Tag Archives: music rights

Blockchain

Coming Soon: A Blockchain Copyright System

Three of the world’s most significant collection societies—ASCAP (US), SACEM (France), and PRS for Music (UK)—are working together on a project designed to improve the future of music copyright management. According to an article in Music Business Weekly, they have announced the building of a blockchain system, which could manage the links between music recordings International Standard Recording Codes
(ISRCs) and music work International Standard Work Codes (ISWCs). Blockchain is a software platform, a protocol for managing digital assets. Their website is www.blockchain.com.

A recent ASCAP press release stated: “Establishing robust links between these two pieces of data (ISRCs and ISWCs), offers a practical solution with enormous potential for improving the processes of royalty matching, which will in turn speed up licensing, reduce errors, and reduce costs. The goal of the project is to prototype how the music industry could create and adopt a shared, decentralized database of musical work metadata with real-time update and tracking capabilities.”

Working with IBM, the partnership plans to leverage the open source blockchain technology from the Linux Foundation, Hyperledger Fabric, to match, aggregate, and qualify existing links between ISRCs and ISWCs in order to confirm correct ownership information and conflicts. Blockchain is used in payments systems, noted for its ability to manage records without centralized governance. This valuable characteristic will be utilized to resolve issues between conflicting identifiers for the same work across multiple rights holders.

Jean-Noël Tronc, SACEM’s chief executive officer, has a vision “to ensure a diverse and sustainable future for music, where creators are rewarded efficiently for their work.” He went on to say, “Through this partnership, we aim to develop new blockchain-based technologies that will tackle a long-standing issue with music industry metadata—a problem that has grown more acute as online music rights distribution has become increasingly decentralized with the rise in digital channels. By developing this blockchain technology in partnership with ASCAP and PRS for Music, we will unlock value to the benefit of music creators worldwide.”

Elizabeth Matthews, ASCAP’s chief executive officer, noted that the music industry “has been calling for greater transparency and accuracy.” Blockchain has the ability to capture real-time data and transaction updates that can be shared with multiple parties. While the data improves, the costs of administration will diminish, leaving a greater percentage for distribution to the rights holders.

Robert Ashcroft, PRS for Music’s chief executive, added: “Establishing authoritative copyright data has long been a goal of PRS for Music and is one of the biggest challenges the industry faces.” The digital market requires real-time reporting on behalf of multiple stakeholders across the world, if the goal is to increase accuracy of royalty payments and release value for rightsholders.

If none of this makes sense to you, try to imagine the number of times a given song may be used somewhere in the world, and for the sake of argument, in a given year. A young person in Australia may synch the song to a homemade video, and post it; a music supervisor in California decides to use the song in a movie or it’s streamed a few million times by that many listeners. In each case, revenue should be generated for the rightsholders. In a paper world, it’s impossible.

However, the technology exists to accurately monitor and track each use, using algorithms. And now—using blockchain protocols—this data could be centrally stored and linked, and a methodology derived to instantly identify and distribute revenue to the rights holders.

We have long known that copyright was broken with the advent of the Internet. It appears that at long last, the system will be catching up to address proper monetization of what were before, illegal and unpaid uses. The sad part is, the technology has been there a while, but the will to utilize it was not. We have apparently turned that corner, for the benefit of musicians everywhere.

protect your songs with copyright

Protect Your Songs with Copyright

protect your songs with copyrightThe songwriting process is rarely easy. Giving life to that creative spark is a process that can take countless hours, the behind-the-scenes toil never known to the audience that finally hears the song.

So, it’s important that all the sweat, anguish, and fine-tuning that turned your “kernel-of-an-idea” into a “track-on-an-album” counts for something. Even if your finished song doesn’t get shared with a wide audience, you should protect it nonetheless.

The act of copyrighting your work grants you, the owner, the exclusive right to have your work reproduced. Under the Copyright Act, protection starts the moment your songs are fixed in tangible form–recorded or even just scribbled down. The copyright then becomes property of the author and only the author, or those deriving their rights from the author, can claim the copyright.

With copyrighted works, you also have the privilege to: prepare derivative works based on your original tune; distribute copies of your work to the public, by sale, retail, lease, lending, or other transfer of ownership; and perform and display the copyrighted work publicly.

The more public your music the better, since as an artist, most of your money is made through the sale of your music, as distributed through a music publisher.

But lots more can be earned from paid TV and radio performances. But how do you ensure that you’ll receive the proper compensation if your songs are used in various media?

That’s where performing rights societies such as The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP); Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI); and the Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) come in.

These are the organizations responsible for tracking when and where an artist’s copyrighted songs are broadcast, whether the exact track is used for background music in an episode of CSI, or if the next American Idol hopeful sings a variation of it.

This applies to international broadcast as well, in every country, save Russia and China, where copyrights are not honored. Every time your creation hits the airwaves, you’ll be compensated with a royalty check, delivered to your door every few months.

Your claim to copyright in the melody and lyrics of your songs can be registered with the Copyright Office. They usually require the copyright owner to deposit “two complete copies of phonorecords of the best edition of all works subject to copyright that are publicly distributed in the US, whether or not the work contains a notice of copyright.”

The proper form to register songs is Form PA (not Form SR). As long as all your music and lyrics are “unpublished,” you may register an unlimited number of songs together as a collection. This will extend the benefits of registration to each copyrightable selection in the collection.

Though not required, it’s recommended that you place a copyright notice on all your work. The notice includes the copyright symbol, the year of first publication, and the name of the copyright owner. Keep in mind, if your songs are published and distributed without a copyright notice, you’ll have relinquished your right to secure copyright and your songs would fall into public domain.

For more information on protecting your original creations visit the US Copyright Office at www.copyright.gov
BMI at www.bmi.com
SOCAN at www.socan.ca
ASCAP at www.ascap.com.

Pandora and BMI

Pandora and BMI Trial Begins

Pandora and BMIIn February Pandora and BMI headed to court in a trial to determine how much Pandora will pay BMI songwriters and publishers. According to The New York Times, recent debates over music royalties with ASCAP and BMI have galvanized musicians and driven the Justice Department to review the regulatory agreements that govern BMI and ASCAP.

Pandora currently pays BMI 1.75% of its revenue, but it wants to reduce that fee to 1.7% to match what radio broadcasters pay for their streams. Pandora contends it is just another form of radio. BMI wants Pandora to raise its rate to 2.5%, arguing that Pandora is a more interactive form of media, and since it has no other programming like news or talk, it makes more extensive use of music than radio stations do.

Also in February, the US Copyright Office released its study, Copyright and the Music Marketplace, with recommendations on how existing music licensing laws should be updated to better reflect how people listen to music today. Among its recommendations were requiring radio stations to pay performance fees and the consolidation of rate-setting activities. Read the study at: copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/.

Revised Notice to Musicians Employed Under US Collective Bargaining Agreements

Sections 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act permit unions in non-right-to-work states to enter into collective bargaining agreements with employers that require employees, as a condition of employment, either to join the union (and thereby enjoy the full rights and benefits of membership) or to pay fees to the union (and thereby satisfy a financial obligation to the union without enjoying the full rights and benefits of membership). That requirement serves the legitimate purpose of ensuring that each employee who benefits from union representation pays a fair share of the cost of that representation. The goal of such “union security provisions” is to eliminate “free riders” who benefit from the union contract without contributing to the union’s cost of negotiating, administering, and enforcing that contract.

Where a collective bargaining agreement requires an employee to either join the union or to pay fees to the union, the fees charged to nonmembers are generally identical to the amount of union dues and initiation fees charged to union members. In a 1988 court case, Communications Workers of America v. Beck, the United States Supreme Court held that a nonmember has the right to object to paying any portion of the fee that will be expended on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment. All nonmember fee payers are required to pay the portion of the fee that will support expenditures germane to the collective bargaining process, including, but not limited to negotiations, contract administration, grievance adjustment, meetings with employer and union representatives, legislative matters affecting the working conditions of employees in various industries in which musicians function, and internal union administration and litigation related to the above activities. Nonmember fee payers who object to doing so have the right not to pay the portion of the fee that will be expended on other, “nonchargeable” activities, including expenditures made for political purposes, for general community services, or for members-only benefits. In order to reduce the fee they pay to the union, objectors must follow the procedure described here.

The so-called Beck rights described above apply only to nonmembers—individuals who have resigned from the union or who have never joined. Under federal labor law, every person has the right to join and support a labor union, to refuse to join a labor union, and to resign from union membership at any time. However, only union members have the following valuable rights, among others: the right to attend local union meetings and speak out at such meetings on any and all issues affecting the local, the AFM, and its members; the right to participate in the formulation of union policy; the right to influence the nature of the local’s activities and the direction of its future; the right to nominate and vote for candidates for local office and to run for office; the right to participate in the negotiation process for new or successor collective bargaining agreements; the right to participate in contract ratification votes and strike votes; the right to nominate and vote for delegates to the AFM Convention; and the right to participate in a wide variety of benefit plans offered to union members, including the Union Privilege benefits programs, the AFM Symphony-Opera Orchestra Strike Fund, the AFM Theater Defense Fund, and the ROPA Emergency Relief Fund.

Objection Procedure

1)   Any nonmember who pays fees to the union pursuant to a union security provision in a collective bargaining agreement has the right to object to any portion of the fee that will be expended on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment. Fees (like union dues) paid by musicians to AFM locals consist of various parts. All member and nonmember fee payers contribute a per capita amount to the local, which the local, in turn, pays to the AFM. They also pay an annual fee that is retained by the local. In addition, musicians may pay a percentage of their earnings (work dues). The exact percentage, and whether it is ultimately payable to the local or to the Federation, depends on the collective bargaining agreement, and the type of work involved. Based on an analysis of the Federation’s 2007 expenditures, in excess of 83.74% of the Federation’s expenditures were for chargeable activities such as collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance handling. The percentage of local expenditures that are chargeable typically is higher (and the percentage of local expenditures that are nonchargeable typically is lower).

2)   The objection must be in written form, signed by the objector, and sent to the local union(s) where the objector would have paid his or her dues had he or she been a member. The local(s) will forward a copy to the International Secretary-Treasurer Sam Folio; American Federation of Musicians; 1501 Broadway, Suite 600; New York, NY 10036. The objection must contain the objector’s name and address, and must identify the collective bargaining agreement(s) under which the objector works and the local(s) to which the objector pays fees.

3)   The objection must be postmarked between February 1 and February 28, or within 30 days of the objector’s becoming a nonmember of the union, or the objector first being required to pay fees to the union.

4)   Each local union will determine the amount of the reduced fee and the amount, if any, of prepaid fees to be refunded to the objector, except that the Federation will determine the reduction and refund applicable to any prepayment of Federation per capita. The reduction will be accompanied by an explanation of how the reduction amount was determined. Any objector who disagrees with the reduction amount can file an appeal. The appeal procedure will be provided to objectors together with the reduction check. The appeal must be in writing and state the basis for the challenge. Appeals will be decided by an impartial arbitrator appointed by the American Arbitration Association through its Rules for Impartial Determination of Union Fees.

5)   The local and/or the Federation, as appropriate, will provide further information to an objector regarding the reduction of any work dues.

—Further information regarding the objection procedure can be obtained by writing to: International Secretary-Treasurer Sam Folio;
American Federation of Musicians; 1501 Broadway, Suite 600; New York, NY 10036. Please remember that this notice is not applicable
to musicians who are not required to pay union fees as a term or condition of employment under a collective bargaining agreement.