also confirms that databases have to be protected regardless of which form they are in, whether machine readable or other form. Furthermore, the provision clarifies that such protection shall not extend to the data or material itself, and that it shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself.

Article 11 provides that authors shall have in respect of at least computer programs and, in certain circumstances, of cinematographic works the right to authorize or to prohibit the commercial rental to the public of originals or copies of their copyright works. With respect to cinematographic works, the exclusive rental right is subject to the so-called impairment test: a Member is excepted from the obligation unless such rental has led to widespread copying of such works which is materially impairing the exclusive right of reproduction conferred in that Member on authors and their successors in title. In respect of computer programs, the obligation does not apply to rentals where the program itself is not the essential object of the rental.

According to the general rule contained in Article 7(1) of the Berne Convention as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement, the term of protection shall be the life of the author and 50 years after his death. Paragraphs 2 through 4 of that Article specifically allow shorter terms in certain cases. These provisions are supplemented by Article 12 of the TRIPS Agreement, which provides that whenever the term of protection of a work, other than a photographic work or a work of applied art, is calculated on a basis other than the life of a natural person, such term shall be no less than 50 years from the end of the calendar year of authorized publication, or, failing such authorized publication within 50 years from the making of the work, 50 years from the end of the calendar year of making.

Article 13 requires Members to confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. This is a horizontal provision that applies to all limitations and exceptions permitted under the provisions of the Berne Convention and the Appendix thereto as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement. The application of these limitations is permitted also under the TRIPS Agreement, but the provision makes it clear that they must be applied in a manner that does not prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

Related rights   Back to top
The provisions on protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations are included in Article 14. According to Article 14.1, performers shall have the possibility of preventing the unauthorized fixation of their performance on a phonogram (e.g. the recording of a live musical performance). The fixation right covers only aural, not audiovisual fixations. Performers must also be in position to prevent the reproduction of such fixations. They shall also have the possibility of preventing the unauthorized broadcasting by wireless means and the communication to the public of their live performance.

In accordance with Article 14.2, Members have to grant producers of phonograms an exclusive reproduction right. In addition to this, they have to grant, in accordance with Article 14.4, an exclusive rental right at least to producers of phonograms. The provisions on rental rights apply also to any other right holders in phonograms as determined in national law. This right has the same scope as the rental right in respect of computer programs. Therefore it is not subject to the impairment test as in respect of cinematographic works. However, it is limited by a so-called grand-fathering clause, according to which a Member, which on 15 April 1994, i.e. the date of the signature of the Marrakesh Agreement, had in force a system of equitable remuneration of right holders in respect of the rental of phonograms, may maintain such system provided that the commercial rental of phonograms is not giving rise to the material impairment of the exclusive rights of reproduction of right holders.

Broadcasting organizations shall have, in accordance with Article 14.3, the right to prohibit the unauthorized fixation, the reproduction of fixations, and the rebroadcasting by wireless means of broadcasts, as well as the communication to the public of their television broadcasts. However, it is not necessary to grant such rights to broadcasting organizations, if owners of copyright in the subject-matter of broadcasts are provided with the possibility of preventing these acts, subject to the provisions of the Berne Convention.

The term of protection is at least 50 years for performers and producers of phonograms, and 20 years for broadcasting organizations (Article 14.5).

Article 14.6 provides that any Member may, in relation to the protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations, provide for conditions, limitations, exceptions and reservations to the extent permitted by the Rome Convention.

Trademarks   Back to top
The basic rule contained in Article 15 is that any sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, must be eligible for registration as a trademark, provided that it is visually perceptible. Such signs, in particular words including personal names, letters, numerals, figurative elements and combinations of colours as well as any combination of such signs, must be eligible for registration as trademarks.

Where signs are not inherently capable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services, Member countries are allowed to require, as an additional condition for eligibility for registration as a trademark, that distinctiveness has been acquired through use. Members are free to determine whether to allow the registration of signs that are not visually perceptible (e.g. sound or smell marks).

Members may make registrability depend on use. However, actual use of a trademark shall not be permitted as a condition for filing an application for registration, and at least three years must have passed after that filing date before failure to realize an intent to use is allowed as the ground for refusing the application (Article 14.3).

The Agreement requires service marks to be protected in the same way as marks distinguishing goods (see e.g. Articles 15.1, 16.2 and 62.3).

The owner of a registered trademark must be granted the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion must be presumed (Article 16.1).

The TRIPS Agreement contains certain provisions on well-known marks, which supplement the protection required by Article 6bis of the Paris Convention, as incorporated by reference into the TRIPS Agreement, which obliges Members to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use of a mark conflicting with a mark which is well known. First, the provisions of that Article must be applied also to services. Second, it is required that knowledge in the relevant sector of the public acquired not only as a result of the use of the mark but also by other means, including as a result of its promotion, be taken into account. Furthermore, the protection of registered well-known marks must extend to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which the trademark has been registered, provided that its use would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the registered trademark, and the interests of the owner are likely to be damaged by such use (Articles 16.2 and 3).

Members may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that such exceptions take account of the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties (Article 17).

Initial registration, and each renewal of registration, of a trademark shall be for a term of no less than seven years. The registration of a trademark shall be renewable indefinitely (Article 18).

Cancellation of a mark on the grounds of non-use cannot take place before three years of uninterrupted non-use has elapsed unless valid reasons based on the existence of obstacles to such use are shown by the trademark owner. Circumstances arising independently of the will of the owner of the trademark, such as import restrictions or other government restrictions, shall be recognized as valid reasons of non-use. Use of a trademark by another person, when subject to the control of its owner, must be recognized as use of the trademark for the purpose of maintaining the registration (Article 19).

It is further required that use of the trademark in the course of trade shall not be unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements, such as use with another trademark, use in a special form, or use in a manner detrimental to its capability to distinguish the goods or services (Article 20).

Geographical indications   Back to top
Geographical indications are defined, for the purposes of the Agreement, as indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin (Article 22.1). Thus, this definition specifies that the quality, reputation or other characteristics of a good can each be a sufficient basis for eligibility as a geographical indication, where they are essentially attributable to the geographical origin of the good.

In respect of all geographical indications, interested parties must have legal means to prevent use of indications which mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the good, and use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (Article 22.2).

The registration of a trademark which uses a geographical indication in a way that misleads the public as to the true place of origin must be refused or invalidated ex officio if the legislation so permits or at the request of an interested party (Article 22.3).

Article 23 provides that interested parties must have the legal means to prevent the use of a geographical indication identifying wines for wines not originating in the place indicated by the geographical indication. This applies even where the public is not being misled, there is no unfair competition and the true origin of the good is indicated or the geographical indication is accompanied be expressions such as “kind”, “type”, “style”, “imitation” or the like. Similar protection must be given to geographical indications identifying spirits when used on spirits. Protection against registration of a trademark must be provided accordingly.

Article 24 contains a number of exceptions to the protection of geographical indications. These exceptions are of particular relevance in respect of the additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits. For example, Members are not obliged to bring a geographical indication under protection, where it has become a generic term for describing the product in question (paragraph 6). Measures to implement these provisions shall not prejudice prior trademark rights that have been acquired in good faith (paragraph 5). 

Under certain circumstances, continued use of a geographical indication for wines or spirits may be allowed on a scale and nature as before (paragraph 4). Members availing themselves of the use of these exceptions must be willing to enter into negotiations about their continued application to individual geographical indications (paragraph 1). The exceptions cannot be used to diminish the protection of geographical indications that existed prior to the entry into force of the TRIPS Agreement (paragraph 3). The TRIPS Council shall keep under review the application of the provisions on the protection of geographical indications (paragraph 2).

Industrial designs   Back to top

Article 25.1 of the TRIPS Agreement obliges Members to provide for the protection of independently created industrial designs that are new or original. Members may provide that designs are not new or original if they do not significantly differ from known designs or combinations of known design features. Members may provide that such protection shall not extend to designs dictated essentially by technical or functional considerations.

Article 25.2 contains a special provision aimed at taking into account the short life cycle and sheer number of new designs in the textile sector: requirements for securing protection of such designs, in particular in regard to any cost, examination or publication, must not unreasonably impair the opportunity to seek and obtain such protection. Members are free to meet this obligation through industrial design law or through copyright law.
Article 26.1 requires Members to grant the owner of a protected industrial design the right to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from making, selling or importing articles bearing or embodying a design which is a copy, or substantially a copy, of the protected design, when such acts are undertaken for commercial purposes.

Article 26.2 allows Members to provide limited exceptions to the protection of industrial designs, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with the normal exploitation of protected industrial designs and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the owner of the protected design, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.

The duration of protection available shall amount to at least 10 years (Article 26.3). The wording “amount to” allows the term to be divided into, for example, two periods of five years.

Patents   Back to top
The TRIPS Agreement requires Member countries to make patents available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology without discrimination, subject to the normal tests of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability. It is also required that patents be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention and whether products are imported or locally produced (Article 27.1).
There are three permissible exceptions to the basic rule on patentability. One is for inventions contrary to ordre public or morality; this explicitly includes inventions dangerous to human, animal or plant life or health or seriously prejudicial to the environment. The use of this exception is subject to the condition that the commercial exploitation of the invention must also be prevented and this prevention must be necessary for the protection of ordre public or morality (Article 27.2).

The second exception is that Members may exclude from patentability diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals (Article 27.3(a)).

The third is that Members may exclude plants and animals other than micro-organisms and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, any country excluding plant varieties from patent protection must provide an effective sui generis system of protection. Moreover, the whole provision is subject to review four years after entry into force of the Agreement (Article 27.3(b)).

The exclusive rights that must be conferred by a product patent are the ones of making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing for these purposes. Process patent protection must give rights not only over use of the process but also over products obtained directly by the process. Patent owners shall also have the right to assign, or transfer by succession, the patent and to conclude licensing contracts (Article 28).
Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties (Article 30).

The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of 20 years counted from the filing date (Article 33).

Members shall require that an applicant for a patent shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art and may require the applicant to indicate the best mode for carrying out the invention known to the inventor at the filing date or, where priority is claimed, at the priority date of the application (Article 29.1).

If the subject-matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a product, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the defendant to prove that the process to obtain an identical product is different from the patented process, where certain conditions indicating a likelihood that the protected process was used are met (Article 34).

Compulsory licensing and government use without the authorization of the right holder are allowed, but are made subject to conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the right holder. The conditions are mainly contained in Article 31. These include the obligation, as a general rule, to grant such licences only if an unsuccessful attempt has been made to acquire a voluntary licence on reasonable terms and conditions within a reasonable period of time; the requirement to pay adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the economic value of the licence; and a requirement that decisions be subject to judicial or other independent review by a distinct higher authority. Certain of these conditions are relaxed where compulsory licences are employed to remedy practices that have been established as anticompetitive by a legal process. These conditions should be read together with the related provisions of Article 27.1, which require that patent rights shall be enjoyable without discrimination as to the field of technology, and whether products are imported or locally produced.

Layout-designs of integrated circuits   Back to top
Article 35 of the TRIPS Agreement requires Member countries to protect the layout-designs of integrated circuits in accordance with the provisions of the IPIC Treaty (the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits), negotiated under the auspices of WIPO in 1989. These provisions deal with, inter alia, the definitions of “integrated circuit” and “layout-design (topography)”, requirements for protection, exclusive rights, and limitations, as well as exploitation, registration and disclosure. An “integrated circuit” means a product, in its final form or an intermediate form, in which the elements, at least one of which is an active element, and some or all of the interconnections are integrally formed in and/or on a piece of material and which is intended to perform an electronic function. A “layout-design (topography)” is defined as the three-dimensional disposition, however expressed, of the elements, at least one of which is an active element, and of some or all of the interconnections of an integrated circuit, or such a three-dimensional disposition prepared for an integrated circuit intended for manufacture. The obligation to protect layout-designs applies to such layout-designs that are original in the sense that they are the result of their creators' own intellectual effort and are not commonplace among creators of layout-designs and manufacturers of integrated circuits at the time of their creation. The exclusive rights include the right of reproduction and the right of importation, sale and other distribution for commercial purposes. Certain limitations to these rights are provided for.

In addition to requiring Member countries to protect the layout-designs of integrated circuits in accordance with the provisions of the IPIC Treaty, the TRIPS Agreement clarifies and/or builds on four points. These points relate to the term of protection (ten years instead of eight, Article 38), the applicability of the protection to articles containing infringing integrated circuits (last sub clause of Article 36) and the treatment of innocent infringers (Article 37.1). The conditions in Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement apply mutatis mutandis to compulsory or non-voluntary licensing of a layout-design or to its use by or for the government without the authorization of the right holder, instead of the provisions of the IPIC Treaty on compulsory licensing (Article 37.2).

Protection of undisclosed information   Back to top
The TRIPS Agreement requires undisclosed information -- trade secrets or know-how -- to benefit from protection. According to Article 39.2, the protection must apply to information that is secret, that has commercial value because it is secret and that has been subject to reasonable steps to keep it secret. The Agreement does not require undisclosed information to be treated as a form of property, but it does require that a person lawfully in control of such information must have the possibility of preventing it from being disclosed to, acquired by, or used by others without his or her consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices. “Manner contrary to honest commercial practices” includes breach of contract, breach of confidence and inducement to breach, as well as the acquisition of undisclosed information by third parties who knew, or were grossly negligent in failing to know, that such practices were involved in the acquisition.
The Agreement also contains provisions on undisclosed test data and other data whose submission is required by governments as a condition of approving the marketing of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical products which use new chemical entities. In such a situation the Member government concerned must protect the data against unfair commercial use. In addition, Members must protect such data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use.

Control of anti-competitive practices in contractual licences   Back to top
Article 40 of the TRIPS Agreement recognizes that some licensing practices or conditions pertaining to intellectual property rights which restrain competition may have adverse effects on trade and may impede the transfer and dissemination of technology (paragraph 1). Member countries may adopt, consistently with the other provisions of the Agreement, appropriate measures to prevent or control practices in the licensing of intellectual property rights which are abusive and anti-competitive (paragraph 2). The Agreement provides for a mechanism whereby a country seeking to take action against such practices involving the companies of another Member country can enter into consultations with that other Member and exchange publicly available non-confidential information of relevance to the matter in question and of other information available to that Member, subject to domestic law and to the conclusion of mutually satisfactory agreements concerning the safeguarding of its confidentiality by the requesting Member (paragraph 3). Similarly, a country whose companies are subject to such action in another Member can enter into consultations with that Member (paragraph 4).

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally. 

The 6 Phases of Music Marketing



1. Distribution
2. Awareness
3. Discovery
4. Credibility
5. Engagement
6. Sustained Attention

Distribution
Configure outlets where your music can be downloaded and/or purchased online. iTunes is the most popular choice for retail digital distribution, followed by Amazon. Once your music is plugged into these distribution outlets, customers are able to acquire your content/product. If you foolishly skip this phase your marketing will inevitably fail because no one will have any way getting your music.

Awareness
Awareness goes hand in hand with discovery. Discovery involves making it easy for interested parties to find your content during the discovery process. Awareness requires giving people a reason to seek you out in the first place.

Awareness is tantamount to market penetration. An effective brand strategy, strong brand positioning, and PR are how you make people aware of you and your music. Awareness is created through word of mouth, PR, digital PR, online buzz, touring, radio promo, sales promotions, activism and cause-based marketing, street marketing, and features & credits on outside projects.

Discovery
Discovery involves any destination where your music can be found, shared, and recommended, and thus gain an audience. To amplify the spread of your music you have to make it easy for people to find your music during the discovery process. Music-based social networks are vital to gaining exposure because that’s where huge databases of music are shared online. At every point of discovery, make sure you provide direct links to your distribution outlets in order to increase sales of your music.

Credibility
Third parties co-sign the awesomeness of you and your music through reviews, features, endorsements, cross-promotions, and the like. The more that sources like these support your music, the more credible you become in the eyes of your market and the more backlink s you’ll get— leading to increased web traffic and exposure. High-profile partnerships, endorsements, co-branding, and sponsorships are terrific ways to establish credibility with your audience. Famous people, experts, DJs, promoters, managers, booking agents, label executives, social media buzz, and award nominations (not to mention wins) can all help you establish credibility.

Engagement
Direct-to-fan (DTF) engagement and the cultivation of relationships are central to this phase. Collect fan emails and pull their info from social networks. Research, document, and learn your fans’ tastes, preferences, desires, spending habits, demographics, psychographics, etc. Communicate with fans and solicit feedback. Encourage community contributions from fans--remixes, fan art, fan made music videos, etc. Use crowd-sourcing to determine your best-loved songs and apply that knowledge to your marketing. Use buzz monitoring, social monitoring, and web analytics to gauge brand sentiment and respond in real-time to conversations around your brand.

Sustained Attention
New content must be released at intervals that create sustained audience attention. Balance is key. Provide just enough content so that fans are always begging for more. Daily or weekly song releases? Weekly/monthly/bi-monthly mix tape releases? These choices are yours to make.

Release too much content for a sane person to keep up with. In other words: feed each niche market you serve with so much content that diehard fans are forced to stay active and engaged to keep from missing something or falling behind.
In marketing, every play is a chess move. Move the game towards an explosive climax so that your audience is always on the edge of their seats anticipating your next move. Feed audience frenzy and exceed expectations with every climax. Follow-up by rebuilding tension. Roller coaster tension build-and-release is the cycle that keeps fans engaged.

Ongoing email marketing campaigns and digital PR campaigns will sustain audience attention IF communication is regular enough that your audience doesn’t have room to forget about you. However, keep in mind that contact with fans also has to remain scarce enough that your audience still seeks you out online for more content and information.

It’s all about managing supply and demand. When crafting your fan communication schedule, make sure to factor in the differing attention spans of your market segments, especially if your customers span across multiple generations. Sustained Attention is achieved through email marketing, digital PR, press releases, advertising, a steady stream of content, the element of surprise, and word of mouth.

This article is an excerpt from Dexter's latest eBook The Record Label's Guide to Digital Branding & Music Marketing 2.0. Download Dexter's free eBook @ http://hitmusicacademy.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/free-ebook-guide-digital...

Understanding Copyrights

Neil Netanel

Copyright is a bundle of rights that are given to creators of original expression, largely exclusive rights to control certain uses in that expression. 

Principally, if the artist is the creator, the artists' principle way of getting money for the use of the artist’s creative expression is through copyright. Because through copyright, none else can make copies of, or publicly perform, broadcast, or publicly distribute copies of the music without the composer’s permission. 

Copyright as I said, is a set of exclusive rights in original works, although there are six exclusive rights but there are some various exceptions and limitations on those exclusive rights. But principally exclusive rights are firstly the rights to reproduce copies of the work, and reproducing a copy would be in any manner or form so it would either be in paper, or making up a sound recording of a musical composition, as the making of a copy of that musical composition, and includes the rights to make derivatives works of an original work which would include the right to modify the work, remix the work, and includes the right of public performance, and public performance includes both live performance and also transmissions over the internet and broadcasting. It includes the right of public display which probably is more relevant to graphic works and maybe in some cases literary works, than actual works of music. And it includes the right to distribute copies to the public which is a separate independent right from the right to reproduce copies of the work. 

First let me say that as a condition to adjoin copyright, the composition has got to be fixed in a tangible means of expression, medium of expression. 

So if you think of a song in your head, and you sing it, you perform in the a studio or even live on stage, unless you’ve actually recorded it or written it down, it can be written down in sheet music, or it has to have been recorded, fixed in some tangible means of expression, it’s not yet protected, and anybody can copy it at that point, at least as the composer. So, in any event, I would say all of those rights could be important for musicians, the rights to reproduce copies; means that once your work is fixed, no one else can reproduce copies of your work. The right of public distribution means that no one can distribute copies of your work to the public. And public distribution has been defined also as allowing others to download copies of your work off a computer, that’s of course you define that as a public distribution. No one can broadcast your song over the radio or perform you’re song live without permission. 

Now in practice, maybe this is getting ahead of it, but in practice, most musicians have licensed or signed at least part of those rights to other parties, maybe to a record label, ASCAP and BMI usually manage the public performance rights for most music. So when a radio station, for example plays your music on the air, they generally do so under a license with ASCAP or BMI which gives them the right to publicly perform your song and they pay a certain percentage of their gross to ASCAP and BMI, and ASCAP and BMI divvy it up to their various members in accordance with sort of formula they keep pretty much a secret. Generally the music publisher governs the right to distribute copies of your work. And distributing and making copies, its' called a mechanical, mechanical rights, mechanical rights is making copies of your work. And the music publisher will often go out and try to find people that are interested in recording your song, and that may involve recording artist, it also may involve record labels. So the music publisher administers typically your mechanical, mechanical rights. 

Now there is, then the record label, if you are also a recording artist and you want to record your song with a label, very often the labels also have music publishers that are affiliates, and sometimes if you don't already have a music publisher, the labels music publisher will then administer your mechanical rights. An then there's also a performing rights society, which includes principally ASCAP and BMI, and they administer the public performance rights, which includes both, as a I mentioned earlier, rights to play your song over the radio, as well as live performances, and also the rights to play your song over the radio in retail establishments, bars, and restaurants.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally. 

Neil W. Netanel is Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law in Los Angeles, CA. He specializes in Intellectual Property Law and Copyright Law.

See Video:
http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/neil+netanel+on+understanding+copyrights

Analog Copyright Laws in a Digital World


Lawrence Lessig is a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. A long-time advocate for copyright reform and information freedom, he is the founder and architect of Creative Commons, a non-profit organization dedicated to grassroots copyright reform through the means of “provid[ing] free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry.” Prof. Lessig is also a founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit organization which advocates for the rights of users of digital media. He is an in-demand speaker and writer on the topics of Constitutional law, contracts, digital rights, and cyberspace law.

I’m fundamentally in favor – pro copyright. The important thing to remember though is that there’s no such thing as copyright that has remained fixed and constant over the last 200 years. Instead it’s radically changed as technologies have changed and as the industries have changed. So what I’m in favor of is copyright that, like it’s history, changes and technologies require a different mix of rights. And so, I’m an opponent to copyright built for a different age, right? I don’t think copyright built for the analog world makes sense in the digital world. Now, unlike some, my response to that is not to say, “Therefore abolish copyright.” My response is to say, “Let’s make copyright make sense for the digital world.”

Well, the obvious one for me is the duration of copyright, which it seems to me has far exceeded any possible rational justification and it has exceeded it not because people are trying to create more incentives to artists to create, but instead because they’re trying to make sure that old creativity doesn’t pass into the public domain and they loose the opportunity to profit from it. So that’s an obvious one.

But the less obvious ones that I think are actually more likely to be changed would, first of all, the recognized, the totally unnecessary regulation of copyright in the context of non-commercial, derivative works. So you have an explosion of kids, for example, using the internet to produce all sorts of fantastically creative derivative works. These don’t compete with the artist’s original work at all. They’re demonstrating the creative potential of these kids and the technology and they’re being shared, not in a commercial context where people are selling it, but just in the way that you share jokes that you might make up about a television show. There’s not reason for copyright to be regulating that. And so, one simple change would be to just restrict the derivative rights to commercial derivative rights not non-commercial derivative rights.

Another question to think about is whether it makes sense for copyright to be regulating copies. That sounds a little bit counterintuitive, but for most of the history of copyright in the United States, copyright did not grant copyright owners the exclusive right to copy. It granted copyright owners the exclusive right to do things like distribute their commercially or engage in commercial derivative rights, but not copy. That was added to the law in 1909. Many think, really, as a sort of drafting mistake. That it wasn’t proper to refer to what the law was regulating as regulating copies, but that’s what it did. And when it was added, what it basically said was that the law of copyright would expand as the technologies for copying became more pervasive.

Now, again, I think until digital technologies came along, that was probably a fine proxy for regulating commercial activity, right? Because the only people who had printing presses were commercial publishers and so it made sense to regulate commercial publishers in the context of copyright. But now that basically everybody who has a computer constantly engages in copying because there’s no way to use creative work on a digital network without producing a copy, then I think it raises the question whether we shouldn’t be rethinking the fact that copyright regulates copies. And instead of regulating every copy through copyright, we might think about regulating commercial distribution or commercial exploitation, commercial derivative works. That’s the kind of activity that copyright law is properly regulating rather than just regulating every time somebody wants to make a creative use of somebody else’s creativity.

Copyright law was originally crafted imagining that there’s a relatively small number of creators out there and to the extent it’s expensive to navigate copyright law, you know, record companies and film studios and publishers would be able to bear that expense because it’s for small, commercial entities. Now the world is such that basically anybody’s a creator, anybody with a computer and access to the internet can begin to create and share their creativity. PEW just released a study that said that 57% of teenagers in the United States have produced and shared content on the internet, right? So it’s a huge number of creators and the problem is that copyright law written for the world of publishers and record labels now applies to the world of creators as in anybody who has access to the internet. And that copyright law is just too burdensome for those creators to actually be able to navigate.

So the idea of creative commons was, let’s lower the cost of the law in this process of creativity, not by telling people to ignore the law, but by making it function more cheaply and more efficiently, more invisibly to the system so that you respect the rights, but you still are free to engage in creative work that the technology of the internet is inviting people to engage in.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally. 

See Video

Radio: Make Money and Get Played



As discussed in previous articles when an author creates an original work, and then “fixes” that work in a tangible medium (writes it down or records it), the author has created a copyright, and is granted six exclusive rights. Each right is important for different reasons, and each ties directly to potential revenue streams that are crucial for artists to understand in order to build sustainable business models around their creative output.

This article highlights an anomaly with respect to United States copyright law as it relates to the exclusive right to publicly perform copyrighted material (in particular, when your music is “publicly performed” – i.e.played - by AM and/or FM radio). The goals of this article are: 1. To increase awareness of the rules around this public performance royalty; 2. To provide suggestions on how artists can best focus their energies in the ever-evolving landscape.

The Exclusive Right to Publicly Perform a Copyrighted Work
When you write a song and record it or write it down, it automatically gets protection under U.S. copyright laws. One of these laws states that no one else can “publicly perform” your song without paying you. As one example, the exclusive right to publicly perform a copyrighted work means that only the copyright holder of the song (the songwriter) may, for instance, play the song in a club. Additionally, it means that in order for a radio station to broadcast that artist’s copyrighted song, the radio station must have an agreement in place with the artist. Same deal if, for instance, a TV station airs a show in which a copyrighted song by the artist plays during, for example, the opening credits or in the background of a show.

AM/FM radio stations get the right to pay and publicly perform a song by paying a Public Performance Organization.

The Public Performance Organizations (PROs): ASCAP, BMI, SESAC
In order for the above to take place, clearinghouse agencies were created – that is, a place an entity can go that represents a whole lot of songwriters. In the United States, these agencies are known as Performance Rights Organizations (PROs). There are three dominant ones in the United States: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. Each does the same thing: they act on behalf of the songwriters who have affiliated with them, and issue licenses to those who wish to broadcast (i.e. publicly perform) these artists’ copyrighted songs. Further, these PROs distribute the money they collect in license fees from these broadcasters to their affiliated writers whose copyrighted songs are publicly performed.

For instance, club owners pay the PROs a flat annual license fee that allows artists to perform copyrighted music in their club. This is how any artist is able to stand up on any stage (assuming the owner of that stage has paid the PROs their license fee) and sing a Bob Dylan song. The PROs use a variety of methods (including visiting clubs) to determine which songs are being publicly performed.

In a similar fashion, the PROs monitor radio play (via playlists submitted by the radio stations) and music played on TV (via “cue sheets” submitted by the networks) in order to determine which of the writers who have affiliated with them (i.e. the PRO) is having their copyrighted works publicly performed.

The United States’ Inconsistent Stance on Performance Royalties
Hopefully, to this point, this all seems (relatively) clear and logical. If it’s not clear, please review this prior article [http://blog.tunecore.com/2010/09/your-public-performance-rights.html]. There is a wrinkle. Recall that for each song, there are two copyright holders – the songwriter is one, The second is the entity that controls the right to the actual recording of the song (traditionally a record label).

For all of the above, only one copyright holder gets paid: The Songwriter. This means, for instance, that every time Frank Sinatra’s version of Paul Anka’s song “My Way”* is played on radio, broadcast on TV (for instance, if it’s playing in a scene on a TV show), or (when he was still alive) performed by Sinatra in concert it is Paul Anka (and, assuming he has one, his publisher) who receives the public performance royalties from the PRO, and not Frank Sinatra.

It’s important to be clear here: Frank Sinatra, obviously, got paid a fortune when he performed in concert. However, in order for the venue where these copyrighted songs were publicly performed to not infringe upon the songwriters’ exclusive right to publicly perform their copyrighted works, they (the venues) have to pay a license fee to the PROs who represent the songwriters. Similarly, when Frank Sinatra’s records are played on the radio, it may increase sales, which results in Frank Sinatra’s estate earning royalties from the record label. However, Frank Sinatra (or his estate) doesn't see a dime from the public performance of “My Way”; Paul Anka — via the PRO with whom he is affiliated, and who collects fees from the radio stations and pays out to its affiliated writers — makes money every time the song is played on terrestrial radio.

The disquieting detail is that every industrialized country except the United States has a public performance right that is paid to the Sound Recording Copyright Owner (typically, the label). This means that not only the writer, but also the label/performer gets paid when a song is broadcast on terrestrial radio or analog TV.

Further unsettling is the fact that when American-made music is played overseas, other countries collect royalties for it, but don’t pay American artists, because we don’t collect for artists here (only writers).

In the example above, if Paul Anka’s song “My Way” is recorded by Frank Sinatra, and the song is played on the radio in France, money is paid to a French PRO for BOTH the songwriter and the label/performer. The French collection agency then gives the U.S. PRO the money for the songwriter NOT for the label/performer. The U.S. PRO then gives a % of the money it collected to the songwriter.

Reforming the Performance Royalty
As you would expect, there are initiatives afoot to normalize the United States’ stance on public performance; most specifically, bill S. 379, the “Performance Rights Act.” Here is a letter from Senator Leahy supporting granting copyright owners and performers a public performance right when their sound recordings are transmitted by over-the-air-broadcast stations.

The debate — as all are — is complicated, and opponents to the bill argue that such legislation would essentially put those terrestrial radio stations who are still playing music out of business or push them towards talk radio.

The important distinction is that it is only AM/FM terrestrial (i.e. non-digital) broadcasters who are exempt from paying a public performance royalty to copyright owners and featured performers of sound recordings. If music is played on Pandora, satellite radio, via a net simulcast etc, both the songwriter and the label/performer get paid.

The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recording
The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) granted a performance right in sound recordings for certain digital and satellite transmissions. This means, generally, that whenever a song is streamed (in a non-interactive manner — i.e. without the listener’s ability to rewind, etc.) online, not only must the writer of the song be paid, but also the Sound Recording Copyright Owners (SRCO) and the performer.

The PROs we’ve already discussed (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) continue to collect fees from these web broadcasters on behalf of their affiliated writers when a song is streamed online, but now another organization, SoundExchange collects on behalf of Sound Recording Copyright Owners (SCROs) and featured and non-featured artists.

When viewed in the appropriate light of inexorable technological trends and innovation, what all of this means is that, irrespective of what happens with the Performance Rights Act, an increasing amount of music is being streamed online and over digital TV (i.e. cable, Satelite), while a decreasing amount of music is broadcast over terrestrial radio/analog TV.

Strategy for Artists
As artists, it is therefore imperative that you both understand the rules governing the public performance of your music, but also take the necessary steps to ensure you are paid when your exclusive copyrights are used in this fashion.

These specific steps are to affiliate with the PRO of your choice (ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC), and to register with SoundExchange (free).

My hope is that, in so doing, you will receive the maximum amount possible each time your music is used. In order for this to occur you must be the writer, the performer, and your own label. So, get out there, start your own label, and get your music — the music you made, and control — used, and make some money so you can make more music!

[source]
http://www.artistshousemusic.org/articles/radio+radio+radio+make+money+and+get+played

What the heck is a derivative work, and why should I care?



Overview
When you are the author of an original work, and you fix that work in a tangible medium (write it down, record it), you are automatically granted six exclusive rights. One of the works that you don’t hear about very much is the right to create a “derivative work.” It, like all the other rights, is codified in the United States Copyright Act in 17 U.S.C. § 101:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Put simply, the only person who can create or grant the rights for a derivative work to be created is the holder of the copyright for the original work.

Translations
When, for instance, The Gypsy Kings decided to do a version of The Eagles’ “Hotel California” (as seen in The Big Lebowski), sung in Spanish, it was a translation of the original work, and as such, not a cover. Thus, the Gypsy Kings had to get permission from the copyright holder(s) of “Hotel California” in order to create this derivative version of the work. Remember, you can cover any song that has been publicly released without getting anyone’s permission so long as you don’t make substantive changes to the lyrics or melody, and you abide by the compulsory license requirements (for a refresher on this topic, please see here [link]).

A translation, however, is deemed to be a substantial change, and therefore a derivative work, which, as an exclusive right of the holder of the copyright, requires permission to be granted.

As you can see from the above, it’s not just translations that are deemed derivative works, and require permission from the holder of the copyright. If you, for instance, wanted to create a movie or TV show based on a song, it would be deemed a derivative work.

Samples
However, where I believe derivatives will be relevant to most readers is with respect to sampling.

Sampling is one of the most confusing elements of the music business, but through understanding derivatives it will help you better understand both the rules around samples as well as — depending on which side of the fence you’re on (sampler or sampled) — the money to be made/paid.

A sample is when you take a piece of an existing copyrighted work and combine it with another work. If you refer back to the language from the Copyright Act regarding derivatives you’ll see explicitly where samples and derivatives overlap: “…any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.”

Because a sample clearly involves “recast[ing], transform[ing], or adapt[ing]” one work in order to merge it with another work, the copyright holder of the work being recast, transformed, or adapted must grant permission for this to occur. Simply put, because a sample is a derivative work, you cannot sample someone else’s copyrighted work without permission.

Note that there are actually often two copyrights that must be addressed when a work is sampled (and thus two copyright holders you must get permission from in order to avoid infringing): 1. The copyright to the song itself; 2. The copyright to the version of the song (i.e. the master). For instance, if you want to sample the guitar riff from a Beatles song, you would need to negotiate a deal with the copyright holder to the song (The Beatles’ publisher(s)) and negotiate a deal with the copyright holder to the version of the song from the recording which you are sampling from (The Beatles’ label). Either party can reject the request and not grant you the right to create a derivative work.

Should they not reject the request outright, they will negotiate with you to attempt to come to terms. Unlike mechanicals there’s no statutory maximum rate for samples, so publishers and master holders will get everything they can — including the rights to the copyright of the song that is using their sample — in the negotiations.

A lesser-known approach to sampling is often referred to as a “replay.” This is where a derivative work is created and used as part of another work via a re-performance/recording of a piece of the original work. For instance, instead of taking the sample of a guitar riff from a Beatles record, if an artist played the riff herself and then used that within her own song, she’d create a derivative work of the composition (the song), but not the master; i.e. a “replay.” In this case, the person creating the derivative “replay” would need to negotiate a deal with the copyright holder of the song (i.e. the publisher), but not with the copyright holder of the recording (i.e. the label). Of course, the publisher can reject the request.

If you do not negotiate the rights to create a derivative work with the relevant copyright holder(s), you will be infringing on the exclusive right of the copyright holder(s) to create a derivative work, and you can be sued.

It cuts both ways, of course, should someone want to sample your copyrighted work, he or she will have to negotiate a deal with you in order to do so, or risk you suing them for infringing upon your exclusive right to create derivative works.

A note on the fair use defense of “transformativeness.” The Supreme Court held in Campbell v/ Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (i.e. the “2 Live Crew Case”) that while 2 Live Crew’s unauthorized use of elements of “Oh, Pretty Woman” (the song popularized by Roy Orbison, and copyrighted by the publisher Acuff-Rose) represented a derivative work, the infringement was defensible due to the fair use as 2 Live Crew’s version provides new insight to listeners, and thus represents socially important commentary (this is very similar to/overlaps with the fair use defense of parody). This transformativeness fair use defense is likely what, for instance, Girl Talk will rely on should any of the various copyright holders accuse him of infringing on their exclusive right to create derivative works.

Don’t be confused with respect to some misinformation out there about how you can use small amounts of another’s copyrighted work in your composition — i.e. a “short” sample — and get away with it. There is no clear standard for what is considered de minimis usage, and thus you are at risk if you misappropriate any copyrighted material and create a derivative work in the form of a sample in your own composition.

Similarly, ignorance is not a defense. If you, for example, create a derivative work without knowing or intending to do so; e.g., you put a riff in your work that is so similar as to be seen as a derivative work of another’s copyrighted material, but you didn’t know about this prior work. In this case, you are still infringing on the copyright holder’s exclusive right to create a derivative work. However, if you can show that there was no knowing or intentional infringement the damages against you (if any) will be less than if you intentionally and knowingly infringed.

Summary
The exclusive right to create derivative works is a lesser-known exclusive right that is granted to authors of original works who fix their work in a tangible form. However, as can be seen — particularly with respect to samples — it can be a very important and lucrative right.



[source]