Call NowEmail Now

Categotry Archives: Business

by

Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. Quoted Again in US Weekly

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Record Labels, Royalties, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Erin M. Jacobson has been quoted again in US Weekly magazine regarding further developments in the Taylor Swift masters dispute.

Click here to read the article.

by

The Truth About Legacy Catalogues and How to Avoid the Myths That Harm Them (via Billboard)

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Copyright, Legacy, Music Catalogues, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Truth About Legacy Catalogues and How to Avoid the Myths That Harm Them

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

This post was originally published on Billboard.com.

Now is the time when many legacy songwriters and their heirs have recaptured or are in the process of recapturing rights to their catalogues. However, the music business is not the same as it was 56 or 35 years ago when these songs were written. Many legacy songwriters and their heirs are misguided on how to proceed with these newly reacquired rights because the original advice they received does not reflect the nature of today’s music marketplace.

In this article, I’ve compiled seven myths that frequently circulate around and potentially harm legacy songwriters and their heirs, and have offered a new perspective based on my experience with making deals in this area and managing legacy catalogues.

Myth 1: All songs that were once famous still earn a lot of money.

Wrong! While some evergreen compositions are fortunate to continue earning substantial incomes, this is more the exception than the rule. Aside from a catalogue like that of The Beatles, there are usually only between one and five songs in a catalogue that still earn money, and in many cases those songs earn only a fraction of the income earned in their heyday. I can quote many examples of songs that hit the top 20 on the Billboard charts, some of which even No. 1, when released, but now earn less than $5,000 per year and are largely forgotten by anyone not around at the time of the song’s release.

Myth 2: Major publishers are the only companies with the power to exploit a catalogue.

This was true in the past, but it no longer the case. Unfortunately, many legacy songwriters and their heirs remain stuck on 30-year old advice from the family’s now-retired music lawyer. In today’s marketplace, major publishers have catalogues so large that they often cannot give personal attention to each individual composition within those catalogues. Because they also have major hits in demand, they tend to wait for licensing and other opportunities to come to them. The problem for older catalogues is twofold: (1) only a small number of these songs are still in the forefront of the public’s mind, and therefore the majority of songs from older catalogues are not requested, and (2) many companies are not willing to invest resources in pitching low-earning compositions. Therefore, these musical gems are neglected and remain lost in a company’s catalogue earning far less than their potential.

On the other hand, independent publishers with smaller catalogs are able to give each composition more personal attention and seek out the right opportunities for it. While an independent company might not be able to give as large of an advance, sale price, or signing bonus as a major, an indie will actively work harder to make its compositions earn more money over the long term because its livelihood depends on it.

Myth 3: A company’s market share will increase the success of a catalogue.

Market share reports look at the percentage of the compositions a company owns in the marketplace, as well as percentage of the top charting hits, and percentage of revenue from that company in relation to total income earned from all compositions in the marketplace. However, market share can be misleading because, top income and charting hits can come from a small percentage of all songs in the marketplace as well as a small percentage of a company’s catalogue. A company’s market share does not guarantee income production for a legacy catalogue because, as explained while debunking Myths 1 and 2, many of these songs are lost in a large catalogue and those forgotten songs will not be actively exploited. Therefore, it is often the case that only a catalogue that already earns substantial income without effort will thrive at a company focused on market share. Further, any bulk funds allocated to major publishers based on market share that the company splits with its songwriters will be allocated to the top earning catalogues, again neglecting under-performing legacy compositions.

Myth 4: A larger company is better at collecting income.

Again, this is not necessarily the case because a larger amount of data to process means more chance for error. I’ve seen countless catalogues at major companies not earning what they should because of mistakes in information that have never been fixed. I’ve seen major publishers not correct information for low-earning compositions because it’s not important to them. I’ve seen companies pay writers and their heirs the wrong royalty rates because no one bothered to look at the original contract rates and the writer’s heirs had to settle for much less than what they should have earned in order to avoid expensive litigation. I’ve also seen companies not take the steps to collect the income — even for high earning songs — because for whatever reason their staff never got around to it. All of these actions hurt the earnings of the compositions and hurt the writers and heirs that benefit from — and sometimes rely on — that income.

Myth 5: It’s too hard to move to an independent publisher from a major.

As explained above, an independent publisher will typically work harder than a large company to make its catalogues earn money. Independent publishers want notable cuts, work the sync market and typically are more diligent about properly collecting income — again, because each dollar matters. The challenge really lies with finding the right independent partner for a catalogue — someone who knows the music, understands the legacy, and has the right connections to exploit the catalogue properly. The right partners are out there, and in this case, it is actually more important to have the right advisors to assist the catalogue owners with making the best decisions for the catalogue.

Myth 6: Writers and heirs can’t self-publish.

Writers and heirs can self-publish if they have the right team in place. Publishing a catalogue with no experience doing so and no connections in the business is not a recipe for success. However, writers and their heirs can maintain ownership of the rights and have the right advisors in place to manage and promote the catalogue. I regularly manage and/or administer catalogues for my clients who have chosen to retain ownership and self-publish.

Myth 7: Heirs will know what to do with a catalogue.

Heirs will not automatically know what to do with the catalogue they have inherited just because their parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle/child was a songwriter. In many cases, these heirs were not exposed to the business side of their relatives’ career and in most cases have no experience with music publishing or managing compositions. Typically, heirs that inherit a catalogue are overwhelmed by the vast amounts of information and don’t know where to start in getting a handle on the catalogue. The heirs that are more adept at navigating the music industry have typically learned over many years and from astute advisors.

Legacy songwriters still living can make arrangements for their catalogues now and clean up the catalogue’s governing information and paperwork so that heirs will inherit an organized packet of information. The right advisors in place can guide legacy songwriters in managing the issues surrounding the catalogue and setting it up to benefit the heirs for the remainder of the copyright term. Many of my living legacy writers will designate me to continue managing the catalogue after their death and I regularly work with heirs to assist them with navigating how to manage the issues regarding their catalogue and maintain and grow what they’ve inherited.

Erin M. Jacobson represents and protects independent, established and legacy songwriters and artists (including their heirs and estates), legacy catalogues, independent music publishers, Grammy and Emmy Award winners, and other music professionals at her law practice based in Beverly Hills, California.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice.

by

I’m hiring!

No comments yet

Categories: Business, Law, Music, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am hiring!  If you are a positive, smart, and capable potential employee who is passionate about music and protecting creators and rights’ owners, then please click on the links below to view available positions and apply:

Administrative Assistant

Paralegal

Associate Attorney

by

Attention Legacy Artists: 6 Things You Need to Know to Recapture Your Copyrights

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Copyright, Legacy, Legal Issues, Music, Music Catalogues, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Terminations, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

This article was first published on Billboard.com.

There has been a lot of buzz recently about songwriters and artists (or their heirs) recapturing copyright ownership of their songs – and youcanbelieve the hype.  Copyright law provides a chance for authors (or heirs of authors) to recapture ownership of the copyrights to works granted away many years ago, and the window allowed by the law to recapture those rights is now.[1] Recapturing rights can allow for an author or author’s heirs to negotiate better deals with higher royalty splits in their favor, sell catalogues for large sums of money, or finally regain control of how a catalogue is exploited and increase profits with the right team in place.

However, recapturing rights is a complicated business filled with many requirements and nuances.  Here are six things authors need to know about recapturing rights.

  1. Dates Matter

An author (or author’s heirs) can terminate grants of copyrights made before January 1, 1978 during a window beginning 56 years and ending 61 years from the original copyright date.[2]  However, notice of termination must be served on the current owner anytime between ten and two years before the date the author intends the rights to revert.[3]  For grants made after January 1, 1978, the calculation of when rights can be recaptured is based on the date of the grant, not the original copyright date.   These post-1978 grants may be terminated beginning at 35 or 40 years after the grant date (depending on the language in the grant)[4]with a five-year termination window. Again, notice of termination must be served on the current owner anytime between ten and two years before the date the author intends the rights to revert.[5]

Being proactive is one of the most important factors when it comes to recapturing rights.  As mentioned above, serving notice on the current owners of the copyrights is required to recapture rights.  Because of the additional requirement that this notice must be sent between ten and two years beforethe date the rights will revert, anyone intending to recapture rights must look at leasttwo years ahead.  If someone intending to recapture rights misses the notice window – rights cannotbe recaptured and the opportunity is forever lost. 

  1. Works for Hire Need Not Apply

If an author signed a work for hire agreement for the works in question, don’t bother.  Copyright Law specifically states that works for hire are not eligible for termination.[6]

  1. U.S. Rights Only

The termination provisions that are the subject of this article are part of United
States Copyright Law and therefore only apply to U.S. rights.  That means one can recapture U.S. rights, but not foreign rights.  Also, as of this writing, the chance to recapture is only applicable to U.S. contracts.[7]

  1. Masters are an Uphill Battle

Most discussions around recapture of copyrights refer to composition copyrights because compositions are generally more straightforward to recapture than master recordings.  Most record company contracts say that masters are works made for hire for the record company, and as explained above, works made for hire are not eligible to be terminated.  However, copyright law dictates that works made for hire must meet certain requirements to qualify as a work made for hire:  (a) it must be made by an employee within the scope of their employment, or (b) it must be specially commissioned by the owner of the work for hire, it must be agreed in writing, and the type of work must fall within one of nine categories designated by the law.[8]  “Master recordings” is not one of those nine categories.

While there have been a few instances where labels have quietly relinquished rights to masters and sworn all parties to secrecy, most record labels refuse to release rights to masters and instead negotiate with the artist to increase their royalty rates.  A higher royalty rate does not help artists whose masters are not being exploited and not earning money, but it is all in an effort for the labels to avoid setting a precedent.   Master recordings are record labels’ main assets and businesses cannot give away their assets without also giving away power and profit.

Unfortunately, this is an issue that will only be decided by litigation and/or copyright reform, and neither of those has happened yet.

  1. Relationships Matter

For pre-1978 grants, one author’s share may be terminated, rather than requiring co-writers to terminate together.  However, if an author’s heirs are the ones effecting termination, then a majority of those heirs must terminate together.

Post-1978 grants signed by more than one author require a majority of those authors to terminate the grant together, and if any one of more of those authors is deceased, then a majority of the heirs of each deceased author must sign instead.   However, there are exceptions to this rule if separate grants were signed.

Requiring multiple parties to sign the termination notices can be problematic if co-writers, or heirs fighting about estate issues, no longer speak.  Even if the parties may have lost touch over the years, it benefits everyone involved to coordinate and cooperate to recapture rights.

  1. Don’t Try This at Home, Kids

If not already apparent by reading this article, assessing eligibility for filing terminations and carrying out the proper procedures to recapture rights is extremely complex.  Furthermore, there are numerous nuances and requirements not discussed here that could also affect whether an author or an author’s heirs may recapture rights. Anyone seeking to recapture copyrights needs an attorney specifically focused on the music industry that also has extensive experience with assessing these issues and recapturing rights.  Not all entertainment attorneys understand music and not all music attorneys are experienced with terminations.

I regularly recapture rights for my clients, as well as advise them on protecting and revitalizing their catalogues, as I am in a unique position where I am deeply familiar with both older music and how to navigate those catalogues within today’s marketplace.  Being in this space also means I frequently see legacy artists and their heirs who have been misguided, who have lost their chance to recapture their rights, who don’t realize their catalogues are under-earning, and who don’t know where to start.   The right advisors are tantamount to a successful recapture process and future for the catalogue.

There is only one chanceto recapture copyrights, one chanceto regain control of one’s legacy, and one chance to get it right.  Choose wisely.

_____________________________________________________________________

[1]Depending on the circumstances of each individual work, as some works are not yet eligible, no longer eligible, or not eligible at all to recapture.

[2]U.S.C. 17 §304(c)(3) (1992).

[3]U.S.C. 17 §304(c)(4)(A) (1998).

[4]Post-1978 grants are terminable at 35 years after the date of the grant, however, if the grant’s language includes the right of publication for the work, then that five-year period begins either on 35 years after the date of publication, or 40 years after the date of the grant, whichever is earlier.

U.S.C. 17 §203(a)(3) (1998).

[5]U.S.C. 17 §203(a)(4)(A).

[6]U.S.C. 17 §304(c) (1992); U.S.C. 17 §203 (1998).

[7]There have been a couple of high profile disputes on this matter involving U.K. contracts (namely Duran Duran in one instance and Sir Paul McCartney in another), but Duran Duran lost in a U.K. lower court and subsequently settled, and McCartney settled without litigation.  Some other countries do have their own provisions for recapture of rights, but they vary by country and differ from U.S. law.

[8]U.S.C. 17 §101 (1992).

 

Disclaimer:  This article does not constitute legal advice.

by

Spotify May Have To Pay Songwriters $345 Million

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Infringement, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Streaming, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

This article was previously published on Forbes.com.

When you stream music on Spotify, are you aware that as you are enjoying your favorite song, Spotify might not be paying the person who wrote that song?

Spotify has been sued for upwards of $345 million by Bob Gaudio and Bluewater Music Services Corporation for failure to pay mechanical licenses when their compositions are streamed on Spotify. Gaudio, a former member of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons, wrote and publishes some of the group’s biggest hits including “Sherry,” “Big Girls Don’t Cry,” and “Walk Like a Man,” as well as Valli’s solo hit “Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You.” Bluewater administers the publishing for compositions like Player’s “Baby Come Back,” Miranda Lambert’s “White Liar,” and Guns ‘N Roses’ “Yesterdays.”

Streaming requires several licenses –sound recording licenses from the record labels; performance licenses for the compositions from performance rights organizations such as ASCAP and BMI; and mechanical licenses for the reproduction of the compositions. While Spotify has deals with the major labels, and blanket licenses with ASCAP and BMI, Spotify has not complied with the requirements for mechanical licenses and payments for all compositions streamed on its platform. Obtaining a mechanical license in the United States is compulsory, meaning that a person or company wishing to reproduce a composition must follow the guidelines in Section 115 of the United States Copyright Act to serve a “Notice of Intent” on the copyright owner and pay said owner the compulsory license fee. Spotify has followed this procedure for compositions affiliated with the Harry Fox Agency (the closest body the United States has to a mechanical rights society), but there are many compositions not affiliated with the Harry Fox Agency that Spotify would need to contact and pay directly – and Spotify largely has not done so.

This is not the first time Spotify has come under fire for its inadequate licensing practices. In 2016, Spotify reached a $30 million dollar settlement with the National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA) for unpaid mechanical royalties, and Spotify just settled another class action suit for $43.4 million dollars. While maximum statutory damages rates are $150,000 per infringed composition, Bluewater claims that Spotify will only have to pay songwriters $4 per infringed composition after litigation fees are paid. Per the previous settlements, Spotify must also implement a better system to properly track and pay mechanical royalties, and Bluewater asserts this has not yet happened.

The attorney for both Gaudio and Bluewater is Richard S. Busch, most recently in the news for his representation of Marvin Gaye’s estate in the “Blurred Lines” case. Echoing my previous sentiments, a press release citing Busch’s complaint sums up the issue in a single sentence: “Songwriters and publishers should not have to work this hard to get paid or have their life’s work properly licensed, and companies should not be allowed to build businesses—much less billion-dollar businesses—on the concept of ‘infringe now and ask questions later.’”

*This article does not constitute legal advice.

Erin M. Jacobson is a music attorney whose clients include Grammy and Emmy Award winners, legacy clients and catalogs, songwriters, music publishers, record labels, and independent artists and companies. She is based in Los Angeles where she handles a wide variety of music agreements and negotiations, in addition to owning and overseeing all operations for Indie Artist Resource, the independent musician’s resource for legal and business protection. Ms. Jacobson also serves on the boards of the California Copyright Conference (CCC) and Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP).

by

How Influential Are You?: How Music Creators and Companies Can Leverage Branding and Online Influencing

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

Today’s music industry is no longer about income from sales. Artists, writers, and the companies that represent them need to find innovative ways to generate additional income streams. In addition to sales, many on the music side have discovered the value of getting synchronization (sync) placements in TV and film. However, this discovery has led to the sync market being oversaturated, and in many cases, reduced fees for sync placements.

Another avenue for artists and rights’ owners involves the branding and influencing space.  Sponsorships and endorsements, as well as social media influencing, have become different strategies brands can use to market their products via influence from traditional celebrities or “ordinary” people with a substantial online following. Celebrity endorsements tend to focus on the celebrity status boosting the brand or using the celebrity’s image to make the brand relevant to a target demographic.   However, the celebrity’s career does not have to have anything to do with the type of product(s) they are endorsing. Influencers are more specialized—they will promote products within certain circles and related to their expertise. For example, a fashion blogger and influencer would promote fashion-related products.

Consumers today want transparency in advertising and recommendations to come from personalities they trust. However, much of the advertising they see appears more transparent than it really is. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued guidelines for social media and other advertising. In endorsement deals I have done for my clients, there are often provisions stipulating that social media posts promoting the brand are accompanied by certain hashtags to clarify that there is an agreement between the brand and the artist to promote that brand. However, as these guidelines are just that, they don’t seem to be heavily enforced and a lot of product promotions are posted without such notification leading the consumer to believe the recommendations are organic and without any connection to or financial backing from the company.

In addition to transparency in advertising, consumers and fans want personal connections to personalities they admire. They want to share in the commonalities, hobbies, and lifestyle as it makes them feel emotionally closer to the personality and feel like they are able to live a similar lifestyle to the personality. Lifestyle brands often stem from a specific image and way of life stemming from a certain individual and material they are creating, but as society moves toward touching the inner need of individuals to express themselves, artists like Lady Gaga are combining the traditional model of selling the lifestyle of the celebrity and using the celebrity’s values to promote the fan’s expression of individuality.

While artists can tap into commonalities in the lifestyles of fans, doing so for rights’ holders like music publishers and record labels is slightly more difficult. Rights’ holders can seek these opportunities for their artists or writers to involve them as the “face” of a campaign, but in the case of a writer, this plan doesn’t work if the writer is not also a performer. However, in these situations, rights’ holders can seek to use the music as the “soundtrack” of a particular brand by using the sound, feel, and what the music represents to showcase a brand or lifestyle that appeals to consumers. This can be a symbiotic relationship where a more established brand can help break or boost a newer musical talent, but also where more established music can help to break or boost an up-and-coming brand. In most cases, sync rights will be involved in these campaigns, but the relationship can be extended for more than just a single placement. Taking it a step further, having the music or artists involved in events, stores, and activities in which the demographic participates and then having product to monetize at these venues can help to bring the campaign full circle. Both artists and companies like labels may be able to leverage online influencers by having them attend and post about the artist’s concerts or other events.

Opportunities on the Internet continue to expand, as social media now incorporates music and short videos and audio clips in addition to photographs. While some of the monetization of the use of the music in these posts can be questionable, short clips of audio and video can be the gateway to monetizing other avenues with more substantial revenue like concert tickets, merchandise, sales, and other participation that leads to larger opportunities.

In summation, today’s means of reaching consumers extends beyond traditional demographic analyses. Today’s marketing and ancillary income relies on finding ways to emotionally connect artists and music with consumers in an authentic way and enabling consumers to feel like they are able to express themselves and their ideal lifestyle through their association with the artists and music they consume.

Click here to contact Erin to review and negotiate one of these agreements on your behalf, or counsel you on your specific situation.

 

 

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. The content contained in this article is not legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific matter or matters. This article does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. and you or any other user. The law may vary based on the facts or particular circumstances or the law in your state. You should not rely on, act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking the professional counsel of an attorney licensed in your state. 

Advertisement.

by

Erin M. Jacobson elected to AIMP Board

No comments yet

Categories: Business, Copyright, Music, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Speaking, Tags: , , ,

I am thrilled to announce that I have been elected to the Board of Directors of the Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP).

wb-aimp-luncheon-global-industry-110216AIMP is an industry group focusing on independent music publishers and songwriters.  Members (aka my colleagues in the industry) vote for Board members, so I am honored to have been chosen.  Keep an eye on the AIMP website for future events and to become more involved with this great organization.

 

by

The Significance Of Irving Azoff Calling The Radio Industry A Cartel (Forbes.com)

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Performance, Royalties, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

Global Music Rights (“GMR”), a performance rights organization founded by music industry mogul Irving Azoff, sued the Radio Music Licensing Committee (“RMLC”) this week for antitrust violations, claiming that the RMLC’s committee of radio stations seeks to discourage competition amongst these stations with the common goal of keeping payments to songwriters and music publishers artificially low and using its collective power to do so.

As I explained in a previous article, the RMLC recently filed a lawsuit against GMR claiming that GMR has created an artificial monopoly over works in its repertoire since GMR can dictate license fees and deny licenses to perform the music it represents if music licensees are not willing to pay GMR’s fees. Azoff founded GMR to offer a more boutique experience for the writers in its repertoire and seek higher licensing fees than ASCAP and BMI who are subject to government consent decrees and judicially restricted rates. The RMLC argued that the license fees required by GMR are exorbitant and seeks to lower them by forcing GMR to submit to judicial rate-setting proceedings, which would require a judge to mandate the rates GMR can charge its licensees.

GMR has been in negotiations with the RMLC since its inception, but still have not reached a deal because GMR will not agree to judicial rate-setting proceedings. GMR’s complaint states that its lawsuit is not in response to the RMLC’s previously filed antitrust suit against GMR, but rather “the group’s illegal conduct including price fixing, information sharing and threats of group boycotting.” GMR, who did reach a deal with two individual radio stations, argues that all stations should compete for the music they play, rather than banding together to force the music industry to succumb to low rates in order for music to be played. According to a press release from GMR, radio stations currently pay only about 4% of their revenue to songwriters and music publishers. To further put things into perspective, the RMLC represents over 10,000 radio stations that collectively bring in about $16 billion in advertising revenue annually, whereas GMR is an independent performance rights organization representing 70 songwriters and earns under $100 million per year.

As also explained in my prior article, radio stations rely on music for their content. Radio stations and other music content platforms repeatedly seek to reduce compensation to the songwriters and music rights owners that create the very music that establishes their listenership and drives their revenues. Although the stations behavior makes sense from a profit margin standpoint, it is still surprising that radio would seek to so significantly undervalue the music that comprises the foundation of its product.

The parties are at a standoff because if radio does not want to pay GMR’s rates, then radio stations can refuse to play works in the GMR repertoire. This is unfortunate for the artists in the GMR repertoire because they would lose the promotion and performance income provided by radio airplay. However, the radio stations themselves would also suffer because it would harm stations’ popularity with listeners if stations cannot play a requested new single by a GMR writer like Drake or Pharrell Williams, or even classic compositions by John Lennon or The Eagles. If radio listeners stop listening to stations because they do not play the music their listeners want to hear, then advertisers will stop buying advertising on those stations and move on to whatever other platforms their target markets have adopted. The RMLC is banking on being successful with this lawsuit as they were in their recent and very similar fight with performance rights organization SESAC. However, if the RMLC is unsuccessful at forcing GMR to submit to judicial rate proceedings, then radio stations will have the choice of either paying higher license fees for GMR artists or losing advertising revenue, a dilemma in which it would probably be to the stations’ advantage to pay the higher license fees requested by GMR than losing its advertisers.

Azoff said, “I will not stop the fight for fairness to artists and songwriters,” and he is not alone in his principles. Both creators and professionals within the music industry have seen rates steadily decline and are tired of accepting undervalued rates. Simultaneous to GMR’s battle for higher rates, songwriters and performance rights organizations have been combatting the United States Department of Justice amid other restrictions on music licensing. While the music industry is not dead yet, many within the industry are concerned about the viability of music as a career because without proper payment to songwriters and music publishers, the creation of music may be relegated to a hobby if the majority of creators cannot make a living from creating music.

*This article does not constitute legal advice.

Erin M. Jacobson is a music attorney whose clients include Grammy and Emmy Award winners, legacy clients and catalogues, songwriters, music publishers, record labels, and independent artists and companies. She is based in Los Angeles where she handles a wide variety of music agreements and negotiations, in addition to owning and overseeing all operations for Indie Artist Resource, the independent musician’s resource for legal and business protection.

by

Radio Seeks to Pay Songwriters Lower Rates — Again (Forbes.com)

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music, Music Industry, Music Industry Interviews, Performance, Royalties, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Radio Seeks to Pay Songwriters Lower Rates — Again

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

A committee representing roughly 10,000 commercial radio stations has sued performance rights organization Global Music Rights (“GMR”) in an effort to further reduce the amount radio stations pay to music composition creators and rights owners for performances of their works. This committee is the Radio Music Licensing Committee (“RMLC”) and it claims that GMR has created an artificial monopoly over works in its repertoire.

Performance rights organizations (“PRO’s”) are organizations that track and collect performance royalties on behalf of songwriters and music publishers. In the United States, there are four PRO’s: ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and GMR. ASCAP and BMI are the two largest U.S. PRO’s and are also non-profit organizations. Since 1941, ASCAP and BMI have been subject to consent decrees issued by the Department of Justice. These consent decrees are agreements that allow the government to regulate ASCAP and BMI’s license fees and how they operate in order to prevent monopolization and encourage competition. SESAC and GMR are both independent, privately owned companies that operate on a for-profit basis and are not subject to consent decrees.

Music industry mogul Irving Azoff founded GMR in 2013 in order to provide a more boutique experience for managing performance rights licensing and potentially command higher rates for the performances of works in its repertoire, which includes compositions written and/or performed by artists such as Adele, The Beatles, Pharrell Williams, Katy Perry, Madonna, and many more.

Because GMR is not subject to a consent decree, it can deny a license to perform the works in its repertoire and can also negotiate license rates as it sees fit. The RMLC argues that the license fees required by GMR are exorbitant and seeks to lower them by forcing GMR to submit to judicial rate-setting proceedings, which would require a judge to mandate the rates GMR can charge its licensees. This is similar to procedures mandated for ASCAP and BMI, but without subjecting GMR to a full consent decree. The RMLC previously filed a similar suit against SESAC and reached a settlement in the RMLC’s favor.

Terrestrial radio makes its money on advertising revenue, and while radio is far from dead, it no longer holds the status of its heyday. Terrestrial radio and other broadcasters regularly fight to reduce license fees, as terrestrial radio lobbyists were also part of the group in favor of the Department of Justice’s crackdown on ASCAP and BMI’s licensing platforms, the outcome of which is still pending.

Most observers of this situation usually fail to mention that the public perception of radio’s purpose is music promotion. Without music driving the listenership of certain stations, those particular stations would not earn the ad revenue from advertisers who want to reach those stations’ listeners. However, the stations repeatedly seek to reduce compensation to the songwriters and music rights owners that create the very music that establishes their listenership and drives their revenues.

Terrestrial radio isn’t the only industry trying to reduce payments to music creators and rights’ owners. Those of us who regularly handle music licenses know that attempts to undervalue music also come from Internet and digital companies, as well as small bars and restaurants. Visual productions seeking synchronization and master use licenses also regularly try to lowball license fees or request gratis uses.

It is up to music creators and rights’ owners to value music (#valuemusic) and require proper payment for uses of their music, and to those that use music to recognize the value that music brings to their project or business.

*This article does not constitute legal advice.

Erin M. Jacobson is a music attorney whose clients include Grammy and Emmy Award winners, legacy clients and catalogues, songwriters, music publishers, record labels, and independent artists and companies. She is based in Los Angeles where she handles a wide variety of music agreements and negotiations, in addition to owning and overseeing all operations for Indie Artist Resource, the independent musician’s resource for legal and business protection.

by

Erin M. Jacobson featured on Forbes.com

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Record Labels, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am honored announce I am published on Forbes.com.  My first article for Forbes discusses Frank Ocean’s decision to go independent after his split from Def Jam.

Below is the text of the article and stay tuned as more will be published!

Checkmate:  Frank Ocean Goes Independent

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

Originally published at Forbes.com.  Also reposted at Hypebot.com.

Frank Ocean has chosen the road less travelled for major label artists. He recently split with Def Jam, independently released his latest album, Blonde to chart success, and has refused to submit the album for Grammy voting consideration. While a major label deal was once the holy grail of industry success, what does it mean for artists in today’s industry?

Def Jam released Ocean from his deal in September 2016, a relationship described as “a bad marriage” by Spin magazine who also reported that Ocean’s release from his deal was negotiated. A condition of the split allowed Def Jam to distribute Ocean’s album Endless, while then freeing Ocean to release Blonde under his own imprint. In a recent interview for the New York Times, Ocean described his deal with Def Jam as “a seven-year chess game” and used his own money to buy himself out of his contract and reclaim his master recordings.

Ocean’s “seven-year chess game” refers to the seven-album deal structure typical for major labels. Major labels will sign an artist to a seven-album deal, meaning that the artist is obligated (often subject to pick-up options exercisable only by the label) to release seven albums with the label. This concept can be deceiving to those who don’t understand the structure because the length of the contract is tied to the number of albums released rather than a term of years. Fifty years ago the industry moved at a pace where an artist could release at least one album per year and then be done with the contract in seven years. However, artists today often take more than one year to write and record a new album, often not getting back in the studio until being on the road for almost a year after a prior album’s release. The reality of this schedule means that it often takes two years or more before a follow-up release and thus locks the artist into the contract for as long as it takes to complete the seven albums.

What is more unique about this situation is that Ocean not only bought himself out of the contract, but bought out the rights to his recordings as well. Major label (and most independent label) recording agreements stipulate that the label will own the artist’s recordings, as the label is usually fronting the money to make the recordings. Recording agreements don’t automatically come with the right to buy back masters; that clause is usually included via a good music attorney that knows to negotiate for it. However, many artists that have buy-back rights included in the contract don’t get to exercise those rights due to lack of funds. Ocean was in a privileged position in that he was able to accumulate enough of his own money to meet what was probably a hefty price for his freedom.

Ocean’s move towards independence echoes the increasing trend within the industry to control one’s own destiny and retain ownership of one’s work, a view shared by the majority of my artist clients. Today’s artists relish being independent, but the challenge is remembering that a music career is not only creative, it is also a business and needs to be run as such. Ocean seems to have that mentality. “I know exactly what the numbers are,” Ocean states. “I need to know how many records I’ve sold, how many album equivalents from streaming, which territories are playing my music more than others, because it helps me in conversations about where we’re gonna be playing shows, or where I might open a retail location, like a pop-up store or something.” This level of attention to detail is essential for independent artists looking to build a lasting career.

Ocean’s fame earned while he was backed by a major label puts him in an advantageous position because he has already accumulated a fanbase whose continued support will earn him a lucrative living as an independent artist. Artists in this position no longer need major labels because they have enough fame, opportunities, customer loyalty, and cash flow to finance their future efforts. It is much more difficult for artists still building their followings to achieve the same level of success outright, but many independent artists now look more towards making a living off of their music rather than superstardom. In today’s market, ownership and control of one’s work coupled with keeping a majority of the profits entice artists more than a major label’s deep pockets. As Ocean said:

It started to weigh on me that I was responsible for the moves that had made me successful, but I wasn’t reaping the lion’s share of the profits, and that was problematic for me.”

*This article does not constitute legal advice.

Erin M. Jacobson is a music attorney whose clients include Grammy and Emmy Award winners, legacy clients and catalogues, songwriters, music publishers, record labels, and independent artists and companies. She is based in Los Angeles where she handles a wide variety of music agreements and negotiations, in addition to owning and overseeing all operations for Indie Artist Resource, the independent musician’s resource for legal and business protection.

1 2 3 4 5