Value of Music Streaming is Data, Says Artist Zoe Keating @FutureSound Conference

 

From left: Ethan Diamond, CEO/Co-Founder, Bandcamp; David Marcus, SVP of 

Worldwide Artist Services, WMG; Emily White, Co-Founder, Whitesmith Entertainment; 

Zoe Keating, Artist; consultant Antony Bruno; Jon Irwin, President, Rhapsody 

International; before their panel on "Artist Revenues and Digital Music Economics." 

(Photo: Arnold Turner) 

The fight over artist royalties on streaming services like Pandora and Spotify misses a more important reality: user data from these sites can be a much bigger gold mine to artists, labels, and promoters, and it needs to be unlocked, said several industry players during a lively panel discussion on artist revenues and digital music economics at the second day of the FutureSound Conference on music and technology in San Francisco.

Consultant Anthony Bruno moderated the 45-minute-long panel which featured Bandcamp CEO/Co-founder Ethan Diamond, Rhapsody president Jon Irwin, artist Zoe Keating, Warner Music Group David Marcus, and Whitesmith Entertainment co-founder Emily White.

Read All Billboard FutureSound Conference 2012 Coverage Here

SVP of worldwide artist services at the world's third largest music company, Marcus said 65 percent of Warner Music artists are in what would be called 360 deals. But despite all the hype around online streaming and radio services, the live show still drives non-recorded music revenue at Warner.

"It's tickets. That's where the action is for us," he said.

He sees streaming services at the gateway drug that gets people to buy a single, then a CD, a concert ticket, and a t-shirt. It was an opinion shared by many on the panel, several of whom want to see such services share more data with labels and artists.

 

(from left): David Marcus, Jon Irwin, Ethan Diamond, Emily White, Zoe Keating, 

Antony Bruno (Arnold Turner) 

Artist Zoe Keating said artists should be given user data from Rhapsody and Spotify to identify fans and market to them. Keating made waves by uploading all of her revenue stream data to the Internet this summer, throwing back the curtain on artist revenue streams and kicking off a lively discussion. The majority of her revenue came from iTunes and Bandcamp, she said.

Right now, Spotify stream revenue is incidental to the opportunity to build a relationship with such service's users, she said.

Can MIDEM Hack Day Help Cellist Zoe Keating Share Loops With Fans?

"My music is available everywhere but I can't get that data. How do I reach those casual listeners? That's more valuable to me than some royalty," Keating said. "Artists are getting hung up on the actual number."

Rhapsody president Jon Irwin said the 11 year-old music subscription service is pivoting to focus on providing such services to artists.

"It's going to be to strengthen that bond between a fan ... and the actual artist"

Bandcamp's Diamond said the site already provides such data as a .csv format, but "it's criminal" how few artists use it.

Founded in 2008, Bandcamp is an online music store and artist platform used by independent artists. The company takes a cut of artist sales on the site and has received widespread attention thanks to use by artists like Amanda Palmer. Palmer sold $15,000 of music and merch from her Bandcamp page in just three minutes this Summer.

Diamond said Bandcamp paid out $1.7 million to artists in the last 30 days, and urged artist to do more direct to consumer sales to maximize margins.

Whitesmith Entertainment co-founder Emily White manages acts like Brendan Benson and Gold Motel. She said direct to fan sales represent the highest margin sales for artists working with her talent agency.

Web analytics are a big, underutilized tool for finding paying customers, she said. Facebook Insight allows her to see mismatches between fan interest in, say, Salt Lake City, and tour dates in Boston. She mentioned Imogen Heap is huge in Jakarta, Indonesia. Bookers had no idea, but web analytics showed it.

"And we got some very lucrative offers. I think it's a crucial tool to drive booking strategy," White said. "I look forward to booking agents who understand that."

Music subscription surfaces have only scratched the surface of connecting bands and fans. White and Keating envision something like Spotify pairing with crowdfunding site Kickstarter to crowdfund entire tours.

"It's so exciting," she said. "The tech is there but nobody gets it. Laura Keating and I are going to be all over that."

Saturday Night Live Spoofs Katt Williams [VIDEO]

Once Saturday Night Live starts spoofing you, you've officially "made it." Unfortunately for Katt Williams, being mimicked on the long-running sketch comedy program came for all the wrong reasons.

The comedian has made headlines for numerous arrests, and public outbursts, the most recent of which occurred Friday (Nov. 16). As previously reported, Williams showed up to his show in Oakland, Calif. but gave fans less than what they paid for. He told s few jokes, then threatened to attack and audience member, before cutting his set short.

Since SNL is short of black cast members, Jay Pharaoh was commissioned to play the role of Williams on last night's episode. Of course Pharaoh looks absolutely nothing like the comedian, but his impression was spot on. Aside from the boring but obligatory "pimp" and "raggedy b-tch" lines, Pharaoh sounding exactly like Williams, earns him major points.

Check out the sketch below.

NICKI MINAJ SAYS SHE'S GOT DISCIPLINE IN HER LIFE: "I'VE KINDA BEEN MY OWN BOSS FOR A FEW YEARS" [VIDEO]

Young Money star Nicki Minaj recently discussed her new commitment to popular reality music competition "American Idol" and how having the duties of a show panelist keeps her disciplined.

While used to calling her own shots, Minaj said she has learned to commit herself to meeting deadlines.

"When they mentioned it to me, like, last year, I thought they were joking. [Producer] Nigel came up to me and said, 'We want to talk to you about being a guest judge.' ... They're very long days, I'm not really used to having to show up somewhere at a specific time. I've kinda been my own boss for a few years, so this is like adding discipline back in my life. This is adding that strict regime of having to do something. Everybody's affected by what I do." (E! News)

Despite her big career move, TLC's T-Boz recently slammed "American Idol" for offering her the job.

T-Boz doesn't believe in holding back with her opinions, and she recently sat down with This is Max in London to express her dismay about Nicki Minaj being an American Idol judge. "Just because you're on TV gyrating and boning and sucking p*nises, it's not talent, honey. Maybe in the porn industry, but over here, we entertain. I don't respect half [of] the people I've seen lately. How the hell is she gon' tell me what I should be doing when her azz can't even sing. Why is she there? And then...now they've got rappers that don't even sing judging? So, this is totally based off of popularity I guess. I mean, to each their own. Get your money, honey. All I'm saying is, I will never watch [your] shows again. (Miss Jia)

Recently, Nicki admitted not feeling 100 percent behind joining "American Idol."

Speaking in her new reality show 'My Truth', Nicki revealed: 'I think Mariah met her match this time, and I don't think she was expecting to meet her match. 'I'm super nervous and anxious for the first day on 'American Idol'. I'm still second guessing my decision. I'm probably going to be a hundred times guessing this decision because I'm human. It's a big job.' The outspoken rapper was true to her word and proceeded to have a meltdown because her new stylist had misjudged her taste in clothes mere hours before the first day of auditions, and she branded all her options 'ugly'. (Monsters & Critics)

Reports of her new television gig landed across the Internet in September.

The "American Idol" judges' panel is now complete with the naming of singer-rapper Nicki Minaj and country crooner Keith Urban. The Fox network officially tapped the pair with an announcement Sunday, confirming rumors surrounding them both just hours before the first round of auditions for next season was due to begin in New York. Minaj is getting $12 million for a one-year deal on the hit Fox singing series, a person in the music industry with knowledge of the deal told The Associated Press on Sunday. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the deal. (Wall Street Journal)

Check out Nicki Minaj speaking on "American Idol":

NEW VIDEO: SEAN KINGSTON FT. CHER LLOYD -- “RUM AND RAYBANS"

Sean Kingston's new single "Rum & Raybans" has it all: spanish lyrics, reggaeton-inspired tempos, dance music and British singer Cher Lloyd. What could he possibly add to the video? Answer: Chris Brown.

While Lloyd doesn't appear in the "Rum & Raybans" video, Breezy makes a cameo. Kingston premiered the Hannah Lux Davis-directed clip while hosting the American Music Awards pre-show on Sunday. He sets the precedent for partying like a modern day rock star complete with make-out sessions, a matte black truck, glow-in-the-dark paint party and gals in Raybans throwing around his money.

"Rum & Raybans" is off Kingston's third studio album Back 2 Life. The track will be available via iTunes on Monday, Nov. 19. Check out the video below and bailare!

PSY & MC HAMMER PERFORM ‘GANGNAM STYLE’ LIVE AT THE 2012 AMAS

Korean internet sensation PSY closed out the 2012 American Music Awardswith a performance of his hit “Gangnam Style” where he was joined on stage by MC Hammer for a special mashup of “Too Legit To Quit“.

Kendrick Lamar Performs "Backseat Freestyle" During Adrien Broner Boxing Entrance [VIDEO]

Boxer Adrien Broner tapped Kendrick Lamar to provide the soundtrack to the entrance to his boxing match at the Boardwalk Hall in Atlantic City, N.J. Saturday (Nov. 17) night. Repping his T.D.E crew by way of a black hoodie, Lamar spit as Broner strolled along in a pink robe.

Broner, 23, won the match, which aired on HBO. The newly minted WBC lightweight dethroned former champion, Antonio DeMarco. Sealing the deal with a left uppercut, the Cincinnati native walked away with the title after an eight-round bout.

In addition to the Broner fight, Lamar has been all over the place since dropping good kid m.a.a.d city last month. The 25-year-old's first album debuted atop the Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop charts, and he plans to continue promoting the project. "A lot of people stop after first week sales, [thinking] that's it," Lamar told Hip-Hop Wired. "I want to continue to grow. I think more people need to hear this album.”

Watch footage of Lamar's performance below.

Songs in movies, TV shows, and ads: How do the licenses work?

George Howard

So…here we go: an attempt to explain the rules and licenses around songs being used in films, tv, and ads. Let me know if you have any questions; I’ll try to answer them in the comments, and maybe this can be an evolving document that we can reference.

Any time a song is used in a film, tv show, ad there are two licenses required:

1. A synchronization (synch) license: This is a license the producer of the above must obtain from the writer of the song (if the writer has assigned her © to a publisher, the producer must go through the publisher). 


This license gives the producer of the above the right to synchronize the ©’d song (important: not the recording of the song, but the underlying composition - the lyrics and melody) with the moving images in the tv show, ad, or movie.


2. A master usage license: the producer of the above must negotiate a license with the person who holds the © to the recording of the above underlying composition (i.e. the version of the song found on the CD). 
Typically, the master usage holder is the label. If there is no label (i.e., it’s self-released by the artist), then the producer of the movie, etc. negotiates directly with the artist who self-released.


Thus, in the case of an artist who has not assigned their publishing rights to anyone and self-releases their own record, the producer of the movie, etc. negotiates “both sides” (i.e. the synch and the master usage) with the artist herself.


If the artist has done a publishing deal and a record deal, the producer negotiates with the publisher for the synch rights and the label for the master usage rights.


Unlike with mechanicals (i.e. the payment labels make to songwriters for the rights to mechanically reproduce a ©’d song on the album the label releases), there is no compulsory license for either synch or master licenses. Because there is no compulsory license for the synch or master usage, the producer must negotiate both of these licenses, and either the master holder or the publisher can deny the request.


In reality, the producer will approach one of the parties (the label or publisher - typically, publisher first - see below for why), and see if they can get the writer interested in the synch (most writers, of course, are falling all over themselves to have their music used).

The producer makes the publisher/writer an offer, and then tries to shift the burden of the master clearance to the writer/publisher. At that point, they (both producer and the publisher/writer) push on the label to clear the master side (most labels, of course, are falling all over themselves to have their music used), and a deal is struck. 


The fee is divided (typically evenly) between the publisher for the synch rights and the master holder for the, er, master rights.


Sometimes, the publisher will want to do the deal, but the label won’t. In this case — as you saw, for instance in I am Sam, where the publisher for the Beatles cleared the synch rights for the song, but the label wouldn’t make a deal for the master usage — the producers used different masters (i.e. they had artists cover the songs).


It doesn’t work the other way; if the publisher won’t grant the synch license, the party is over - this is why producers go to publishers first: they’re the dispositive party.


Importantly, in the US, when the Ad or TV show or Movie is publicly performed on TV (i.e. it’s broadcast), a performance royalty is generated for the writer and publisher of the song (often the same person). The performer (i.e. the person on the master) sees none of this performance royalty. Do note, that no performance royalty is generated from public performance in movie theaters, as they are (wink, wink, nod, nod) exempt from paying public performance royalties.

Additionally, in 1995 Congress enacted the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRA). This act — in conjunction with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1995 — created a performance royalty obligation to be paid by webcasters whenever they broadcast a ©’d work over the Internet. Significantly, this performance royalty compensates the performer and content owner (i.e., label) of the work. The publisher and writer are still compensated when their ©’d works are publicly performed online via the Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), but now — due to the DPRA — the featured performer and content owner are also compensated. This brings the US in line with the rest of the world (with some glaring exceptions, like North Korea) with respect to paying a performance royalty to both the writer and performer. Of course, to date (though efforts are afoot to change this) this only applies to public performance when it is digitally transmitted; for terrestrial radio (i.e. FM/AM), only the writers are paid a performance royalty. SoundExchange collects from webcasters on behalf of their registered members. SoundExhchange's authority to collect for/distribute to these SRCOs comes from a designation by the Librarian of Congress and the US © office.

So, when you’re watching Hulu and an ad comes on with music underneath that has been licensed by a producer of the ad from a label/artist, both the performer and the writer of the song are paide a performance royalty.

Please note, the above really only scratches the surface with respect to licensing. There are, of course, complexities. For instance, when doing a deal for a TV show, you also have to factor in home video, etc.

However, if you don’t understand the above, you sure won’t be able to dive deeper.

[VIDEO] Intellectual Property: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright

§ 109 · Limitations on exclusive rights:Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord⁴⁰

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. 

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under section 104A that are manufactured before the date of restoration of copyright or, with respect to reliance parties, before publication or service of notice under section 104A(e), may be sold or otherwise disposed of without the authorization of the owner of the restored copyright for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage only during the 12-month period beginning on—

(1)the date of the publication in the Federal Register of the notice of intent filed with the Copyright Office under section 104A(d)(2)(A), or

(2)the date of the receipt of actual notice served under section 104A(d)(2)(B), whichever occurs first. (b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized
by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection.

(B)This subsection does not apply to—


(i)a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or


(ii)a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

(C)Nothing in this subsection affects any provision of chapter 9 of this title.

(2)(A) Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the lending of a computer program for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library, if each copy of a computer program which is lent by such library has affixed to the packaging containing the program a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

(B) Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, and at such times thereafter as the Register of Copyrights considers appropriate, the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with representatives of copyright owners and librarians, shall submit to the Congress a report stating whether this paragraph has achieved its intended purpose of maintaining the integrity of the copyright system while providing nonprofit libraries the capability to fulfill their function. Such report shall advise the Congress as to any information or recommendations that the Register of Copyrights considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection.

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall affect any provision of the antitrust laws. For purposes of the preceding sentence,“antitrust laws” has the meaning given that term in the first section of the Clayton Act and includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the extent that section relates to unfair methods of competition.

(4) Any person who distributes a phonorecord or a copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) in violation of paragraph (1) is an infringer of copyright under section 501 of this title and is subject to the remedies set forth in sections 502, 503, 504, 505, and 509. Such violation shall not be a criminal offense under section 506 or cause such person to be subject to the criminal penalties set forth in section 2319 of title 18.(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(5), the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.
(d) The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (c) do not, unless authorized by the copyright owner, extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106(4) and 106(5), in the case of an electronic audiovisual game intended for use in coin-operated equipment, the owner of a particular copy of such a game lawfully made under this title, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner of the game, to publicly perform or display that game in coin-operated equipment, except that this subsection shall not apply to any work of authorship embodied in the audiovisual game if the copyright owner of the electronic audiovisual game is not also the copyright owner of the work of authorship.

§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use³⁸

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

§ 106a · Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity³⁷

(a)Rights of Attribution and Integrity.—Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art—

(A) to claim authorship of that work, and

(B)to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;

(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and

(3)subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right—

(A)to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

(B)to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

(b)Scope and Exercise of Rights.—Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.

(c)Exceptions.—(1) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).(2)The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.

(3)The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph

(A)or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).

(d)Duration of Rights.—(1) With respectto works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.

(2)With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rightsconferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.

(3)In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author.
(4)All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.

(e)Transfer and Waiver.—(1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.

(2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.

§ 106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works³⁶

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1)to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2)to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3)to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4)in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5)in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6)in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Introduction to Copyright Law

The course provides an introduction to copyright law
and American law in general.

Course Features

• Video lectures

Course Highlights

This course is offered during the Independent Activities Period (IAP), which is a special 4-week term at MIT that runs from the first week of January until the end of the month.

Course Description

This course is an introduction to copyright law and American law in general. Topics covered include: structure of federal law; basics of legal research; legal citations; how to use LexisNexis®; the 1976 Copyright Act; copyright as applied to music, computers, broadcasting, and education; fair use; Napster®, Grokster®, and Peer-to-Peer file-sharing; Library Access to Music Project; The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act; DVDs and encryption; software licensing; the GNU® General Public License and free software.

- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). (PDF)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). (PDF)
- On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991). (PDF)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). (PDF)

Readings

Go to LexisNexis®, "Legal Research," then "Federal Code," and finally "Guided Search." (That will take you to this form.)

Search for "17 uscs" in "Cite." This will pull up the entire Copyright Act. Alternately, you can use the U. S. Copyright Office's file: (PDF - 3 MB).

Read the following sections of the statute. (If the section seems to go on and on, just read the first few subsections. You may find it helpful to look back at the definitions in section 101.)

- 106 (Core Rights)
- 106A (Limited Moral Rights)
- 107 (Fair Use)
- 109 (First Sale)
- 110 (Exempt Performances)
- 115 Only Read Subsections (a) and (b) (Musical "Covers")
- 117 (Computer Programs)
- 302 (Duration of Copyright)
- 401 (Copyright Notice)
- 411 (Registration)
- 504 (Damages for Infringement)
- 506 (Criminal Violations, including LaMacchia Law)

Read 17 U.S.C. § 512. (Remember: Use "17 uscs sec 512".)

Read Recording Industry Ass'n of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999).

Read Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001). (PDF)

Read Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (PDF)

Read Jonathan Zittrain's essay, "The Copyright Cage," in legal affairs magazine.

Optional Readings

Nimmer, David. Codifying Copyright Comprehensibly, 51 UCLA L. Rev. 1233 (2004) (From LexisNexis® Academic, go to "Legal Research," then "Law Reviews," then "Guided Search," and search for "51 UCLA L. Rev. 1233" in "Citation." Set the date field to "All available dates.") This is a fantastic article about the entire Copyright Act.

———. Appreciating Legislative History: The Sweet and Sour Spots of the DMCA's Commentary, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 909 (2002).

———. "Fairest of them All" and Other Fairy Tales of Fair Use, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 263 (2003), available with chart.

Assignments

The course assignments were closely tied to the readings.

Assignment 1

Review the LexisNexis® Handout (PDF)

Assignment 2

Go to LexisNexis®, "Legal Research," then "Federal Code," and finally "Guided Search." Search for "17 uscs" in "Cite." This will pull up the entire Copyright Act. Read the following sections of the statute. (If the section seems to go on and on, just read the first few subsections. You may find it helpful to look back at the definitions in section 101.)

• 106 (Core Rights)
• 106A (Limited Moral Rights)
• 107 (Fair Use)
• 109 (First Sale)
• 110 (Exempt Performances)
• 115 Only Read Subsections (a) and (b) (Musical "Covers")
• 117 (Computer Programs)
• 302 (Duration of Copyright)
• 401 (Copyright Notice)
• 411 (Registration)
• 504 (Damages for Infringement)
• 506 (Criminal Violations, including LaMacchia Law)

For each of these twelve sections, write a little summary (between one and three sentences) to yourself explaining the gist of the section. For example:

• Section 115. This section allows musicians to record and distribute "covers" of songs without having to get permission, as long as another recording of the song has already been legitimately distributed. For example, when Madonna released her version of "American Pie" in 2000, she didn't need Don McLean's permission. She just had to pay him about 9.1 cents (a government-set price) per copy sold.

YouTube Inks Deal to Pay More Royalties to Indie Songwriters

In huge news just announced, YouTube is offering all music publishers the opportunity to secure sync licensing revenue from user-generated content uploaded to the Youtube platform.   The deal, which was brokered by the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and will be administered by the Harry Fox Agency (HFA),  is open to all publishers regardless of affiliation with NMPA or HFA.

This means, for the first time, independent publishers will be able to collect sync licensing fees from the largest online music service. In short: more money for songwriters.

For all songs covered under the agreement, Youtube will pay 15% of net ad revenue when the video incorporates a sound recording (i.e. a user-generated lip sync video) and 50% of net ad revenue for user-generated cover recordings. Estimates for YouTube’s ad revenue range between $1 billion and $2 billion – up significantly from 2010 revenue estimates of $450M-500M.

This new agreement doesn’t affect public performance income, which means it’s in addition to what ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are already collecting.

The deal between YouTube and HFA is awesome for Songtrust clients. As a member the NMPA and through our affiliation with HFA, Songtrust ensures that our members’ songs are eligible to receive these royalties.  We also correctly register and monitor payments, streamlining the process of collecting your royalties from Youtube.

To read full details of the deal, click here. If you’ve got any specific questions about the deal and how it affects you, hit us up in the comments below!

Don’t post that music video on YouTube without a sync license! Read more: Wait! Don’t post that music video on YouTube without a sync license!

by DISC MAKERS

Musicians getting in trouble with the law – well, that’s nothing new. What’s a good music resume without a couple of arrest reports to fill out the career dips? But what about that YouTube “take down” notice you just received for the video you posted of your band covering “Freebird?” You got a mechanical license to release the song on your CD (right?), and the video turned out awesome, so you owe it to the world to post it online. But did you get a sync license for your online videos of cover songs?

“When you attempt to ‘synch’ a sound recording of a song with any audio/visual element, you also need to obtain a synchronization license (or sync license). This is a separate, negotiable license that allows you to use a particular piece of music in synch with other visual elements, such as in your music video.”

That’s a snippet of what CD Baby’s resident entertainment attorney/blogger Christiane Cargill Kinney posted on The DIY Musician blog in her thorough explanation of the requirements for posting videos of cover songs online. The article is titled “Posting Cover Songs on YouTube: Music Licensing Law Explained,” and it’s filled with serious information about compulsory mechanical licenses, broadcast licenses, re-print licenses, sync licenses, and so on, and so on. As she puts it, “There are about as many music licenses as there are ‘Beliebers,’ and they each serve different purposes.”

Read the entire post here.

Then be prepared to take down that “Bohemian Rhapsody” spoof you thought would go viral. (Speaking of, if you have another 6 minutes and 38 seconds to spare, you’ll find that William Shatner beat you to it.)

Licensing

Definition:

Licensing is transferring the rights to a piece of music - sometimes one song, sometimes a snippet of a song, sometimes an entire album - to another party for a set period of time for a fee. There are a few different ways music licensing takes place:

• A label may license an album for which they own the rights to a label or distribution company in another territory for that second company to market and sell in their area.
• A musician may license an album to a label rather than signing a traditional record deal.
• A company may license a piece of music to use in media/advertising/an event.

Music licensing deals can take many different forms, but all deals dictate a licensing fee, the time for which the licensing agreement will last and where/how the licensee can use the music.

Sync License

Definition:

A music synchronization license - or sync license, for short - is a music license that allows the license holder to "sync" music to some kind of media output. Often sync licenses are used for TV shows and movies, but any kind of visual paired with sound requires a sync license.

A sync license gives you the right to use a song and sync it with a visual in that when you hold a sync license, you are allowed to re-record that song for use in your project. If you want to use a specific version of the song by a specific artist, you also need to get a master recording license. Typically, a sync license is obtained from a music publisher while the master recording license is obtained by from the record label or owner of the master.

A sync license covers a specific period of time, and the license will stipulate how the song can be used. There is one flat fee involved in obtaining a sync license, and once the license is in place, the song can be used as stipulated as many times within the license period as the license holder likes. In other words, if you obtain a sync license and use the song in a film, you do not have to pay a fee on the sync every time the film is viewed.

Also Known As: synchronization license, synch license

[PDF] 

Synch License 1-08

[PDF] 

Combined Synchronization and Master Use License Agreement

Master License

Definition:

A master license gives the license holder the right to use a recorded piece of music in a media project, often a film, TV show, commercial or some other visual creation, though the license does extend to audio projects as well. A master license is obtained from the person who owns the recording (in other words, owns the master). Often master licenses are obtained from record labels.

Note that a master license differs from a sync license in that a sync license gives the license holder the right to re-record a song for use in a media project, while a master license gives the license holder the right to use a pre-existing recording of that song in a media project. A sync license (from the publisher) is usually required in conjunction with a master license (from the master owner) to use a pre-existing version of a song with a visual project.

A master license can only be issued for one song at a time. Even if someone wishes to use an entire album in a project, a license must be obtained for each song individually.

VersusMedia: Sample Master Use License, Film Synchronization ...

Mechanical & Sync Licenses - YouTube

Running TV Comercials On MTV And VH1 To Promote Your Upcoming Shows

By Tim Sweeney

If someone in your area is successful, find out what they are doing and see if you can use some of the same strategies to reach even greater results for your music. But don’t copy everything they do. Some artists do outrageous or strange things to get attention. No matter how short lived the attention may be. Be true to you and your music. 

In regards to MTV and VH-1 both channels or networks are broadcast on a local level through the cable provider in your area. What you need to do is quite simple. 

First, contact the advertising department at the local office of your cable provider and ask for a media kit. In there you will find a coverage map of what area your cable company covers in your home market. 

Second, ask the advertising staff to include in your media kit, a breakdown of the demographics and the amount of people who watch which particular programs on the two channels. 

Third, tell them what you are trying to promote and ask them for the cost per commercial and where they would be best placed. 

That’s it. Since the local cable providers focus on selling commercials to local companies in your area, you will be surprised to find that you get TV commercials on MTV in your major city for somewhere between $25-$40 for prime time (Monday-Friday 7PM-11PM) (except in New York City). Typically, the cable company will only charge you $5 more per commercial, to place them at specific times in specific programs. 

I regularly use TV commercials for the independent artists I’m working with to advertise upcoming shows and their web site. Sometimes you can catch 50,000 to 100,000 people with one commercial, who will jump over to visit your web site. From that one commercial, some may be converted right then and there to buy a copy of your CD online or to come to your next show! The more “effective” commercials you run in a short period of time to promote your upcoming shows and web site, the better. (Please note! Make sure that you have redesigned your web site for the hoards of 56K users and that you have replaced your MP3 files with properly programmed Real Audio samples. Make sure they are next to the insights to your songs. It will make a big difference in sales!) 

The Living Room Sessions talks about in detail, how to get a free commercial made, how to negotiate an even lower price per commercial and how to pick the “right” shows to advertise on. http://www.tsamusic.com 

The fun of having TV commercials on major cable networks in your area is that they are seen by the music directors at the major commercial radio stations and those hard to reach press people. Believe me, a good TV commercial will not only get more people to your shows and web site, it will focus the radio and press people to have to deal with you. Join me at http://www.musicstrategies.com and I will show you personally how to use this idea.

About The Author: Tim Sweeney is an independent music consultant. He is one of the music industry's most highly sought after experts in the areas of artist development, radio promotion, record distribution, retail marketing and publicity. He has helped dozens of record labels both major (Columbia, Epic, MCA, Revolution, Hollywood, Capitol, Mercury, Polygram, Warner and their sub-labels) and independent (Restless, Skunk, Screaming Goddess, among others) develop some of their most promising and successful artists of all time. For more information on Tim's seminars, books and artist consultation, please visit his website at www.tsamusic.com