Call NowEmail Now

Tag Archives: los angeles

by

Erin M. Jacobson published in Billboard

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Honors and Awards, Legacy, Music Industry, Terminations, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am proud to announce that my most recent article, Attention Legacy Artists: 6 Things You Need to Know to Recapture Your Copyrights, has been published by Billboard!

 

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

Erin M. Jacobson re-elected to AIMP Board of Directors

No comments yet

Categories: Honors and Awards, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am happy to announce that I have been re-elected to the LA 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 (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

Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.’s Blog Named a Top 10 Music Law Blog

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Honors and Awards, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This blog has been named one of the Top 10 Music Law Blogs by Feedspot!  Thanks to Feedspot for the recognition.

 

by

Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. a Top Woman Attorney in Southern California

No comments yet

Categories: Honors and Awards, Music Industry, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As previously announced, I have been named one of the Top Women Attorneys (Rising Stars) in Southern California for 2018 by Super Lawyers.  The listing for this honor is in this month’s Los Angeles Magazine.

Thanks to my colleagues and Super Lawyers for selecting me.

Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. named one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers.

by

Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. featured in AIMP’s July News

No comments yet

Categories: Honors and Awards, Music Publishing, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thanks to the Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) for highlighting my recent recognition as a Rising Star and one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers.

The AIMP is a great organization supporting the interests of independent music publishers and I am proud to serve on the AIMP LA/National Board.


by

Erin M. Jacobson has been named a 2018 Rising Star and one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers.

No comments yet

Categories: Honors and Awards, Press, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Erin M. Jacobson has been named a 2018 Rising Star and one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers.

Super Lawyers rates outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. This selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Erin will be featured in Los Angeles Magazine as a Super Lawyers Rising Star, and again later this year as one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California.

Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. in Los Angeles Magazine as 2018 Super Lawyers Rising Star

Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.  Los Angeles Magazine  2018 Super Lawyers Rising Star

Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. in Los Angeles Magazine as 2018 Super Lawyers Rising Star

by

Erin M. Jacobson Speaking at Taxi Road Rally

No comments yet

Categories: Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Libraries, Speaking, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I will be speaking at the 2017 Taxi Road Rally, November 3-4, 2017!

Here is my schedule:

Friday, November 3, 2017 from 2:45-4:15 pm / La Guardia Room (Mezzanine Level / 2nd Floor)

Don’t Get Screwed! How to Protect Yourself as an Independent Musician with Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.  An explanation of the most common types of ways independent musicians and songwriters get screwed and how to protect yourself before it happens. This class will include real examples from artist’s careers, as well as a discussion on what contracts are necessary to prevent these scenarios, along with an opportunity for Q&A with music attorney Erin Jacobson.

(I will also participate in the mentor lunch on Friday.)

Saturday, November 4, 2017 from 4:30-6:00 pm /  La Guardia Room (Mezzanine Level / 2nd Floor)

Understanding Music Library Agreements with Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.  Music attorney, Erin M. Jacobson will talk about the types of deals offered and explain what contract terminology and certain clauses mean. You may bring printouts of particular clauses that have you stumped and Ms. Jacobson will read them and explain what they mean! This class could save you a world of hurt down the road. It’s a Do-Not-Miss session if you’re pitching to music libraries!

Looking forward to seeing you there!

by

Want to Get Your Copyrights Back? (Here is What You Need to Know)

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Copyright, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Terminations, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

There has been a lot of buzz lately about songwriters and artists (and their heirs) reclaiming thei copyrights and striking new deals or self-administering/self-releasing. What many want to know, is who can reclaim copyrights and how?

There are certain provisions in the copyright law where, under certain circumstances, an author or that author’s heirs can reclaim copyrights that have been granted away at some time in the past. It’s a really complicated section of the law, and not all attorneys are well-versed in it, so it is important to make sure whoever you hire really knows the intricacies of filing terminations.

For purposed of this article, I’m going to go over the basics.

There are two main sections of the copyright law that apply to copyright terminations:

  • Section 304c applies to copyrights and grants before January 1, 1978. Termination under this section can be effected between 56 and 61 years after the original date of copyright, and termination may be effected in regards to one author’s share of the work.
  • Section 203 applies to grants made after January 1, 1978, regardless of the original copyright date of the work. Grants falling under this section may be terminated between 35 and 40 years after the grant date. If the grant 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.
  • Note that under Section 203, grants signed by more than one author require a majority of those authors or their heirs to terminate the grant. It is not like section 304, where one author’s share can be terminated independently. However, there are exceptions to this rule if separate grants were signed, such was the point at issue in the Victor Willis/ “YMCA” case.

Who can terminate?

  • The author
  • The author’s heirs, if the author is no longer living. (There are only specific people in a specific order of succession that are considered heirs. Again, make sure you have an attorney experienced with terminations advise you.)
  • If the author’s share is being terminated by the author’s heirs, those heirs must make up a majority (at least 50%) of that author’s termination interest.

Some additional points that apply to terminations under both sections:

  • When you want to effect a termination, you actually have to send a notice to the current owner of the copyright in advance of the termination date. This notice must be served not more than ten, but not less than two years before the effective date of termination. If you miss this notice window, you lose your right to terminate.
  • The notice must be recorded with the Copyright Office before the effective date of termination to be valid.
  • Works made for hire or grants by will are not eligible for termination.
  • Termination is a matter of law, so it can be affected regardless of any contract or agreement to the contrary.

Why is the right to terminate important?

Recapturing rights and starting to exploit them again can revive older compositions or catalogs, and help them to start making money again when they’re currently lost and forgotten in the catalogs of large music publishers. Also, this increased exploitation (or an advance in a new deal) would mean more money for the authors or heirs. The decision whether to terminate must be carefully considered based on the catalog at issue as well as the situation of the authors/heirs.

I regularly work with legacy clients and their heirs to determine the best plan for the catalog and filing termination notices, if that is the best choice for the client, so please contact me if I can help you with your catalog.

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

How Spotify Has Waged War With The Music Industry

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Copyright, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Streaming, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

This article was first published on Forbes.com.

Spotify has waged a war with the music industry. The streaming company has a history of not paying mechanical royalties to songwriters and music publishers, and has already settled two separate class action lawsuits for failure to pay mechanical royalties – the first brought on behalf of music publishers by the National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA) and the second, known as the Lowery/Ferrick case, brought by independent songwriters. Now, a host of top songwriters, including Tom Petty and members of Rage Against the Machine, Weezer, The Black Keys, and more, have come forward urging the court not to approve the terms of the Lowery/Ferrick case. These songwriters oppose the settlement amount in the Lowery/Ferrick case because when the costs are broken down, Spotify’s liability for not paying mechanical royalties would be to pay a mere $3.82 per infringed composition. The maximum liability under the law for copyright infringement is $150,000 per infringed composition. Quite the difference.

As I previously reported, Spotify was also hit with two independent lawsuits – again for failure to pay mechanical royalties — brought by songwriter/publisher Bob Gaudio and music administrator Bluewater Services Corporation. Even more recently, seven other music publishers have sued Spotify for the same violation.

The Gaudio/Bluewater suits accused Spotify’s practices being reminiscent of Napster, which caused Spotify to fire back with the outrageous claim that Spotify should not have to pay mechanical royalties to songwriters and music publishers at all. More realistically, Spotify has argued that copyright law does not define streaming and places the burden on the plaintiffs to show that Spotify is creating a “reproduction” and therefore required to pay mechanical royalties.

As I explained in my last article, 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. Spotify now argues that it is akin to other streaming services like Pandora, who only have to pay performance royalties. However, Spotify’s argument is flawed for several reasons.

  • First, Pandora and similar services online radio services are classified as non-interactive services because a user cannot choose to listen to a specific song on demand. This is similar to terrestrial radio, except it’s online instead of on the FM dial. In contrast, a Spotify user can choose and play any song the user wishes on demand, which makes Spotify an interactive service. Copyright law makes important distinctions between non-interactive and interactive services, and for the relevant purposes here, the most important difference is that non-interactive services are only required to pay performance royalties (as the use is only a performance, again, like terrestrial radio) and interactive services are required to pay both performance and mechanical royalties (because the nature of the technology actually consists of a reproduction of the data file in addition to the performance itself). Therefore, Spotify cannot rely on the requirements of a separately classified type of service when those requirements don’t apply to Spotify’s service.
  • Second, Spotify has previously stated that it “needs” mechanical rights as part of its operations and has argued in rate court proceedings to weigh in on what mechanical rate amounts it should have to pay. It is both hypocritical and faulty reasoning for Spotify to say it needs certain rights and subsequently argue the opposite.
  • Third, Spotify has previously settled the two class action lawsuits mentioned above in order to rectify its previous non-payment of mechanical royalties. Spotify’s excuse in these cases was that it was too difficult to pay everyone owed due to the lack of a comprehensive music industry database. Once again, Spotify previously accepted that it needed to pay mechanical royalties, but made excuses for its failure to do so, which is in direct opposition to its current claim that it does not need to pay mechanical royalties at all.
  • Fourth, the music industry has long ago come to a consensus that an interactive stream does require a mechanical license and there is evidence that Spotify actually does create reproductions of the files, specifically on users’ mobile phones.

While Spotify’s argument that a stream does not require a mechanical license was recently rejected in court, Spotify can still continue asserting that argument going forward. If a legal decision in Spotify’s favor set a precedent on this issue, it could mean massive losses of income to songwriters, music publishers, and the music industry as a whole. While there are several theories as to why Spotify has taken this approach, the simplest answer seems the most obvious – Spotify doesn’t want to pay. The scariest part of this whole situation is that with Spotify’s massive amount of funds, it has the power to continue litigating this issue with efforts to change the laws and practices of the industry to conform to its unwillingness to pay for the music it uses. It is unacceptable that Spotify has built its entire business on the usage of music content, but yet continually tries to get out of paying for the very content that sustains its customer base. Without music, there is no Spotify and it’s time Spotify stopped making excuses and started to value the music that built its 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 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).

1 2 3 4 5