This blog has been named one of the Top 10 Music Law Blogs by Feedspot! Thanks to Feedspot for the recognition.
Categories: Articles, Honors and Awards, Tags: best music law blog, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, lawyer, los angeles, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, the music industry lawyer, top music law blog
Categories: Honors and Awards, Music Industry, Tags: beverly hills, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, find a music attorney, hollywood, lawyer, los angeles, music, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, Super Lawyers, top attorney, top female attorney, Top Women Attorney, top women attorneys, top women lawyers, top women music attorneys, top women music lawyers
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.
Categories: Honors and Awards, Music Publishing, Tags: aimp, association of independent music publishers, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, los angeles, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishers, music publishing, Super Lawyers, Top Women Attorney, top women attorneys, top women lawyers, top women music attorneys, top women music lawyers, women in music, women in music industry
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.
Categories: Honors and Awards, Press, Tags: attorney, beverly hills, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, erin m. jacobson esq., female attorney, find a music attorney, lawyer, los angeles, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, Rising Star, southern California, Super Lawyers, top attorney, top female attorney, top woman music attorney, Top Women Attorney, top women attorneys, top women lawyers, top women music attorneys, top women music lawyers, woman attorney
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.
Categories: Articles, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music Industry, Music Industry Interviews, Music Publishing, Royalties, Streaming, Tags: acquisitions, ascap, BMG, bmi, consent decrees, copyright, copyright royalty board, CRB, David Israelite, department of justice, doj, EMI, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, forbes, Kobalt, mechanical rates, mechanical royalties, mechanicals, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music catalogs, music catalogue sales, music catalogues, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publisher, music publishers, music publishing, national music publisher's association, nmpa, performance rights, royalties, songs, spotify
By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.
This article was first posted on Forbes.com.
It’s been a year since I wrote about Music Industry Cases to Watch in 2017 and, unfortunately, not much has changed. Here’s an update on what’s happening in the music industry and what to keep an eye on for 2018.
The Department of Justice v. ASCAP and BMI
Background: I previously wrote about this issue here and here, and there hasn’t been much forward movement. To briefly recap, performance rights organizations ASCAP and BMI asked the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) — which oversees the consent decrees governing ASCAP and BMI — to reform the decrees based on today’s digital age. The DOJ responded by ignoring the music industry’s requests for reform and instead mandating a model of 100% licensing, which restricts a performance rights organization to license rights to perform a work only if the organization has the right to license 100% of that work. BMI appealed the decision and got an immediate verdict in BMI’s favor. The DOJ appealed and oral arguments on the case were just heard. (More info here as well.)
What You Might Expect: It could go either way.
How It Could Affect the Industry: If the DOJ wins, then the music industry might need to change its business model and overhaul all of its longstanding licensing practices. If ASCAP and BMI win, then the music industry will be able to proceed with doing business as it has been for decades and continue making efforts to improve the existing system.
Potential Reform of Royalty Rates by the Copyright Royalty Board
Background: As I previously explained here, the Copyright Royalty Board (“CRB”) held hearings to potentially update the mechanical royalty rates paid to songwriters and publishers for reproductions of compositions. The current mechanical royalty rates for physical products and digital downloads are 9.1¢ for compositions five minutes or less in length, and streaming rates are at fractions of a penny. The National Music Publisher’s Association argued for rate increases on behalf of songwriters and publishers, while digital service providers (like Google, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and Apple) offered alternative rate structures that may lower rates overall. The CRB recently raised some rates for master recording owners, but the determination on mechanical royalties has not yet been revealed.
What You Might Expect: Hopefully this first determination for master owners will predict a raise in mechanical royalties as well. Whether mechanical royalties are raised still remains to be seen, but any increases that are granted would probably not be enough to remedy the music industry’s struggle with the value gap. David Israelite, President and CEO of the National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA), graciously provided some exclusive quotes for this article, saying: “We are cautiously optimistic the CRB will return a rate structure that values appropriately the contribution of songwriters to digital music services. This is a very important decision as interactive streaming services become the dominant format for the enjoyment of music.”
How It Could Affect the Industry: If the CRB maintains or lowers the rates in favor of the digital service providers, the music industry would continue struggling with low rates of payment. If the CRB increases the rates, it would help the music industry’s cash flow issues, but probably still not support the music industry at the level it needs. Israelite also commented to us, “Regardless of the decision, the time has come for the government to get out of the business of setting rates for songwriters and to let the free market determine the value of songs.”
Many Lawsuits Against Spotify
Background: Spotify is an interactive streaming service required to pay both mechanical and performance royalties. As detailed here, Spotify has already agreed to several settlements for failure to properly pay mechanical royalties and has been sued several times for the same reason, with those cases still pending. Spotify made the argument that it shouldn’t have to pay mechanical royalties, despite previously admitting that it needed to do so.
What You Might Expect: Spotify’s argument is flawed in many ways, but their $16 billion valuation may hold some clout, or at least the funds to continue pushing their position. The music industry hopes to quash their arguments, but acknowledges that the lawsuits are just Band-Aids, and is striving to implement a more efficient system.
How It Could Affect the Industry: A legal decision set in Spotify’s favor could mean massive losses of income to songwriters, music publishers, and the music industry as a whole. Hopefully, the streaming giant and the music industry will find a way to work together for their mutual benefit.
Many Music Catalogues Being Sold
Background: It’s old news for music industry folks that a large number of record labels are owned by just a few major corporations. However, acquisitions of composition catalogues are now hitting the spotlight after traditionally not garnering much attention. The catalogue purchase and sale market is booming, and those of us in this space (like me) are regularly looking at either buying or selling catalogues, depending on who we are representing. Many music publishing companies are also raising a lot of money from outside investors in order to gobble up other substantial catalogues. There are even rumors of music publishing giant EMI for sale at a $3 billion valuation.
What You Might Expect: There will be a lot more of these deals happening in 2018.
What It Means for the Industry: The majors will continue to buy the indies, and the larger indies will buy competitors and smaller companies. The music publishing world might get smaller, but there will always be more copyrights to go around. The downside is that the investors coming in with the funds are usually not in the music industry, meaning that the music publishing industry may now have to answer to venture capitalists, which has been a problem for years with major record labels. The good news is that these non-industry investors will need current industry experts to manage the catalogues they have purchased, continuing jobs and revenue flows throughout the industry.
*This article does not constitute legal advice.
Special thanks to David Israelite, President and CEO of the National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA) for graciously providing quotes exclusive to this article.
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).
Categories: Interview, Tags: Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, legacy artists, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, wimn, women in music, women in music industry, women's international music network
The Women’s International Music Network interviewed me in their “Front and Center” profile.
Categories: Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Libraries, Speaking, Tags: attorney, composer, contract, copyright, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, find a music attorney, lawyer, los angeles, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music libraries, music library, music library contracts, music library deals, music licensing, music publishing, road rally, songwriter, speaking, sync, synch, synchronization, taxi
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!
Categories: Articles, Copyright, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Terminations, Tags: copyright, copyright terminations, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, find a music attorney, get copyrights back, heirs, inherit, lawyer, los angeles, music, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, reclaim copyrights, song catalogs, song catalogues, songs, songwriter, songwriter heir, terminations
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:
Who can terminate?
Some additional points that apply to terminations under both sections:
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.
Categories: Articles, Copyright, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Streaming, Tags: black keys, bluewater, bob gaudio, copyright, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, how much does spotify pay, lawyer, los angeles, lowery, mechanical royalties, mechanicals, music, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishers, music publishing, national music publisher's association, nmpa, performance, performance rights, rage against the machine, royalties, songwriter, spotify, spotify class actions, streaming, tom petty, weezer
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.
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).
Categories: Articles, Copyright, Film, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Performance, Royalties, Tags: ascap, bmi, copyright, direct performance, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, film, find a music attorney, internet, lawyer, los angeles, music, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishers, music publishing, netflix, performance, performance rights, placement, royalties, streaming, sync, synch, synchronization, tv, YouTube
By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.
A synchronization license is a license to use a composition in an audiovisual production. (A master use license is a synchronization license for the master recording.) A placement can be quite lucrative, but it’s important to understand how your music is being used. Here’s a basic overview of the main points in a synchronization license:
The licensor is the person who owns the music and giving permission for it to be used in the audiovisual project. The music publisher owns the composition and the record label owns the master recording. Independent musicians might own both.
The licensor’s information will also include the licensor’s ownership share of the composition or master that is the subject of the license. Also, the writers of the composition and their performance rights organization information will be listed.
This is the person receiving the permission to use the music in the audiovisual project. This is usually a production company, studio, or network.
Timing is how much of the song will be used in the audiovisual project; for example, it could be thirty seconds or an entire song.
This is basically how the music will be used. There are many different terms thrown around to designate the type of use, but without using a bunch of industry-specific terms, examples would be playing in the background, with or without people talking over it; a live performance; played on a radio; an opening or closing theme; or in the credits.
The territory covers where in the world can the music be used within the audiovisual project. This might be worldwide, for a specific country, or even a local area.
The term is for how long can the music be used within the audiovisual project. This might be in perpetuity or only for a specific length of time.
This is a big talking point because it includes the types of media in which the music can be used as part of the audiovisual project. This can include TV (and what types of channels), theatrical (movie theatres), film festivals, the Internet, all of these, or only some of these. The rights section also includes language about whether the music can only be used in the specific project itself, or also whether it can be included in promotions for the projects and if so, what types of promotions.
Everyone’s favorite topic, i.e. the fee you are getting paid for the use of your music! This is going to be a negotiated fee based on the type of use, popularity of the song, and other factors.
Direct performance rights are not present in every sync license, but are being seen more frequently. Basically, some licensees want to pay a buy-out fee of your performance royalties in an effort to move away from paying blanket license fees to the performance rights organizations (who would normally collect your performance royalties and pay those to you). One problem with this is that the licensees still have their blanket licenses with the performance rights organizations, so a buyout of performance royalties would leave you out of any income generated from performances over the amount of the buyout.
This is for your attorney to handle!
One should always have an experienced attorney look over any license you receive. Contact me if you have a license you need reviewed.
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.