Tag Archives: ray hair

Streaming Funds Pension, Residuals in New Label Deal

I am pleased to report that agreement has been reached with the recording industry for a successor Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA). When ratified, the agreement will extend three years, from February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2020.

Besides significant gains in upfront payments—including yearly 3% wage increases, and improvements in pension contributions, health & welfare payments, and cartage payments—the agreement provides for significant additional payments to the Sound Recording Special Payments Fund (SPF), the Music Performance Trust Fund (MPTF), and AFM & Employers’ Pension Fund (AFM-EPF) driven by the companies’ digital streaming revenue.

Continue reading

Ray Hair

Pattern Bargaining: A Blueprint for Improvements or Concessions?

The perennial objective of unions has been to “take wages out of competition,” as labor-economists, who analyze the supply and demand of labor and patterns in wage, income, and productivity are prone to say. By seeking to standardize minimum wages and benefits across an industry, unions can stabilize wages, prevent competition among workers and employers, and avoid a race to the bottom. More importantly for the AFM, minimum wages across given industries, such as sound recording, film, live TV, and theatrical tours, provide a floor for future improvements in successor agreements.

Continue reading

Ray Hair

Changing Channels: from Pamphlet B to SRLA, Network Television

I am pleased to announce that the Federation has concluded negotiations with the Broadway League and Disney Theatrical Productions for a successor Pamphlet B Agreement. The new agreement establishes wages and conditions of employment for musicians working on the road in touring theatrical musical productions. The Federation’s Pamphlet B Agreement is administered by the Federation’s Touring/Theatre/Booking Division (TTBD), headed by Assistant to the President Michael Manley.

Despite a rough start in our initial round of bargaining, the Federation, Disney, and the League were eventually able to find common ground during subsequent negotiations, ultimately reaching a progressive agreement that will become effective retroactively after ratification to March 11, 2016 and extend through March 15, 2020.

Continue reading

Staff Additions — SSD Director, West Coast In-house Counsel

I am delighted to announce two important changes to Federation staff—one in our Symphonic Services Division (SSD) located in our headquarters office in Times Square, filling a vacancy left by the election of former Director Jay Blumenthal to the position of AFM Secretary-Treasurer, and another in our Electronic Media Services Division (EMSD) at the Federation’s West Coast Office in Hollywood. The staffing changes have resulted in the addition of two of the best minds and finest lawyers to be found in the field of union-side labor relations. They are Rochelle Skolnick and Russell Naymark.

Continue reading

100th Convention Epilogue: The Quest for Fairness for Subs and Extras

A resolution that provoked considerable debate during the recently concluded 100th AFM Convention was Resolution 20—“Extras and Subs in Orchestras”—a measure which sought to address the disparity in wages and working conditions that exists in many orchestral collective bargaining agreements for substitute and extra musicians, as compared to those of their seasonally-contracted colleagues.

Continue reading

100th Convention: A Union that Is Stronger Together

120 years after our founding Convention in October 1896 in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Federation convened its 100th Convention—a milestone for any union—June 20 in Las Vegas. With more than a century of advocacy and 100 conventions to its credit, the Federation’s enormous accomplishments for professional musicians, economically and politically, were celebrated not just by elected officials and delegates, but by our sister unions, dignitaries and guests. Continue reading

AFM, Media Convergence and Performance Rights, Part 5

Below, in the fifth and final part of our series, we examine the growth of streaming and the potential to drive new money to MPTF, SPF, and AFM-EPW.

Revenue from Music Streaming Continues to Grow

From the early 2000s to date, with consumption racing toward streaming and away from physical sales and analog broadcasting, royalty collections from streaming have grown from a trickle to a flood. SoundExchange, the US collective for record labels and featured artists, is now the biggest rights management organization in the world. SoundExchange has collected and distributed more than $3 billion since 2003 and will top $1 billion this year. In 2016, the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Fund will distribute to musicians and vocalists more than $50 million derived primarily from streaming royalties paid by satellite radio and webcasters like Pandora and SiriusXM.

Continue reading

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?

Washington, DC, Arts Advocacy Season

Late winter and early spring is the time for organized arts advocacy in Washington, DC. AFM President Ray Hair makes an annual trip to Washington, DC, to lend his leadership to our legislative-political mission. The results are always highly successful, not just for AFM musicians, but for musicians across the country. Hair’s presence raises the status of all artists, as well as all other workers in arts and entertainment disciplines, who are affected in some way by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government.

In February and March, our advocacy work extended across a range of government platforms. This is a brief round-up of our activities.

AFM President Hair’s
Policy Visit to Washington, DC

OC Alfonso Pollard pic 1 State Department Meeting Principles2

(L to R) National Symphony Orchestra Violist and International Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians (ICSOM) Governing Board Member Jennifer Mondie; State Department Program Officer Julia Gomez-Nelson; Chief Cultural Programs Division for the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Amy Bliss-Iacoella; AFM President Ray Hair; and AFM Legislative-Political and Diversity Director Alfonso Pollard.

On March 14 and 15, Hair, National Symphony Orchestra Violist Jennifer Mondie, who is also on the governing board of the International Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians (ICSOM); AFM Director of Touring, Theatre, and Immigration Michael Manley; and AFM Canada Executive Director Liana White joined me in Washington, DC, to lobby on a broad range of issues.

Hair’s first stop was at the US Department of State where he was hosted by the Cultural Diplomacy Division, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Chief Amy Bliss-Iacoella. The purpose of the meeting was to open doors with the State Department relating to cultural exchange for professional musicians interested in travel abroad as representatives of the US Government. A more in-depth report will follow in the May 2016 International Musician.

The day concluded with a reception for Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY 10) to discuss HR 1733, the Fair Play Fair Pay Act, as well as the progress of his congressional race. Nadler is the original sponsor of the Fair Play Fair Pay bill along with Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN 7).

On March 15, Hair and his staff participated in an hour-long visit with Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS 2) who serves as the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss possible solutions to delays in P-2 and O-1 visa processing by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) service centers in Vermont and California.

During the meeting, we also raised our objections about visa approvals by USCIS that were counter to the AFM negative opinion letters for groups with flawed applications that the AFM does not believe meet federal immigration guidelines. Work on resolutions to these issues is moving forward; we are confident that solutions will be forthcoming.

That afternoon, Hair and I attended a meeting of the US Trade Representative Labor Advisory Council (LAC) at the office of the US Trade Representative. The LAC is responsible for providing reports on trade agreements to the President, Congress, and the Office of the US Trade Representative at the conclusion of trade agreement negotiations. The meeting agenda and council deliberations are confidential. During the meeting, Hair brought up important issues related to trade.

At the end of the day, we joined labor affiliates at a reception for Congressman Cedric Richmond (D-LA 2) at the United Union’s building. Richmond graciously gave Hair and me a 15-minute audience to discuss the Fair Play Fair Pay Act, as well as immigration. He is a member of both the House Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.

On March 16, I attended a reception for
a great friend of the AFM, Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY 25). In addition  to being the ranking member of the powerful House Rules Committee, Slaughter is a founding member and co-chair of the House Arts Caucus that helps deliver member support for federal arts programs, in particular the National Endowment for the Arts. Her decades-long support for the arts in America, as well as her ability to organize members of Congress around our issues, is priceless. The AFM is committed to helping her remain in the US Congress.

Arts Advocacy Day

(L to R) AFM Director of Touring, Theater, and Immigration Michael Manley, AFM Canada Executive Director Liana White, AFM President Ray Hair; and AFM Legislative-Political and Diversity Director Alfonso Pollard.

(L to R) AFM Director of Touring, Theater, and Immigration Michael Manley, AFM Canada Executive Director Liana White, AFM President Ray Hair; and AFM Legislative-Political and Diversity Director Alfonso Pollard.

Each year, the AFM serves as a national cosponsor for Arts Advocacy Day. This event brings more than 500 arts advocates to Washington, DC, to make the case about the economic and cultural value that the arts bring to communities across the country. In addition to the Nancy Hanks Lecture on Arts and Public Policy at the Kennedy Center and a White House briefing on administration-supported federal arts programs and policy, a broad range of arts-related issues are lobbied with House and Senate members, and their staff. These meetings leave an indelible impression about the power of the arts to make positive change in our communities.

Arts Advocacy Day, hosted by Americans for the Arts, is recognized on the Hill as one of a few important Washington, DC, arts-related conferences trusted by federal leaders. A few of this year’s issues were: arts education funding and policy, support for the National Endowment for the Arts and other federal arts agencies, charitable giving and tax policy, visa processing and cultural exchange, and support for public broadcasting.

Recently Introduced
Arts Legislation

On February 8, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), along with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), introduced S 2510, the Arts Require Timely Service Act of 2016 (ARTS Act), which codifies O and P visa processing times. The bill, as outlined on the Library of Congress website: “… amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to adjudicate O and P visa petitions (nonimmigrant visas for aliens with extraordinary ability or achievement, and athletes, artists, and entertainers) within 14 days after receiving such petitions and related documents. The bill grants premium visa processing without charge to a petitioner that is a nonprofit arts organization, if DHS does not meet the deadline for adjudicating a visa petition.”

The ARTS Act was introduced in the 113th Congress and passed out of the Senate. However, it failed for the lack of House action on immigration reform.

On March 8 (Arts Advocacy Day), Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) Introduced S 2648, the Comprehensive Resources for Entrepreneurs in the Arts to Transform the Economy Act of 2016 (the CREATE Act). It provides for a host of new arts-related tax proposals in addition to arts-related proposal expansions into such federal programs as the Small Business Administration; Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and Homeland Security; the Internal Revenue Service; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to name a few. The objective is to create arts-specific programs that help entrepreneurs in the arts to take advantage of federal program business guidance and funding.

AFM, Media Convergence and Performance Rights, Pt. 3

In part three of this series, we discuss how revolutionary systems in digital media production and distribution have converged, disrupting existing business models. (Part One and Part Two).

New Media—Game Changer for Capital, Consumption

For as long as there have been cameras and photographs, phonographs and recordings, movie screens, radio and television broadcasts, entertainment lovers the world over have consumed media. From the earliest displays of public media, the AFM set employment standards and conditions by negotiating constructive agreements covering the work of professional musicians in the production and use of film and phono recordings, and for radio and TV broadcasting.

Continue reading