Call NowEmail Now

Categotry Archives: Legal Issues

by

May Music Legal and Business Roundup

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music Industry, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

cowgirl, lasso, roundup

Image via freeimages.com

Here’s a recap of my article’s this month:

 

May was actually a little quiet on legal issues making the news.  However, the big news was really a tragic one.  The world lost another amazing artist, Prince.  His death was unexpected and shocked his fans and all of us in the industry.  A great artist who leaves a great legacy.

Here’s the other top stories in music legal and business:

 

by

Is It Ever Worth It to Give Up Copyright Ownership of Your Songs? A Music Lawyer Explains.

1 comment

Categories: Articles, Business, Copyright, Legal Issues, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ESQ-givingupownershipRetaining ownership of the copyrights may be one of the most important decisions in an artist or writer’s music career. The person who owns the copyrights is the one with the control over how those works are used and also the one entitled to the money earned from those uses.  However, sometimes holding on too tightly to copyright ownership may prevent an artist or writer from taking advantage of opportunities to grow his or her career. The age-old adage that sometimes you have to give a little to get a little is true, but one needs to look at the opportunity cost and decide if giving something in a specific situation is worth what will potentially be gained.

Here are a few instances when giving up copyright ownership may be permissible.

1.  When it will make you a lot of money.

I’m not suggesting one should sell out just for a hefty paycheck, as sometimes dollar signs can’t substitute for artistic integrity.  I’ve also seen a lot of deals (especially in music library situations) where an artist or writer is being offered just a few hundred to a few thousand dollars in exchange for full or partial copyright ownership of a song that is really valuable to the artist or writer’s catalogue and career.  In this instance, such a small amount of money may not be worth the control and potential revenues lost later if the song does well in the marketplace.

On the other hand, I have some clients that write consistently and don’t care about giving up ownership as long these songs will churn out money, especially for placements.  They feel they can always write another song and are more concerned with making their music earn money for them over crafting songs to define their careers.

2.  When it will give you opportunities you wouldn’t get otherwise.

This is a situation where working with a certain company, or in many cases a certain producer, will be able to propel an artist’s career forward and help that artist achieve notoriety that wouldn’t be achieved otherwise.  As mentioned, a typical example of this is working with a big producer who is considered to be a hit-maker in the industry.  Often these producers don’t even co-write on the compositions, but granting them a percentage of songwriting ownership is mandatory for being able to work with them. After all, one could retain 100% of a song that most people will never hear, or one could give up 20% and have the song hit top ten, make a lot of money, garner name recognition, and bring the artist more opportunities than the artist would have gotten otherwise. In this case, it seems like a small trade-off and can be used as a means to an end – one might have to give up some ownership in the beginning of a career, but that could lead to a level of status in the industry where one can retain ownership and call the shots on future projects.

3.  When it is in line with your goals.

A new artist seeking a label deal, especially a major label deal, will not own their masters.  An up-and-coming writer wanting a publishing deal will have to give up all or part of songwriter ownership.  This is what comes with the territory of growing one’s career via the traditional industry structures.  It also makes sense from a business standpoint because a label or a publisher is not going to invest time and money into an artist or writer without getting something in return , and part of their return on investment is ownership of intellectual property.

However, if an artist has a vision of making a living off of music in a completely DIY structure, or that the freedom of complete control is more important than working with others more established in the industry, then sharing ownership might not be the right choice.

Longevity and sustainability in the music business, especially in its current state, comes with catalogue ownership.   Giving up ownership comes with some loss of control, but that loss of control may lead to notoriety and other opportunities putting one in a position of control higher than would have ever been achieved otherwise.

Whether to give up copyright ownership is a big decision, and it is one that should be discussed with the artist’s advisors. The choice right for one artist may not be right for another.  The decision will come down to what is right for each artist’s career.

If you need help deciding whether to give up copyright ownership in a deal you’ve been offered, book a consultation now.

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.

If this article is considered an advertisement, it is general in nature and not directed towards any particular person or entity.

This article was previously published on Sonicbids.com.

 

by

“You Signed a Deal You Shouldn’t Have. Now What?” My New Article Published in Music Connection Magazine

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Legal Issues, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am extremely honored to have an article published in Music Connection magazine.  The article is entitled “You Signed a Deal You Shouldn’t Have. Now What?” and appears in the “Expert Advice” column on page 46 of the April 2016 issue.

Music Connection cover with Jimmy Page and Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. music attorney music lawyer los angeles

What’s more, the title is advertised on the cover of the magazine — a cover that features none other than Jimmy Page.

Here’s a link to the article online:  http://www.musicconnection.com/expert-advice-you-signed-a-deal-you-shouldnt-have-now-what/

Here’s a link to the PDF:

“You Signed a Deal You Shouldn’t Have, Now What?  by: Erin M. JacobsonPublished in Music ConnectionVol. 40, No. 4, April 2016 

Follow Music Connection:

Facebook: facebook.com/musicconnectionmagazine
Twitter: @musicconnection
Instagram: @music_connection

by

March Music Legal and Business Roundup

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Law, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music Industry, Music Libraries, Music Publishing, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

cowgirl, lasso, roundup

Image via freeimages.com

March had several interesting music legal issues, but first, check out my most recent articles:

 

In other news this month:

 

by

Do Artists Need Spotify?

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Legal Issues, Music, Music Industry, Royalties, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

spotify independent artist music attorney music lawyer los angeles erin m jacobson esq

I often am asked for my thoughts on Spotify and whether artists need it.

Adele and Taylor Swift are not on Spotify and sell millions of albums. These artists are already big enough that they will sell albums regardless of whether they are on Spotify. Spotify streams actually compete with these artists’ sales because there are many people who will stream the album instead of buying it and the royalty rates for streaming are much smaller than what an artist of this caliber will earn from a record sale. An artist would have to have the album streamed many more times than purchased to earn the same amount of money in royalties.

For independent artists, Spotify can be a promotional tool — another distribution channel for new fans to discover your music. Again, it’s not about the money earned from streams, as for most indie artists that is even less than what established artists earn. The hope is that once these new fans discover the indie artists, they will sign up on their email lists, go to their shows, buy merchandise, etc. and money can be earned that way.

While indies probably won’t earn money from Spotify, if it helps them gain new fans then it may be worth it. If you can be found without Spotify and streams will actually compete with your album sales, then it might not be worth it.

Have questions on how Spotify relates to your career? Contact Erin to book a consultation now.

 

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.

If this article is considered an advertisement, it is general in nature and not directed towards any particular person or entity.

 

by

February Music Business and Legal Roundup

No comments yet

Categories: Law, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music Industry, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

cowgirl, lasso, roundup

Image via freeimages.com

 

It’s February and there’s definitely been some legal activity in the music business this month.

First, check out my most recent articles if you haven’t already:

In other news:

And here are my favorite Grammy moments:

  • Bonnie Raitt’s cool and calm confidence as she walked out the Grammy stage and proceeded to own the stage during “The Thrill is Gone.”
  • Demi Lovato’s awesome performance of “Hello” in honor of Lionel Richie.

by

How Much Should an Attorney Cost?

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Copyright, Law, Legal Issues, Music, Music Industry, Trademark, Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Erin Jacobson music attorney music industry lawyer


An attorney’s advice could make the difference for you between a successful and a nonexistent music career.   Legal fees aren’t cheap, but they’re a worthy expense in your career progress. The cost of attorneys does vary due to a variety of circumstances, so as you plan your budget, you should keep the following factors in mind.

How are lawyers’ rates determined?

1. Experience

A lawyer with more years of experience will typically be more expensive than someone who is newly licensed. Also, an attorney with more experience in (or who devotes the majority of his or her practice to) a certain area of law will be able to charge more than someone who only dabbles in that area. Someone who’s better known in the business and has had more high-profile cases can also command a higher rate.

2. Nature of your matter (i.e., what you need the attorney to do)

One of the most important factors that dictate the amount that you will have to pay an attorney is what you actually need the attorney to do for you. A short and simple contract or a consultation to answer questions will cost less than if you require a long, complicated contract to be drafted or reviewed. If you’re starting a company, you’ll need all new contracts drafted, which will take more time and thus be more expensive than reviewing a five-page agreement. Attorneys tailor contracts to your specific situation, which takes the attorney’s time and skill to create something specific to your needs. The amount of time needed for negotiation is speculative, as it’s rare to be able to predict the other party’s agreeability to contract changes or willingness to wrap up the deal promptly.

3. Office arrangement

It may sound unimportant, but the location of an attorney’s office and the type of office that he or she has does factor into the fees charged. Attorneys in larger metropolitan areas and more expensive parts of town will charge more than those who have offices in less desirable areas. An attorney who’s part of a larger firm or who has a high-rent office will have to charge more to cover that rent. In contrast, an attorney with lower overhead costs may be able to charge less and pass those savings on to the client.

4. Extra fees

There are often other fees you’ll be responsible for when working with an attorney, such as filing fees. Copyright and trademark registrations have application fees set by the Copyright and Trademark Offices, respectively. Similarly, a trademark search company will set the fees to conduct a trademark search. In court matters, there are filing fees required and set by the court that will need to be paid to process your case. Attorneys have no control over these fees.

Other additional fees that may need to be paid to your attorney may involve things like postage or copying costs on your behalf. These are not ordinary costs in an attorney’s business. You are paying the attorney for his or her time, skill, experience, and advice, not for secretarial matters that are the client’s responsibility. These are fees that will be incurred no matter what your attorney’s fee is, but it’s important to remember that they are your responsibility so you can include them in your budget.

Fee structures

Fee structures vary greatly among attorneys. In Los Angeles, attorneys tend to range from about $250 to $750 or more per hour. Some attorneys require an upfront retainer payment, which is an advance against fees earned. Other attorneys will not require an upfront retainer payment, but will bill you after the work has been completed. In both of these scenarios, attorneys will keep track of the amount of time that they worked on your matter, and then multiply their hourly rate by the amount of time spent on your matter to calculate your total fee. There are also attorneys who will also work on a flat-fee basis depending on the task at hand.

Other attorneys work on a percentage basis where they don’t necessarily keep track of the amount of time that they worked on your matter, but will instead take a certain percentage of the amount you receive under the deal they’re negotiating for you. Alternatively, some attorneys will take a percentage, usually five percent, of your gross income. Attorneys who work on percentage usually only do so for high net worth clients, as otherwise the number of hours invested in a client may greatly exceed the amount paid to the attorney.

Some attorneys will use a client’s income and/or industry status as deciding factors in whether to represent a client. Especially at the larger law firms, many attorneys won’t accept new clients who won’t guarantee a certain amount of income to the firm.

Some litigators (attorneys who handle lawsuits in court) will take a case on contingency, meaning that they only get paid if they win your case, and then will take a percentage of the recovery from the case. However, most attorneys do not take cases on contingency, and will require an hourly rate and an upfront retainer. Again, these fees will vary based on the factors discussed above.

When you’re interviewing a potential attorney, ask about his or her rates and fee structure to determine if you can afford that particular attorney.

How much do common musician services typically cost?

It’s incredibly difficult to generalize prices of what a certain matter will cost, as it depends on all the factors explained above. I’m quite hesitant to actually name numbers since they vary so drastically, but I will do my best to give an idea of the most basic matters to provide you with a starting point. (These are general fee ranges based on examples I have seen in the industry. These numbers are not quotes of my services, an advertised fee, or guarantees of fee amounts. If you need this type of agreement drafted, it will need to be based on your particular circumstances and your attorney’s best judgment.)

1. Copyright registration

Copyright registrations are usually $35 to $55 for the registration fee, plus the time it takes for your attorney to file the application. Absent complicating circumstances and including only a small group of titles, this should usually take about an hour or less of your attorney’s time. There are also services like Indie Artist Resource that can register titles from $135 to $335, depending on the number of titles.

2. Trademark application

Trademark application fees are based on the number of categories (called classes) in which you want to protect your mark. For one class online, the application fee runs from $275 to $325. If you are registering in more than one class, multiply that number by the number of classes for which you are applying. Again, the application itself probably takes about an hour of time, but the Trademark Office usually requires amendments to be made later, which are again based on the attorney’s time spent on those amendments. The number of amendments requested depends on the mark, other marks already registered, and the attorney at the trademark office assigned to your application. A trademark search from a reputable company starts just under $800 for a word mark and just over $600 for a logo.

3. Basic music business agreements

Something like very basic agreements for management, producer, or band partnerships could cost $800 to $2,000+ depending on the agreement and details of your situation, or $300 to $400 for a template.

 

Again, all legal fees will vary depending on your specific situation, so the most effective plan of action would be to figure out what you need as completely as possible, and then ask attorneys for an estimate. If the cost of what you need is above your budget, consider a solution like Indie Artist Resource, or save up more money for the investment – and it is an investment in your career.

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.

If this article is considered an advertisement, it is general in nature and not directed towards any particular person or entity.

Originally posted on Sonicbids.com

by

January Music Business and Legal Round-Up

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Business, Copyright, Digital Distribution, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music Industry, Royalties, Tags: , , , , , , ,

cowgirl, lasso, roundup

Image via freeimages.com

I’m trying something new where I do round up at the end of the month of some interesting stories or issues that have occurred during that month in the music industry. Please let me know if you like this new feature believe in the comments below.

First, you’ll want to check out my articles for January:

In other news:

The reports are in from 2015, and the industry numbers are actually up thanks to streaming, although digital sales have dropped. Some artists, like Adele, have proven they don’t need streaming to sell records.

Although streaming has upped some numbers, the artists aren’t getting paid. Spotify was hit with two class-action lawsuits for failure to properly pay royalties. They have now just instituted a new system for tracking and paying royalties. Some accusations claim that Spotify has not properly licensed much of the music that it plays and further that Spotify apparently doesn’t know who to pay. While there are issues that sometimes arise in the industry where finding the proper rights owner can be difficult to find, the majority of rights owners are easily able to be located and paid by those who take a few minutes to look for them.

Spotify has enough money to fight these lawsuits and they’ll probably be some sort of settlement along the way, however Spotify should’ve put a system in place in the very beginning to ensure streamlined and proper payment. This seems like the beginning of a lot of legal hassle for Spotify, but if truly not paying legitimate royalty recipients, it’s a legal hassle that they deserve.

And here are some predictions for 2016.  Let’s see if they come true…

 

by

Why Posting a Cover Song on YouTube is Copyright Infringement

4 comments

Categories: Articles, Copyright, Infringement, Legal Issues, Music, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Social Media, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

Erin Jacobson music attorney music industry lawyer youtube cover song copyright infringement

New artists trying to get discovered will frequently cover famous songs and upload videos of them performing these songs on YouTube. Many artists do not realize that without securing the proper permissions, posting a cover song on YouTube is actually copyright infringement.

User-generated cover song videos require permission to use the composition and permission to synchronize the audio elements with the video.*

To cover a composition, one needs to get a mechanical license. A mechanical license allows someone to record a song that has already been recorded and distributed by another artist. A mechanical license is most often obtained through the Harry Fox Agency. The related royalty stream is called a “mechanical royalty” which is a royalty payable to a composition owner for the privilege of being allowed to record that composition. This is the 9.1 cent royalty often mentioned in the music business.

However, the mechanical license only covers audio recordings of the original composition. It does not cover the synchronization of the audio with the video portion, for which one needs to obtain a synchronization or “sync” license. This is where most people get tripped up because they don’t get a synchronization license from the composition owner (usually the music publisher).

An artist who does not get permission from the owner of the song he is covering to synchronize his cover version with the accompanying video is infringing the copyright of the original composition.  [tweetthis display_mode=”button_link”]Failure to get a sync license for your YouTube cover song video is copyright infringement.[/tweetthis]

The consequences of posting a cover song without the proper synchronization license vary. In some instances, the copyright owners of the original composition don’t know about the cover on YouTube or they choose to do nothing about it. In other cases, the copyright owners will send a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube and have the video taken down. Further still, someone who posts an unauthorized cover might get a cease-and-desist letter or the threat of legal action, and might actually get sued, leading to liability for a lot of money in copyright infringement damages.

Do you have more questions or need a license for your project?  Contact Erin now to get your questions answered.

* In the case of a cover song, the original master recording is not used because someone else is making his or her own recording of the song and therefore no label permission is necessary. If one plans to use the original master recording in a video, that person would have to go to the master owner (usually the record label) and get a master use license to be able to pair the master recording with the video. I won’t discuss the performance right here since YouTube and similar websites have blanket licenses from the performance rights organizations. However, if an artist is uploading these videos to his or her personal website, that artist is also liable for the payment of performance royalties.

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 mattersThis article does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. and you or any other user and Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. is not acting as your attorney or providing you with legal advice.   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.

If this article is considered an advertisement, it is general in nature and not directed towards any particular person or entity.

 

 

by

New Interview on the Break the Business Podcast

No comments yet

Categories: Interview, Legal Issues, Music, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Industry Interviews, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

music business podcast erin jacobson music lawyer attorney entertainment los angeles

I am honored to be featured on the Break the Business Podcast where I was interviewed about legal help for musicians and how to get it.  Listen to the episode Online or on iTunes.

Break the Business Podcast (Online / iTunes)

 

 

1 2 3 4 5