Tag Archives: officer column

Officer Columns, Secretary-Treasurer

10-Plus Years of Improvements

BonesIn 2005, when I was elected Secretary-Treasurer, my goal included streamlining the operations of the office, consolidation of the computer systems, and creating a process for better management of working capital. Ten years later, I am happy to report that at the close of business 2015, income over expenses was more than $1.3 million—the fourth year that has had a net income of a million dollars.

Just a year into my tenure, my staff was able to cut $500,000 in expenses and decrease auditing fees. We also launched a payroll service, which made billing more seamless, while providing funds to our members in a more timely fashion.

In 2015, we saw visa opinion letters grow to an all-time high of $1.6 million, and new use payments continue to increase. For instance, the SAG-AFTRA Fund is expected to grow to $1 million in 2016 alone. The IT department has revamped the computer systems to meet the growing demand of membership and program development. It’s facilitated more efficiency in membership management and greatly enhanced our online presence. I am happy to say we have been able to upgrade, sustain, and exceed the goals and expectations we set out to achieve.

The International Musician (IM) has been a special project for me. I take pride in working on this award-winning journal, which has been the “face of the AFM” for almost 120 years. As I have traveled around the country as the magazine’s publisher I get feedback from member readers on what the publication means to them.

It is a vital resource for the union’s working musicians, representing a diverse and eclectic membership. From AFM profiles and industry news to labor rights campaigns, collective bargaining updates, and legislative news, each month members can look forward to a magazine that engages and informs. In line with an all-important goal, the magazine was recast to illustrate the AFM’s growth and far-reaching influence. Each year we have consistently won awards and recognition from the International Labor Communications Association (ILCA).

A New Look, a New Read

To create a more competitive image in the music magazine market, we gave the journal a fresh format in 2005. A glossy cover was added to IM that almost immediately increased visibility. The layout was redesigned for ease of use and readability. In addition, new sections added ballast, making IM a more effective tool for recruitment. The “Working Musician” section provides marketing, business, financial information, and highlights membership benefits. Our “Upbeat” profiles showcase the careers of a variety of AFM members, covering a range of music: jazz and blues, classical, country, funk, rock, fusion, mariachi, and Canadian baroque, to name a few. And for all music junkies, the “Cool Tools” new product announcements section was an instant success.

The revamped IM has resulted in an increase, in particular, in subscriptions by libraries and music schools. Through marketing initiatives and creative advertising we have made inroads into hitherto unexplored venues. In 2016, member appeal continues to expand, especially through the redesigned and enhanced website,
InternationalMusician.org.

I can honestly say this position has given me more satisfaction than I ever imagined anything could, besides making music. To the membership and especially my staff, thank you. You have my utmost respect and gratitude.

local 406
Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

Local 406 Is Back!

After what seems like years, I am pleased to report that a service agreement has been reached between La Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Quebec and the AFM, allowing them to continue as an important, vibrant part of the Federation. Difficulties had progressively mounted, as our third largest local, Local 406, was straddled with the overwhelming obligations of representing all musicians in the province under Status of the Artist.

In addition, Local 406 could not just compel producers to sign onto existing AFM agreements, as other laws require a “made in Quebec” solution, which was made even more complex with language laws. These unique circumstances were ultimately addressed by the International Executive Board, resulting in an arrangement that allows more flexibility for the local, while maintaining their charter in the AFM.

Special thanks go out to both AFM International President Ray Hair and the Local 406 team, led by President Luc Fortin. To their credit, they showed tremendous patience and understanding, which allowed for the necessary dialogue and the resulting solution.

Music Supervisors Summit

local 406Several weeks ago, an incident occurred involving our New Use Department that led to a decision, which has echoed through most of the production houses in Toronto. At the core, was a request for paper backup to substantiate new use fees on a popular tune from the 1960s.

As always, the client was in a hurry for a final quote, and our office knew that it would take many days, perhaps weeks, to track down a contract from 50 years ago. Knowing the band was AFM, and knowing the label was signatory (Warner), our team went online to determine how many musicians were on the track. We quickly responded to the production company with the answer—four musicians (five units), and gave them the fee.

That should have been the end. However, the company refused to acknowledge that the track was AFM unless we produced the B4 report form. Knowing that would take time, we instead obtained the “label copy” from Warner and were, of course, able to identify each musician on the album. Still, that was not satisfactory.

I started to become fearful that there was a game at play. Did the producers realize that on a track that old, we could very likely be chasing paper for some time? By stating that without the B4 there was no proof it was an AFM product, they could potentially pocket the fees paying nothing to the musicians who did the recording. For me, such a notion is incredibly unacceptable. Also, we met the burden of proof in other ways, as did Warner. So, I then made the decision to cease providing a copy of the B4, to anyone, period. After all, it’s an internal document, resulting from an agreement between the labels and the AFM. A third party should not be entitled access to a document containing wages, pension, and Social Security or Social Insurance Numbers.

When informed of my new policy, the production company, of course, was extremely upset. In what appeared to be a search in support for their cause, the company then reached out to other music supervisors, the jingle agencies, and even the major labels. Copies of the Master Licence Agreements issued by the labels were obtained to determine exactly what language tied the licensee (producer) to paying new use fees to the AFM. When the dust settled, a meeting of all concerned was scheduled in downtown Toronto, ostensibly to challenge my decision, and possibly to the extent of challenging the labels’ licence language, and the validity of new use.

Contract Administrator for Canada Daniel Calabrese and New Use Administrator James Gadon attended, along with myself, as the presenter for the AFM. The turnout was surprising. There were more than 50 attending in person, with SAG-AFTRA representatives Skyped in from Los Angeles. The meeting lasted in excess of two hours.

SAG-AFTRA presented first, followed by the labels; it was then CFM’s turn. I prefaced the question period with a brief history of the SRLA, the rationale for new use payments, and the fact that similar requirements live in all our scale agreements. I also detailed the setup of our ramped-up new use department, new servers, contract scanning procedures, and link with Los Angeles as our view was to deliver a new use quote in minutes, not days or weeks.

We answered all questions quickly and succinctly, and in the end, not one music supervisor dared to suggest that the musicians did not deserve new use fees for having their music synchronized or repurposed. In fact, all comments directed at the CFM were positive. It seems our quotes and responses were understood and very well received. All were left with the knowledge that we’re approachable and easy to work with. Indeed, good news to our team.

I believe the meeting was a major step forward in having a working relationship with the city’s music supervisors, and a reminder to them that tracks must be cleared through our office. In addition, dialogue that occurred with the major labels prior to the meeting, as well as after, was a positive step toward developing a sustainable rhythm in the process of tracking, billing, collecting, and disbursing new use fees to our members.

Officer Columns, President's Message

AFM Media Convergence and Performance Rights, Part 4

In part four of this series we discuss the AFM’s role in advocating digital performance rights, and its partnerships with Sound-Exchange and SAG-AFTRA in royalty distributions.

Rights for Composers, but None for Musicians

At the beginning of the 20th century, in the early days of recording technology, there were never any performance rights for musicians, only limited performance rights reserved for composers.

The US Copyright Act of 1909 created the first compulsory mechanical license permitting anyone to make a mechanical reproduction—known today as a phonorecord, phonogram, tape, compact disc, audio file, stream, etc.—of a musical composition without the consent of the composer, who owned the copyright, subject to a royalty payment. Musicians were left out. In 1909, no one, including AFM members, ever dreamed sound recordings would reach the level of fidelity and worldwide popularity enjoyed today.

The 1909 Act protected the composer, stipulating that royalty payments be paid by the user of the composer’s work. But the law left professional musicians, who bring the composer’s ideas to life, without a right in the reproduction of their recordings. As technology vastly improved the fidelity and popularity of recordings, the AFM was left to bargain with broadcasters, record companies, and the film industry over the use of musicians’ recordings and for royalties on sales. Radio promotion and airplay generated enormous revenue for the record companies and composers, but provided no additional money for professional musicians.

From its beginnings, AFM grappled with technology as we still do today—by striving to maintain a level of control over what we do as musicians, by attempting to retain a measure of ownership and control over what we’ve created, and by seeking participation in the revenue streams that continue to enrich those who exploit our music long after we create it.

Leveraging its de facto monopoly in the 1940s with two epic strikes, the AFM established a groundbreaking royalty system with the record industry—the Music Performance Trust Fund.

The Rome Convention—A Performance Right for Musicians

Fast forward 20 years. Concerned that the tape recorder made sound and video recordings easier and cheaper than before, world nations gathered in Rome in 1961 and responded to the ease of sound reproduction by developing an international treaty extending copyright protection—a performance right—to performers (musicians, singers, actors, and dancers) and producers in copyrighted recordings. The Rome Convention required radio broadcasters to pay musicians for the right to air their recordings. AFM was there. We participated in the Rome Convention and supported the treaty. Pressured by US broadcasters, fat and happy from a decades-old diet of free recordings, the US government declined to endorse it. Today, only the US, China, and North Korea have declined to sign the Rome treaty. US musicians and record companies receive no performance royalties from terrestrial AM/FM radio. The Internet and digital distribution changed the game in the 1990s.

DPRA and DMCA—Two Steps Forward

The US Digital Performance Rights Act of 1995 (DPRA) was enacted in response to the absence of a performance right in sound recordings in the 1976 Copyright Act, and a fear that digital technology would eventually replace sales of physical product—records, CDs, and cassette tapes. DPRA granted performance rights to sound recording copyright owners (record labels), featured artists (usually in hock to a label), and background session musicians and vocalists whenever their recordings are transmitted digitally.

DPRA created two tiers of rights payment obligations. First, noninteractive satellite radio and webcasters (Sirius XM, Pandora) would be obligated to pay copyright owners (labels) and performers a statutory per stream rate established by the US Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). Second, interactive streaming services (Spotify, Apple Music) would be required to negotiate an exclusive license with the copyright owners (labels) of the recordings, prior to any use. Terrestrial analog radio broadcasters were exempted and would pay nothing.

Congress adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998 to protect copyright owners and performers from Internet piracy. DMCA criminalizes services intended to circumvent digital performance rights and heightens penalties for Internet copyright infringement.

The 1994 Memorandum of Understanding with the Record Industry

In 1994, prior to US digital rights initiatives, the recording industry sought assurances from AFM and AFTRA (now SAG-AFTRA) that the unions would join the labels to actively lobby and enact DPRA. The unions reached agreement with the labels to split the statutory, noninteractive performance royalties as follows: 50% to copyright owners (labels) and 50% to performers—split 45% to featured artists, and 5% to nonfeatured session musicians and singers. The labels also agreed to pay 1% of all receipts from interactive exclusive licenses (Spotify, Apple Music, etc.), into an AFM and SAG-AFTRA designated fund for distribution purposes.

Neighbouring Rights in Canada

Rights related to the public performance of sound recordings in Canada are generally referred to as Neighbouring Rights. Amendments to the Copyright Act of Canada implemented in 1997 created for performers the right to receive royalties from the broadcast, public performance, or private copying of sound recordings on which they had performed. In Canada, musicians are better protected because royalties are payable by both terrestrial broadcasters and digital service providers and are split 50% to copyright holders (labels), 40% to featured artists, and 10% to session musicians and vocalists.

How do musicians get their share of royalties?

The AFM played a lead role in establishing US digital performance rights, Neighbouring Rights in Canada, and in developing systems for the distribution of performer royalties in both countries. Three AFM-sponsored organizations distribute performance royalties in the US and Canada.

Following the adoption of DPRA, the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Fund was created to administer and distribute the 5% statutory noninteractive digital performance royalties and all receipts from the 1994 MOA. SoundExchange (SX) was established as the organization to collect and distribute the 45% and 50% shares of noninteractive digital performance royalties to featured artists and copyright holders. AFM and SAG-AFTRA each hold institutional seats on the SX board. The Musicians’ Rights Organization of Canada (MROC) is the successor to the Musicians Neighbouring Rights Royalties (MNRR), a collective rights management organization created in 1998 by the AFM to distribute the 10% Canadian nonfeatured royalty share to performers.

To register and claim your share of statutory performance right royalties go to www.SoundExchange.com, www.
AFMSAGAFTRAFund.org, or www.MusiciansRights.ca.

Streaming Spikes, Physical Product Declines

The AFM, left out of the performance rights race in 1909, eventually bargained a royalty on record sales in 1944, establishing MPTF, our pension fund, and other residual funds for sound recordings, film, television, and jingles. Some say MPTF was the glue that held the AFM together for 60 years. As MPTF has diminished with decline of physical sales, so has the membership level of many locals. Where will the revenue come from to restore it?

Media production and distribution have converged in the digital age, disrupting existing models. Free YouTube is a boon to consumers, who used to fork over $15 per CD. Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more Internet video than broadcast and cable TV.

From the early 2000s to date, with consumption racing toward streaming media and away from physical sales and broadcasting, digital performance royalty collections have grown from a trickle to a flood. SoundExchange is now the biggest collective rights management organization in the world for labels and artists. Since 2003, SX has collected and distributed more than $3 billion and will top $1 billion this year. In 2016, the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Fund will distribute more than $50 million to musicians and vocalists. In a $16 billion global music market, the US share is $7 billion, transitioning from physical to digital, with $2.3 billion (34%) earned from streaming.

Of worldwide media consumption, 60% is produced in the US and Canada, primarily under AFM agreements. With so much digital rights money at stake, producers are doing what they’ve always done to deprive musicians pension fund, residual funds, and MPTF—their fair share of the pie. It’s the same old song. We make all the music—the music the world wants to hear—but everyone else makes all the money. Why? What can be done about it?

Next month, could growth in streaming revenue be a game changer for the AFM, its locals and its members?

Contract Basics
Officer Columns, Secretary-Treasurer

Getting Back to the Music

Amid the flurry of day-to-day activities—being immersed in bylaws, finances, budgets, audits, and convention preparations—we tend to forget what we’re here for, the creative forces we represent: music, musicians, performers, and art. At times, we must step back and enjoy the music. Spring is here. Take in a Broadway show and treat yourself to the finest in opera, at the Met.

Over the weekend, I attended Don Pasquale, a time-honored opera, which premiered at the Met in 1900. I found myself in the Family Circle, a modest ticket of $35. The usher assured me I would not be disappointed, and that the acoustics in these seats were exquisite. He was right. (It happens he was also a member of Local 802, New York City.) The orchestra sound was perfect.

Next, it was on to Broadway for An American in Paris. If there is a Broadway play with old-school charm it’s this one—a post-war romance of hope and reconciliation. A full pit orchestra, the score by Gershwin, and performances were staged to perfection. The voices and the dancing were simply fantastic. Again, I was not disappointed.

Apropos remembering music: I want to mention a giant in the music world we lost recently—Frank Sinatra, Jr., who was also a loyal union member of Local 47 (Los Angeles, CA). On three different occasions I was involved in his productions in North Lake Tahoe at the Cal Neva Resort and Casino. He always insisted on bringing in a full complement of musicians—fine players, all renowned in their own right. Frank, Jr., was gracious and worked around our dates, and never turned us down, saying, “Pops loved this place.” 

Indeed, Sinatra, Sr., did love the Cal Neva, having been an owner at one time, hence, the Frank Sinatra Celebrity Showroom. Frank, Jr., was a true gentleman, a musician of the first order. As his father’s musical director and conductor, he understood composition and mastered the technical side of production as well. For instance, he selected lighting and a specific soundboard, which always guaranteed a flawless performance. After each and every run Frank, Jr., would take everyone involved in the show out for an evening of fine dining. 

What a gentleman! He will be missed.

Officer Columns, President's Message

AFM, Media Convergence and Performance Rights Part 2

In this five-part series, we look briefly at AFM’s origins, structure, media agreements, historical challenges from the rise of technology, disruption of established media business models, institutional stress from a new techno-economic paradigm, and opportunities for new money for musicians from performance rights. In part two below, we examine early efforts to organize and monetize media services, modern Federation media agreements, and the underlying pressures to lower standards.

The future of the Federation depends in part on its ability to bargain progressive media agreements despite global competitiveness and a burgeoning background of web-based, user-generated-content that has blurred the lines between broadcasting and other media across all elements of consumption. To understand what is happening now in music and media, we look to our past to remember who we are, where we came from, what we did, and to see where we go from here.

Continue reading →

Three Ways to Ramp Up Your Image This Year
Officer Columns

Three Ways to Ramp Up Your Image This Year

If you’re an indie musician or group, you want to have a great promo kit, good PR, and a fan base to support you. Of course, you already have a cool website, a YouTube presence, and an e-mail list.

You just might want to take some time to ramp things up a notch. For example, start with your photos. Your website isn’t going to be that cool if you’ve got crappy-looking photos. Don’t underestimate the importance and power of professional photos.

Spend some money and hire a photographer. Make sure the vibe of photos resonates with your sound, or your band’s sound. If you want to look your best onstage and online, don’t settle for four iPhone pics from several years ago. People (unfortunately) will judge you on your image, before ever listening to a song or booking you. Put your best foot forward when showing people what you look like. Also, update your photos regularly.

Photos are one thing, but you also want to have high quality professional-looking videos on your website and YouTube channel. YouTube continues to be the number one destination to check out a new act or single. If someone searches your name on YouTube and shaky iPhone-shot videos with distorted sound come up, that’s not going to make a very good first impression.

The technology to make videos that look and sound high quality is not only accessible, but it’s relatively inexpensive. Check out what’s available. Invest a little time and money in learning how these programs function and how you can make them work for you. People want to see what you look like in action. Have decent lighting. Use good mikes. Get creative.

Then there’s your emailing list—the addresses of the people who like and support you and who can help you get work. They’re the people who you can rely on to buy CDs, merch, and tickets everywhere you perform. Social networks come and go, but the one thing that has remained consistent over the years is email.

Your fans’ (and support group’s) email addresses are assets. Build those addresses constantly and send out regular email blasts (at least once or twice a month). Let those people know what you are up to, where you are playing, and what you have just recorded. Tell them how you can be reached and update them on what’s going on in your life. Make it readable. Make it interesting. Do it regularly.

Another thing is, if you want people to take you seriously, you need to continually work on and update your image. Having a strong visual presence online and in person helps.

Because your personal brand is built from the thoughts and words and reactions of other people, it’s shaped by how you present yourself publicly. This is something that you do have control over. Always think about how you can take your image to the next level. You decide how you would like people to see you and then simply work on publicly being that image. It takes a little time and thought, but it’s worth it in the end.

Executive Board Members

WIPO Examines Streaming Inequalities

Jennifer-Garnerby Jennifer Garner, AFM In-House Counsel

The AFM has made a commitment to continuing its participation as a non-governmental organization in the activities of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In furtherance of this interest, I am especially glad to have had the opportunity to represent the AFM at the December 2015 session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in Geneva.

There, the delegations of Brazil and other Latin American countries presented an interesting analysis of the impact of the worldwide growth of digital music services on creators and performers. Its findings were clear. Although streaming is fast becoming the preferred platform for music consumption, creators and performers are not getting their fair share of the revenue generated from this distribution model.

The presentation noted the difficulties of applying traditional exclusive rights, such as the right of reproduction, in the digital environment. The international community has not yet reached consensus on the treatment of incidental or ephemeral reproductions. As a result, digital services are largely unregulated.

However, by far, the biggest concern for musicians is the economic power that the major record labels wield with digital music services. Through the use of imperious confidentiality agreements, numerous intermediaries, and complex licensing transactions, the labels are able to impose their own set of rules with no transparency in the receipt and distribution of streaming royalties. Additionally, the use of certain algorithms to automatically assemble playlists favors some repertoires more than others, a system the Latin American group compared to the bygone days of “payola.”

The Latin American report was received with significant interest and concern. The delegation of the US took the lead in inviting the committee to begin a substantive discussion of the topic of fairness in digital streaming, as the global nature of the Internet calls for meaningful responses that take into consideration the diversity of national laws on the subject of copyright. I had the privilege to take the floor in order to express the AFM’s concerns about the rights of musicians in the digital environment, confirm the lack of fair pay to musicians for digital streaming, and appeal to the committee to give the topic high priority in its upcoming sessions.

The December session also included a discussion of a proposed treaty protecting broadcasting organizations. The objective of the treaty would be to invigorate the ability of broadcasters to fight piracy, as the rights currently provided by the 1961 Rome Convention have proven to be inadequate in the 21st century.

However, a growing consensus supports a treaty that is limited to the protection of broadcast signals from unauthorized retransmission, without granting exclusive rights to broadcasters that would be in conflict with the exclusive rights of performers and producers. In other words, broadcasters should not be given any rights in the creative content embodied in their signals.

The European Union has proposed certain measures that are in conflict with the signal-based approach favored by the US and others. For example, the EU proposes giving broadcasters the rights with respect to retransmissions, whether they are simultaneous, delayed, or on-demand. But, of course, delayed and on-demand transmissions would involve a fixation of the content of a broadcast signal in some medium that could be preserved for later transmission. The majority of nations do not appear to be inclined at this time to grant broadcasters the right to authorize or prevent a fixation. Another point yet to be settled is whether the treaty’s scope should be limited to wireless transmissions currently protected under the Rome Convention, or whether it should also include transmissions over computer networks.

The committee has many issues to resolve before a diplomatic convention on the protection of broadcasting organizations could occur. Meanwhile, WIPO is moving ahead with a conference on the global digital content market to take place in April. It bodes well for musicians that WIPO is taking up the issues of digital distributions on a parallel track with its other business.

Executive Board Members

Election 2016—Make Your Vote Count!

The AFM Office of Government Relations spends a significant amount of time working with members of Congress who advance legislation that makes the lives of working musicians and their families more secure and makes artists more effective in the workplace. AFM issues are not only arts related; many relate to the AFM’s effort to organize the workplace, while protecting your rights on the job, both at the federal and state levels. Our relationship with affiliate AFL-CIO unions often has us working with members of Congress on a broad range of nonartistic issues such as healthcare, pensions, prevailing wages, and the right to bargain collectively.

Your vote counts! Citizens in each state are governed by laws that protect their rights to vote, while the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to the constitution outlaw voting discrimination based on race, sex, and age. Each citizen holds the key to moving this country’s civic priorities and your vote is a reflection of those priorities. In other words, you help decide the direction the legislative and executive branches take.

In order for the AFM to move its legislative agenda, we must be sure to help support members of Congress and an administration whose job it is to raise those issues and garner support for them. The first step is to elect these champions. That’s where you come in. Join with your local officers. In addition to casting your vote, participate in labor walks and phone banks. Your participation will be welcomed.

The year 2015 was a busy but successful year on Capitol Hill for musicians. The union made great strides in Congress and with federal agencies that hold our interests in the balance through legislation and regulation. Past issues and new issues will come up during 2016, even though members of Congress will be busy with elections. There are a number of matters that we must engage, if we hope to be equally successful in the coming years.

Voter Registration: The AFM strongly encourages each member to register to vote so that they may enjoy unimpeded participation in the electoral process. The federal government, through the Election Assistance Commission (http://www.eac.gov/voter_resources/contact_your_state.aspx) provides guidance. Each state maintains its own registration rules and system. The Office of the Secretary of State usually manages the voting process in each state and the District of Columbia. Visit the site above and click on the state map to get detailed information about registration requirements and deadlines in your state. A list of presidential and Congressional primary dates from the Federal Election Commission can be found at: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016pdates.pdf.

Federal Election Year

Because 2016 is a federal election year, voters will not only elect local officials, but also state and federal candidates, including president. The following federal and state elections take priority. Twelve republican candidates are running for president: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum. The Democratic field includes Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley.

Each of the 435 seats in the US House of Representatives is up for election/re-election, while 34 of 100 Senate seats will be up for election/re-election. Fourteen governorships (12 states and two territories) will be up for election in 2016. Those states/territories are: Delaware, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.

Federal Issues of Concern to AFM Members

Healthcare: Recently, the Congress forwarded a bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). President Obama immediately vetoed it. The House has voted numerous times to repeal the bill or some portion of it. This will be an ongoing battle that Republicans believe can be won, if they hold the majority in the next congress, and if a Republican president is elected. In addition, we continue to work with other labor affiliates to repeal the 40% excise tax on premium healthcare plans.

Immigration: A permanent solution to expediting O and P visas remains a priority for our union. With backlogs looming more than 90 days, it is time for Congress to get behind us the same way they did on the instrument carry-on issue. That work is in progress.

Fair Play Fair Pay Act: We continue to work with the musicFIRST Coalition to enlist more congressional sponsors on this bill that would provide a performance right for sound recordings performed on AM/FM radio. H.R. 1733, introduced by Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), was developed with the combined efforts of Congressional staff and national music rights organizations.

The WAGE Act: Introduced by Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) in the House and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) in the Senate, this bill would strengthen the rights of working people who organize and promote change through collective action. Among other things, it provides swift reinstatement of workers fired for exercising their rights on the job, allows workers to bring suit and recover damages against employers who illegally fire them, establishes triple backpay without deductions, and provides timely remedy to employer interference with elections.

National Endowment for the Arts: The AFM joins the continuing fight to maintain a federal arts agency that promotes a vibrant arts culture in the US, while providing assistance to large and small arts organizations that bring added cultural value to American communities.

State Issues of Concern to AFM Members

A host of state issues, including adverse pension legislation, elimination of prevailing wage, banning of PAC payroll deductions, along with attacks on collective bargaining are on the docket in state legislatures. Most importantly, “right to work” legislation is on the docket in Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oregon, to name a few. These issues impact collective bargaining and your rights in the workplace. You should be aware of them and engage with your AFM local, as well as your state and local labor councils whenever possible to help defeat these initiatives.

Vice President from Canada

International Conference Examines Performers’ Rights and Online Revenue

In mid-December 2015, the AFM once again participated in an International Conference on Online Music, hosted by the Musicians’ Union of Japan (MUJ) in conjunction with the International Federation of Musicians (FIM). The location was the United Nations University in Tokyo. The AFM was represented by President Ray Hair, International Executive Board member Tino Gagliardi, Secretary-Treasurer Sam Folio, and myself.

Topic one involved the main challenges to online music in Japan, a country which still has 87% of its music consumed in physical product (CDs, vinyl). Siichi Kondo, former Commissioner for Cultural Affairs, and Toyo University Associate Professor Kazuhiro Ando, made the keynote address. Topic two spoke to international norms, national legislations and business models, and the impact on performers’ revenue. Kazuo Shiina represented Japan and British Musicians’ Union (BMU) Assistant General Secretary Horace Trubridge represented Europe. For North America, AFM President Hair gave a very detailed PowerPoint presentation, which proved to be the main attraction of the event.

Next up for discussion was the illegal exploitation of performers’ right of making available, and the consequences of recent court decisions in Sweden and Finland. Presenters were SMF (Sweden) President Jan Granvik, SML (Finland) President Ahti Vanttinen, and EJI (Hungary) Director Pal Tomori. More discussion and presentations followed on the current Fair Internet campaign, technical and legal aspects of online streaming, fair and sustainable business models, and the adoption of statements and conclusions.

The public declaration was:
Performers reaffirm the urgent need for a fair share from online revenues. On November 21, 2014, the participants of the Budapest conference on online music adopted a declaration, calling for a wide coalition of performers in order to achieve fair, proportional, and balanced remuneration for the online use of performances. The representatives from the performers’ organizations, meeting in Tokyo on December 16-17, 2015, reaffirm their support to the Budapest declaration. They also believe that the solution proposed by the Fair Internet campaign is an appropriate response to the concerns expressed. This proposal would guarantee a right for performers worldwide to receive fair remuneration from online music platforms. Recent court cases bring into question whether these platforms have sufficient rights to make the performers’ music available. This emphasises the urgent need for a sound and reliable legal environment that the Fair Internet proposal would create. As value generated by online music platforms increases daily, performers must not be excluded from receiving their fair share.

Certainly, there will be more dialogue on this topic at the upcoming FIM Congress, scheduled for June 6-9, in ReykjavÍk, Iceland.

Closer to home, the CFM will be serving Rogers Communications with a letter of intent to bargain, pursuant to the Federal Status of the Artist legislation. In the past few years, Rogers has expanded its operations to include, not only community cable, but standard terrestrial television, acquiring CHCH in Hamilton, CITY in Toronto, and A Channel in Calgary, among others. Notorious for believing that musicians should not receive remuneration for their performances, only “exposure,” the CFM feels the time is right to bargain an agreement that would see musicians paid fair wages and benefits. More to come.

 

La Conférence internationale examine les droits et les recettes en ligne des interprètes

par Alan Willaert, vice-président du Canada, FAM

À la mi-décembre 2015, l’AFM a de nouveau participé à une Conférence internationale sur la musique en ligne.  Les deux hôtes de cet événement étaient l’Union des Musiciens du Japon (MUJ) et la Fédération internationale des musiciens FIM). Le lieu choisi était l’Université des Nations-Unies à Tokyo.  L’AFM était représentée par son président, M. Ray Hair, par un membre de son conseil exécutif international, M. Tino Gagliardi, par son secrétaire-trésorier Sam Folio, et par moi-même, Allan Willaert, le vice-président de l’AFM venu du Canada, qui est l’auteur de cet article.

Le premier point concernait les principaux défis auxquels la musique en ligne est confrontée au Japon : un pays qui consomme 87 % de sa musique sous forme de produits physiques (CD ou disques vinyles). Les discours-programmes ont été prononcés par M. Siichi Kondo, ancien Commissaire aux affaires culturelles et par M. Kazuhiro Ando, professeur associé à l’Université de Tokyo. Le deuxième point concernait les normes internationales, les législations nationales, les modèles d’entreprise et l’impact de ces facteurs sur les recettes des interprètes. Le Japon était représenté par M. Kazuo Shiina, et l’Europe par M. Horace Trubridge, Secrétaire général adjoint de l’Union des musiciens britanniques (BMU). Quant à l’Amérique du Nord, le président de l’AFM, M. Hair, a fait une présentation très complète qui s’est avérée le clou de l’événement.

Le sujet de discussion suivant portait sur l’exploitation illégale du droit de mise à disposition des interprètes et sur les conséquences des récentes décisions de justice rendues en Suède et en Finlande. Les intervenants étaient alors M. Jan Granvik, président de la SMF (Suède), M. Ahti Vanttinen, président de la SML (Finlande) et le Dr Pal Tomori, directeur de l’EJI (Hongrie). Les discussions et présentations qui ont suivi portaient sur l’actuelle campagne « Internet honnête », sur les aspects techniques et juridiques du streaming en ligne, sur les modèles d’affaires équitables et durables et sur l’adoption de déclarations et de conclusions.

La déclaration publique est la suivante :
« Les interprètes réaffirment l’urgente nécessité d’une répartition équitable des recettes de la musique en ligne ». Le 21 novembre 2014, les membres de la Conférence de Budapest sur la musique en ligne ont adopté une déclaration qui demandait la formation d’une vaste coalition d’interprètes en vue d’obtenir une rémunération équitable, mesurée et pondérée pour l’exploitation en ligne de leurs spectacles. Les représentants des organisations d’interprètes, réunis à Tokyo les 16 et 17 décembre 2015, ont réaffirmé leur soutien à la déclaration de Budapest. Ils croient aussi que la solution proposée par la Campagne Internet honnête répond comme il faut aux soucis exprimés.  Cette proposition garantirait aux interprètes du monde entier le droit à une rémunération équitable de la part des plateformes de musique en ligne. Plusieurs affaires récemment portées devant les tribunaux soulèvent la question de savoir si ces plateformes sont assez bien armées pour décider la mise à disposition de la musique des interprètes. Cette démarche fait ressortir le besoin urgent d’un environnement juridique qu’on créerait en adoptant la proposition d’une Campagne Internet honnête. La valeur produite par les plateformes de musique en ligne augmente tous les jours. C’est pourquoi les interprètes méritent aussi leur part équitable de la rémunération prévue.

Il est certain que ce dialogue se poursuivra lors du prochain Congrès de la FIM prévu du 6 au 9 juin, à ReykjavÍk, en Islande.

Plus près de nous, la FCM fera parvenir à Rogers Communications une lettre d’intention de négocier, conformément à la Loi fédérale sur le statut de l’artiste. Depuis quelques années Rogers élargit ses opérations pour couvrir non seulement les chaînes communautaires, mais aussi la télévision terrestre standard. À cette fin, Rogers a acheté CHCH à Hamilton, CITY à Toronto et A Channel à Calgary, ainsi que d’autres chaînes. Réputée considérer que les musiciens ne devraient pas être payés pour leurs spectacles proprement dits, mais seulement pour leur « exposition », la FCM croit le temps venu pour négocier un accord qui prescrirait des salaires et des avantages sociaux équitables pour les musiciens. À suivre.

Officer Columns

Exposure, Promotion, and Protection

Dave-Pomeroyby Dave Pomeroy, AFM International Executive Board Member and President of Local 257 (Nashville, TN)

The empty promise of “exposure” is often used to convince musicians and artists to give away what they spent a lifetime creating. As I have said many times, exposure is still not accepted as payment at the grocery store! “Promotional” is another commonly used term that seems to mean whatever the person using it wants to mean. Too often, the real meaning is “we’re going to make money off this, but you won’t.”

How is your time worth less because someone else profits from it? This is a question that needs to be asked, but sometimes the fear of losing a gig makes it difficult to stand up for yourself.

So how can you make headway and survive in a world that is trying to diminish the value of what you do? That’s where the AFM comes in. You can go it alone and take your chances, or you can let us help you. That’s what this organization has been doing for more than a century.

Without the collective bargaining agreements we have negotiated with the record, film, TV, radio, jingle, and theater industries, there would be no standards of pay and working conditions. The “can I get that for free?” attitude is not the first challenge we have faced. Music has value in our culture and society that goes beyond mere dollars and cents, and the AFM continues to fight to protect your rights in ways you may not even be aware of.

Did you know that, when you are on tour and your performance is recorded, whether audio, video, or both, you are entitled to an additional payment over and above what you are being paid to play the concert? Many touring musicians do not know that this additional payment is appropriate, and don’t think to ask for it.

We also have an Internet streaming agreement that covers “live in the studio” promotional appearances that pay over and above what you are making from the artist. Record labels will pay this rate, but only if they are asked to do so. If you are proactive, we can help you get what you deserve. So, don’t be afraid to speak up and let us know what’s going on so we can advocate on your behalf.

If you played on a record that was used in another medium, such as film, TV, or a jingle, you deserve to be paid again. We recently got Geico to pay the musicians who worked on a Roy Orbison song recorded more than 50 years ago for its use in a new TV commercial. The players involved, and in some cases, their beneficiaries were very happy about this, but it only happened because it was originally recorded under an AFM contract and we were able to go to bat for those players.

Our legislative efforts in Washington, DC, do make a difference, whether it is fighting for your right to carry an instrument onto an airplane or urging the passage of the Fair Play Fair Pay Act to establish performance rights for AM/FM airplay. But, if you get involved, it takes it to a whole new level.

We will always be stronger when we are united in our purpose of promoting respect for musicians. You are not alone, and we are here to help you. Let’s work together to make a better life for musicians and a better world to live in while we’re at it!