Call NowBook Now

Tag Archives: streaming

by

How Amazon’s Twitch.tv Cheats Music Creators

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Copyright, Infringement, Legal Issues, Music, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Performance, Record Labels, Royalties, Streaming, Videos, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

This article was originally posted on Forbes.com.

Music creators (songwriters and performing artists) and rights’ owners (music publishers and record labels) are not collecting a new and substantial source of income – and most of them are not aware they are not collecting it. Enter Twitch, the website exploiting creators and owners without paying for a single cent of music usage.

What is Twitch

Twitch, a subsidiary of Amazon, is a live-streaming video platform that has “over two million broadcasters and 15 million daily active users.” Anyone can become a Twitch “broadcaster,” meaning users set up their own channels and live-stream various content, which includes, but is not limited to, video-game play, card games, pranks, craft tutorials and more.

The broadcasts start out as live streams and are saved on the channel for re-broadcasts and on-demand watching. Watching videos and channels on Twitch is free and publicly accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. Anyone can become a Twitch broadcaster for free and earn money directly from viewers. Broadcasters that contract with Twitch to become a partner or affiliate will earn money from Twitch directly, as well as from viewers. All revenue streams are described in the next two sections.

Income Earned by Twitch and Twitch Partners/Affiliates

  1. Ad Revenue: Twitch serves ads on all video content, which includes video-on-demand and pre-rolls, and collects ad revenue from showing these ads.
  2. Subscriptions: Viewers can subscribe to a particular broadcaster’s channel at pricing tiers of $4.99, $9.99, and $24.99, with these charges recurring monthly.These subscriptions allow viewers to support broadcasters and use special emotes (chat icons like emojis) that are accessible only to subscribers of a particular broadcaster’s channel.
  3. Bits: Viewers can contribute “bits” to a broadcaster during a stream. Bits are a digital currency within Twitch bought by users for real money, and contributing these bits to a broadcaster is basically like adding money to that broadcaster’s tip jar.
  4. Amazon Prime: Because Twitch is owned by Amazon, Prime members can use “tokens” from their Prime membership to subscribe to broadcaster channels on Twitch. Tokens renew every month, so a Prime member can re-subscribe to a broadcaster’s channel on a monthly basis using Prime tokens.

Twitch and the broadcaster split all income from subscriptions, bits, and Prime tokens, usually on at least a 50/50 basis.

Income Earned Directly by Broadcasters

  1. Donations:Viewers can contribute money directly to a broadcaster through third party services like StreamLabs, Muxy or StreamElements without buying bits.
  2. Media Share: Viewers can make “media share requests” through StreamLabsand StreamElements, meaning viewers can request a broadcaster to play a certain song, YouTube video, or other media within a live stream (hereinafter “Media Share(s)”). Prices for Media Shares are set by the broadcaster, and some broadcasters will start their pricing at $5 per request.

A Twitch Broadcaster’s Earnings

Twitch’s most popular broadcaster is 26-year old Tyler Blevins, known on Twitch as “Ninja.” Ninja reportedly earns over $500,000 per month on Twitch revenue alone, not counting his recent sponsorship deals by Red Bull and Uber. A recent Forbes article reported Ninja’s earnings calculation: “160,000 subscribers at a higher $3.50 rate per sub means he’s pulling in $560,000 a month from that revenue stream alone. Not counting Twitch bits. Not counting donations. Not counting 4 million YouTube subscribers.”

Ninja and most other broadcasters also use music in their streams. None of this music is licensed and none of this money is going to the music creators or rights’ owners.

Music Licenses Required

Platforms with user-generated audiovisual content require performance licenses for the compositions from performance rights organizations ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR. Music users must obtain synchronization and master use licenses from the music publishers and record labels, respectively, along with paying negotiated fees to “synchronize” the audio with the visual elements. Also, rights’ owners may share in ad revenue in addition to or in lieu of those fees.

It should also be considered whether a broadcaster who repeatedly uses a particular song as a theme song or channel staple (like when Ninja does a victory dance at every game win to the song, “Pon Pon Pon”, performed by Kyary Pamyu Pamyu) is implying an association with or (false) endorsement by an artist, similar to when political candidates use certain songs in their campaigns.

How Music Rights are Being Violated

First, there is no evidence that Twitch has valid performance licenses in place from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or GMR (although they may be working on it). Therefore, Twitch is not paying for the repeated performances of music to audiences of millions.

Second, it is not known that any broadcaster using music on Twitch obtains synchronization or master use licenses, or pays any fees for the use of music. Also, neither Twitch nor the broadcasters are sharing ad revenue with rights’ owners.

Third, Twitch does not have its own content ID system like YouTube to track and claim uses of music. Twitch leverages Audible Magic to track audio uses after a live stream is over and will mute infringing content in the on-demand re-broadcasts, but not all content is recognized and removed. Also, there is no system to flag these infringing uses or mute them during a live stream.

All of the money earned by Twitch and its partner/affiliate broadcasters for subscriptions, bits, and Prime membership is retained entirely by Twitch and its partners/affiliates, and money earned from donations and Media Share song requests is kept entirely by the broadcasters. None of these funds are allocated to music creators and rights’ owners whose music is being used in these broadcasts.

Current State of Affairs

On June 22, 2018, the Twitch community received a shock when a group of its most popular broadcasters were banned from Twitch for playing a leaked version of a new song by rapper Juice Wrld that was initiated via Media Share song requests. Interscope Records issued DMCA takedown notices, and per Twitch policy, each infringer was banned for 24-hours.

This incident has shed a light on the use of uncleared music by Twitch broadcasters, but many have either continued with playing uncleared content or will not include certain music in the broadcasts. Ninja has turned off music content so he can then repost videos to YouTube in order to avoid YouTube claims by rights’ owners and keep his YouTube ad revenue. Ninja has publicly stated, “I’ve already reached out about getting rights to music … you can still get screwed over for playing music that doesn’t belong to you. … It’s such a nightmare, that it’s just not worth it.”

Interscope later supposedly stated the DMCA takedowns were an accident and Juice Wrld apologized to the Twitch broadcasters, saying “I will do what I can to prevent it from happening again.”

The National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA) is rumored to be in negotiations with Twitch for licensing, but has not confirmed or commented as to the details.

Furthermore, Twitch isn’t the only site on the market. There are other, similar sites such as Mixer (owned by Microsoft), Facebook Gaming, YouTube Gaming, and Caffeine. There are also other music-centric sites, like Smule, using music in audiovisual content purportedly without permission or payment. More of these websites, as well as phone apps, with user-generated content, continue to emerge and the rate at which more new platforms are introduced is unlikely to slow due to the prevalence of streaming.

The Real Problems

First, rights’ owners are not enforcing their rights and making sure they receive payment for uses of their content. As stated at the beginning of this article, many creators and rights’ owners do not even know about these infringements. Those rights owners’ that are aware, like Interscope, have allowed the rumors of “accidental” takedowns to be the last word on the subject instead of taking a stand to protect their rights.

Second, Juice Wrld is an example of at least one artist condoning the Twitch broadcasters’ unauthorized use of his work instead of getting paid. Artists and songwriters can and should benefit from these uses, and condoning the infringing behavior allows for more of it, as well as a further loss of income to the creators and rights’ owners.

Third, streamers are often ignorant of how to obtain permission. Noah Downs, a video game lawyer at McDonald, Sutton & DuVal in Richmond, VA observes, “Some broadcasters reach out to artists directly, thinking that if the artist tweets ‘Sure, use my music!’ then it must be okay to use. It does not matter if a broadcaster has that kind of permission from the artist – generally the decision is up to the label.”

Fourth, many streamers feel entitled to play music without permission under the belief they are actually helping artists by giving them exposure. Famous artists and songs do not need free promotion from Twitch broadcasters – they are already famous. While exposure might be helpful for new artists to gain fans, it still doesn’t need to be for free.  For example, music service Pretzel Rocks and music company Monstercat have agreements with artists allowing music to be played legally on Twitch broadcasts with compensation being paid to the artists and songwriters.

In an ironic twist, Twitch viewers and broadcasters frequently use and repurpose clips of other Twitch broadcasters’ content without permission. The broadcasters complain about this practice and will submit content claims when their content is used without permission, but they fail to realize that they are doing the same thing to music creators and rights’ owners. Downs agrees, stating, “In many ways, broadcasters and musical artists are the same, and both deserve to be paid fairly.”

The bottom line is that allcreators and rights’ owners need to be properly compensated for uses of their work. Rather than ignoring or condoning infringing behavior, creators and rights’ owners need to keep up with new uses of music and take a stand to protect the value of their music and their livelihoods.

It’s time creators stopped feeling entitled to steal from and deprive each other of the fruits of their labor. It’s time people realized that using music without permission or payment not only cheats the creator or performer, but also impacts everyone that works for them or with them. It’s time the culture of all creators shifts to one of respecting one’s own work enough to get paid for it and respecting the work of others enough to get the proper permissions and pay the proper compensation. It’s time that everyone gets serious about valuing music.

 

*This article does not constitute legal advice.

Click here to contact Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. if she can assist you in your career with this issue or other music industry issues. (Ms. Jacobson does not shop, litigate, or accept unsolicited material.)

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).

by

Sync Licenses Explained!

No comments yet

Categories: Articles, Copyright, Film, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Performance, Royalties, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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:

  1. Licensor

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.

  1. Licensee

This is the person receiving the permission to use the music in the audiovisual project. This is usually a production company, studio, or network.

  1. Timing

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.

  1. Type of Use

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.

  1. Territory

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.

  1. Term

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.

  1. Media

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.

  1. Money

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.

  1. Direct Performance

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.

  1. Some legal language

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.

by

This Trial Will Determine Songwriters’ Income Over the Next 5 Years

No comments yet

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

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

This article was originally posted on Forbes.com.

When a song has millions of streams on Spotify and views on YouTube, most people think “Wow, that artist must be making a ton of money!” It’s easy to make that assumption when music superstars are seen on television wearing designer clothing and leaving the hottest nightclubs in town, only to drive away in their Bentley to charter a private plane to their yacht.

What most people don’t realize is that the above is 1) often an image, 2) accessible to only a small number of music creators within the music business, and 3) there are songwriters who wrote those hit songs and the music publishers that represent those songwriters who are earning a mere $10 per 1 million Pandora streams.

Here’s how the structure works. A songwriter writes a composition, which is usually owned or co-owned by a music publisher, a company that handles the management, exploitation and royalty collection for that composition. The music publisher and songwriter split the income from that composition. The main royalties paid for a composition are mechanical royalties for the reproduction of that composition on CDs and via digital means on iTunes and streaming services, and performance royalties paid when a composition is performed in public. Synchronization fees come into play when a composition is used in television or film, but that is a negotiated contract fee separate from a royalty.

While performance royalties have recently been in dispute, this article focuses on mechanical royalties. Mechanical rates are set by the United States government, specifically by a panel of judges called the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). The CRB determines the royalty rates paid to songwriters and music publishers for every sale of a composition via CD or digital service like iTunes, as well as every time that composition is streamed on services like Spotify, Pandora, etc. The current mechanical rates are 9.1¢ for a sale (split by the music publisher and the songwriter), and streaming mechanicals are fractions of a cent per play.

This month, the CRB has opened hearings to set new mechanical royalty rates, which will be in effect from 2018 through 2022. The CRB will hear testimony from both music creators and music users and will make its decision in December 2017.

While this trial may not be hot news for anyone outside of the music industry, it will determine the amount of money music creators can earn for the next five years.

The music users’ side includes representatives from digital giants like Google, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and Apple. These companies are lobbying to further decrease the royalties paid to music creators. For example, Apple wants to pay a flat fee of 9.1¢ per every 100 streams on Apple Music. Companies like Google, Amazon and Apple make billions of dollars per year, and Spotify and Pandora are not profitable but have billions invested in them, yet not one of these companies is willing to allocate more money towards the people that create the music on which they have built their businesses. It is also worth noting that not only have these companies built their business models on music but also are using music to promote their services, such as Amazon using free music streaming to sell Prime subscriptions.

The National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA) and Nashville Songwriter’s Association (NSAI) are representing music publishers and songwriters at the CRB hearings. “[Tech companies are] creating new ways to distribute music [and] they are also fighting in this trial to pay as little to songwriters for the songs that drive their businesses,” wrote David Israelite, president and CEO of NMPA in a letter to songwriters. “[A] rate structure that allows global tech companies to build their empires on the backs of songwriters, without providing those songwriters with fair compensation, is unsustainable.”

The NMPA has issued an open letter to the digital giant companies, urging them to work with songwriters and music publishers instead of fighting against them. The letter is accompanied by a petition, which has already received over 7,800 signatures.

As I have previously written, the music industry will continue to wither without fair compensation to its creators and those that represent them. Creators of music are not all rich superstars. They are regular people with amazing talents to create music that impacts lives around the world. They are people with families and mortgages and bills to pay. They may not work a 9-5 office job, but that doesn’t make them different than the average American, who earns money from a job, and why shouldn’t songwriters and their representatives earn as well?

*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.

by

Ways The Music Industry Can Change For The Better

No comments yet

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

By:  Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

2016 saw a lot of lawsuits and lobbying in regards to changes in the music industry. Here are a few major issues that need to be resolved in 2017 and beyond to help sustain the music business.

Higher rates for streaming and YouTube views

The rates creators and rights owners earn from streaming and views are currently fractions of pennies. A songwriter or rights owner needs to see millions of streams/views to make any substantial income from this revenue stream. Streaming services and YouTube are the biggest platforms for consumers to listen to music, but those that make music are not able to make a sustainable living solely off income from those sources. The rates need to be higher so that those who create music for a living are actually able to earn a living.

Music publishers need to be paid more

In a similar vein, music publishers earn less than record labels from YouTube, Spotify, and other streaming and digital services. There is no music – and no recordings to be made of music — without the creation of a musical composition first. When music publishers are paid less than record labels, not only are music publishers earning less, but the songwriters signed to those companies are earning less. If songwriters cannot make a living writing songs, then songwriting will become a hobby instead of a career.

Even though labels are making more than music publishers, the amount that the artists make is still substantially small due to the contractual terms with the labels. Again, the artists bringing songs to life are not making sufficient money based on their performances and interpretations of songs, and they will not be able to sustain a career that is financially inadequate. Creators need to be properly compensated and this should be recognized by anyone who values music in their life.

Support for fractional licensing within the music industry

The music industry has always operated on a fractional licensing basis where each writer or that writer’s representative controls the respective shares of the songs that writer has written. This model was threatened in 2016 by the Department of Justice that mandated performance rights organizations ASCAP and BMI move to a 100% licensing model, thereby potentially making millions of songs unlicenseable. BMI sued the DOJ and won, but the DOJ has appealed the decision and the outcome is pending. An upheaval of the fractional licensing model would wreak havoc on the music industry and cause creators and creators’ representatives, both within the US and abroad, to be compensated even less than they are now, or make their works unlicensable. This is an unacceptable solution and would be a massive blow to not only creators, but to the music business as a whole.

Cooperation between the law and the internet

When the copyright law was last written in 1976, the internet was not used by the public let alone as a way to consume music. Therefore all user-generated content websites, including YouTube, etc. are operating in a way not contemplated by the law when it was first written. The law needs to be updated to address how works can be licensed in a way that cooperates with the digital world while fairly compensating those who create the works being used. There also needs to be a better way to deal with online infringements. Most online infringements are dealt with via DMCA (another area of law needing reform) takedown notices, although YouTube is now allowing content owners to share in revenue from infringing videos through their content management system. Again, the amount of money shared in this scenarios is so small that it is not a sustainable model and goes back to the need for increased rates.

Consumers need to learn to value music

On a daily basis I am confronted with people who want to use music but don’t want to pay for it. They argue that they should be able to use the music for free because the writer or artist will make money on the backend from sales or promotion. However, that backend money is usually never earned as promised and results in the artist or writer allowing the use of his/her music for free. Companies want to pay less and keep the lion’s share of income for themselves, which again creates a problem for creators trying to live off making music.

Internet companies and radio make millions and sometimes billions of dollars per year, and they continue to lobby to be able to use music freely or at least pay less for it, as well as to loosen copyright laws. Many of these platforms have built their business on using music as their main commodity; yet they don’t want to pay for the music that is the central product of their business model. All of the performance rights organizations (most recently GMR) have been fighting with radio and other services to command higher rates for their members and affiliates, but they consistently get pushback from licensees that don’t want to pay. This problem doesn’t stop at the digital realm, as film and television companies also regularly try to offer low fees to use music in their productions.

When one thinks back on their life, usually there are certain songs that evoke certain memories, that were important at a specific life event, or that got one through a hard time. Couples usually designate at least one song as “their song.” Certain scenes in films and television shows would not come to life without the use of a particular song being used in that scene. Certain artists and albums serve as the soundtracks of people’s lives. Imagine if all of those memories were taken away because artists and songwriters could no longer have careers making music because they were not paid enough to make a living. Most people wouldn’t go into a store a take a piece of clothing or a table without paying for it, yet those same people think it is okay to take music for free. Most people would not think to ask if they could pay their doctor fractions of his fee because they can, yet people keep offering lower payments for using music. Music has value. Those that use or consume music need to recognize that value, or watch the quality and prevalence of music disappear from their lives.

*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

New Video: How Much Do Artists Earn from Spotify?

No comments yet

Categories: Royalties, Streaming, Videos, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I talk about the numbers.

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

How Much Do Artists Really Earn Online?

No comments yet

Categories: Business, Music Industry, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ever wonder how much artists really earn from those millions of streams on Spotify?  Ever wonder how much you as an independent artist need to sell or stream in order to make a living off of your music?  Wonder no more:

IIB_Musicians_2015_final

This lovely graphic and data is from Information is Beautiful.  For more information on the numbers, visit the findings.