THE COPYKAT

US Copyright Law Applies to the Content Created Overseas

Can the US copyright law apply to the content which although created overseas is made available to the US viewers in violation of the rights of the US rightholders? That was the question the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Has recently faced in the dispute between Spanski Enterprises v. Telewizja Polska.

The case which is in them making for over two decades concerns Poland’s public national broadcaster, Telewizja Polska (TVP), granting an exclusive right to Spanski Enterprise (SEI), a Canadian company, to distribute TVP’s content in North and South America for the period of 25 years. It was agreed between the parties that TVP will use geo-blocking technology for its streamed content on the VOD platform, in order to protect SEI’s exclusive licence to share the content on the US soil. Nevertheless, SEI has discovered that the programmes still could be streamed in one of their US offices in New York as the geo-location technology was allegedly disabled. At the first instance, the US District Court for the District of Columbia held in December 2016 that SEI’s exclusive right of public performance has been violated and awarded damages of $3.06 million against TVP. 

TVP in its appeal claimed that “[a]cts committed abroad, even if they would be actionable if performed in the U.S., cannot form the basis for a U.S. copyright infringement suit” and that the US Copyright Law does not apply extraterritorially. Contrary, the US Government in its amicus brief has submitted that “a copyright owner’s exclusive right to control the public performance of the work in the United States is infringed just as clearly when the transmission comprising the unauthorized performance originates overseas”.  In its view the liability should be imposed on TVP despite the performances being initiated abroad, as the events occurred in the US and the unauthorised performances were addressed towards the American public.  

The case is important from the perspective of the US Government as it “implicates the ability of the Department of Justice to prosecute large-scale criminal piracy of copyrighted works by entities located abroad that stream copyrighted works over the Internet to viewers in the United States”. TVP has also raised a second argument saying that “the company may be held liable for direct copyright infringement only if its conduct was ‘volitional’”. Given that TVP has owned the copyright in its content which has been lawfully uploaded to its VOD platform, according to them there was no such conduct. 

The Court of Appeals in its judgment has rejected TVP’s appeal confirming that the automated services, where the user selects the content to view (here VOD platform) are not protected from liability in such cases. According to Circuit Judge Tatel “Congress had good reason to allow domestic copyright holders to enforce their rights against foreign broadcasters who direct infringing performances” into the US territory. Furthermore, with the ease of internet transmission across the world, lack of protection of copyright holders would enable widespread infringement “rendering copyright in works capable of online transmission largely nugatory”.

Football and Music Right Holders were the Most Frequent Claimants in the High Court in 2017

The new research published by RPC shows that music and football right holders bring the most cases to the London's High Court. The rise in the number of claims is a result of rightholders aiming to fight illegal streaming on the internet. The most frequent Claimant in 2017 was PPL (Phonographic Performance Limited), which has brought 88 cases to the High Court. The second most active claimant was Football Association bringing the total amount of 36 cases. Among the top 10 claimants filing the copyright cases are also Sky and BT with 12 and 11 cases respectively. As noted by Paul Joseph, Partner and Editor of RPC’s Copyright Guide “[p]rotecting copyright continues to be a top priority for those holding the rights to music and football.” Given that “the value of football broadcast rights has ballooned over the last two decades, so has the importance to rights holders of protecting their intellectual property.” Football rightholders are now more encouraged to go to the Court following a successful claim in Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 480, where Arnold J has granted an order to requiring six major internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to streaming servers giving unauthorised access to copyright footage. [as previously reported on IPKat]

With the Internet changing the traditional business model in music industry, it also became important for the rightsholders to pursue “any possible source of revenue from businesses using their material”. Therefore, it is more common for music rightsholders to litigate, in order to maximise their revenues from the copyrighted materials. By filing a number of claims to the High Court, football and music industry companies must hope that their actions will deter potential infringers.  

Belgian Rightholder and ISPs Cooperate in Blocking Websites Infringing Copyright

The process of a group of rightholders applying to the Court for orders requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to the websites infringing copyright has also been widespread in other parts of Europe. Knowing that the process requires both parties to spend a lot of money and with the knowledge that injunctions requiring ISPs to block websites infringing content are now more likely to be granted in the European courts, recently rightholders and ISPs decided to take collaborative approach. Belgian Entertainment Association (BEA) and ISPs Proximus, Telenet and VOO in order to avoid complex and costly legal proceedings have decided to jointly present a list of 33 websites and 450 domain names to a judge, together with claims that “they facilitate the illegal downloading of copyrighted material”. With the possibility given in the European legislation to the national judges to order injunctions requiring ISPs to block access the Commercial Court of Brussels will now assess the list of sites and domains “to determine whether they’re acting illegally”. As explained by Benoît Michaux, lawyer for the Belgian Entertainment Association, this “joint request is a little unusual, things are changing, there is a certain maturation of minds, we realize, from all sides, that we must tackle the problem of piracy by blocking measures. There is a common vision on what to do and how to handle piracy”. As reported by L’Echo with potential concerns of ISPs of possible breach of E-Commerce Directive, ISPs are not willing to take any action against websites without any order from the Court. The Court is expected to render its judgment within a month.

They want you, they want you, 

They want you as a new recruit

US Navy Sued for Copyright Infringement

Bitmanagement, German software company, has brought a claim against US Government in connection with the US Navy installing its software on hundreds of devices without obtaining the necessary licence and therefore infringing their copyright: As reported by Torrentfreak, in 2011 and 2012 the US Navy initially bought licences of 3D virtual reality application for the use on 38 devices. However, as it was soon discovered the application was installed on 100,000 devices without any additional compensation.

Following its Federal Claims Court complaint, Bitmanagement  found out that the number of computes on which software has been installed amounted to at least 429,604. Therefore, after both parties have conducted discovery, Germany software company has requested for partial summary judgment against the US Government for copyright infringement. As stated by the company in their motion “it became clear that the Navy had no intention to pay Bitmanagement for the software it had copied without authorization, as it declined to execute any license on a scale commensurate with what it took”. In response, the US Government claimed that it bought concurrent-use licences that allowed them to install the software across the Navy network and that the authorisation was implied. Both arguments were however rejected by Bitmanagement. The damages according to the software company can amount up to $600 million.

Miley Cyrus Sued for $300 million for Copyright Infringement in her ‘We Can’t Stop’ Song

A Jamaican songwriter Michel May (performing as Flourgon) has brought a $300 million claim against Miley Cyrus for infringement, alleging that her 2013 song ‘We Can’t Stop’ [listen here] too closely resembles a song that he released in 1988 and was a No 1 in Jamaica ‘We Run Things’ [listen here].  According to May about 50 percent of Cyrus’ song comes from his ‘We Run Things’ hit. He claims that Cyrus and RCA Record have misappropriated his material by using the phrase “We run things. Things no run we,” which she sings as “We run things. Things don’t run we.”. Additionally, in his view Cyrus’ hit “owes the basis of its chart-topping popularity to and its highly-lucrative success to plaintiff May’s protected, unique, creative and original content.” Apart from seeking damages, ‘Flourgon’ in his complaint filed with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan also requested the Court to a halt to further sales and performances of 'We Can’t Stop’. In the wake of the Blurred Lines decision, and the more recent Taylor Swift decision over the alleged copying in the lyrics of 'Shake It Off', this could be one to watch. 

This CopyKat by Mateusz Rachubka 

THE COPYKAT

Safe as houses?

A new children’s book “Silent Days, Silent Dreams,” is billed as a fictional biography about James Castle, a self-taught artist whose works can be found in museums, art galleries and private collections all over the world. Written for children, the book contains about 150 illustrations by award-winning writer and illustrator Allen Say - but are those illustrations going to cause problems? They might do as the James Castle Collection and Archive (which has the largest privately held collection of Castle’s works) is suing Say and his publisher for copyright infringement in Boise federal court, alleging that many of Say’s illustrations “are intended to evoke and imitate the artistic style of James Castle but some two dozen of the illustrations “are far more than a tribute” and are “similar if not virtually identical copies” of Castle’s work (see left). An injunction is being sought. 

What a difference a decade makes! China's "core network copyright industry" has seen rapid growth over the past ten years, according to a recent industry report. In 2016, the scale of the industry exceeded 500 billion yuan (about $76.5 billion U.S. dollars), maintaining a growth rate of over 30 percent a year, according to a report by the country's Network Copyright Industry Research Centre. In 2006, the volume of the industry was just 16 billion yuan, the report said. The report focuses on China's "network industry," described as network gaming and online content, including video and music. Researcher Tian Xiaojun said "With the continuous increase of copyright protection in China and the upgrade of domestic consumption, China's network copyright industry will have huge market potential and is expected to contribute more to the country's economy growth".

Mike Palmedo and Sean Flynn have released the initial results of research based on  the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property of the American University Washington College of Law's Copyright User Rights Database. This research tool maps changes to copyright limitations and exceptions and other “user rights” from 1970 through 2016 in 21 countries of different development levels around the World. Palmedo and Flynn intend to continue adding data from additional countries, but feel that the current data allows us to begin demonstrating how differences in copyright user rights are associated with certain outcomes for innovative firms and researchers. The first results are based on tests of copyright limitation openness and although all countries are trending toward more open user rights, there is a clear gap between wealthy and developing countries. The research shows that developing countries in the sample are now at the level of openness that existed in the wealthy countries 30 years ago. Few countries, and almost no developing countries, have sufficient user rights most needed to support the digital economy, including for transformative use or text and datamining. The authors say "To date, there has been very little empirical work exploring how the structure of copyright limitations and other user rights shape outcomes in industries that rely upon them. One reason for this lack of empirical research on the impact of copyright user rights has been the absence of a tool to measure the key independent variable – changes in copyright user rights over time among a broad set of countries. We hope other researchers will find the Copyright User Rights database to be a useful tool for further empirical research on copyright user rights". More here. 

Last week, Motherboard discovered that one of Google's machine learning algorithms was biased against certain racial and religious groups, as well as LGBT people. The Cloud Natural Language API analyzes paragraphs of text and then determines whether they have a positive or negative "sentiment." The algorithm rated statements like "I'm a homosexual," and "I'm a gay black woman," as negative. After the story ran, Google apologised. Now Motherboard are posing the conundrum: "Copyright Law Makes Artificial Intelligence Bias Worse - But it could be used to help fix the problem too" adding "Copyright law has historically exacerbated bias in artificially intelligent algorithms, but it also has the capability to vastly improve them. If companies knew they were protected legally, they would also be more likely to release the data their products were trained on, allowing academics and journalists to do their jobs."

Broadcaster ESPN have been forced to face a trial that alleges copyright infringement after a Mississippi federal judge denied the sports giant's motion for summary judgment. The dispute centers on two documentaries about the life of college football player Chucky Mullins, who was paralyzed during a 1989 game between University of Mississippi and Vanderbilt University while tackling Brad Gaines. Mullins died as a result of complications from his injuries in 1991. Charles Smith Jr. and his production company 38 Films us now suing ESPN and others for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and copyright infringement, among other claims. They say the 2014 ESPN documentary "It's Time: The Story of Brad Gaines and Chucky Mullins" used his footage without paying an orally agreed upon license fee or giving appropriate credit. Smith claims he understood the ESPN documentary to be about Gaines and he agreed in an oral contract to license footage from his film at a rate of $3,000 per minute used and Ginn gave Yamano their entire archive of digital files. Meanwhile, the defendants say their film is about Gaines, not Mullins, and that they didn't use any footage actually featured in Undefeated or owned by 38 Films.

And news of developments in the legal battle going between photographer Jon Tannen and the giant online media company CBS. After being sued by the photographer for infringing his photo copyrights, CBS has responded by filing its own copyright infringement lawsuit against the photographer… for sharing 59-year-old TV show still frames on social media. More here.  This is the second time the photographer has accused CBS Interactive's 247 Sports senior writer Alex Gleitman of misusing photos in his articles, initially tweeting "To Alex Gleitman. You're violating copyright law. Photo Jon Tannen" and "@Alex Gleitman You've used my photos illegally again. REMOVE THEM NOW. Never asked by permission. Your own logo.Are you stupid? @jtanne". Glietman responded by saying that he has been give the images by the player featured, and had subsequently added a credit. 

And talking of all things American Football and copyright, Eleonora Rosati has posed the question "Can a tweet containing an unlicensed photograph amount to a copyright infringement by the person who embeds such tweet on their own site?" on the IPKat. European readers will of course be familiar with the less than clear judgments in BestWater and subsequent case law, notably GS Media - and in Europe, linking can fall within the scope of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive, although different considerations must be undertaken depending on the case at issue, including whether the link provider is aware of the unlicensed character of the content linked to and/or pursues a profit.  This very question is now being asked in the US, where a photographer working with Getty Images has raised issues of linking and copyright under US law: Justin Goldman, has sued a number of publishers over the unauthorised embedding, by their relevant publications, of a tweet containing an unlicensed image of American football quarterback Tom Brady that he had taken. Images from http://maxpixel.freegreatpicture.com/Sport-Quarterback-American-Football-Competition-67701/ 

Google is fighting on in the Equustek case, now in the US. Readers will remember that the Canadian Supreme Court in Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34 affirmed a decision from the Supreme Court in British Columbia and ordered Google to delist a tech company’s entire website worldwide. The web giant has now told a Californian court that that the ruling conflics with the freedom of expression rights contained within the First Amendment, and that the Canadian Supreme Court had no right meddling with the American constitution.  Google’s lawyer Margaret Caruso said “This is about whether a trial court in a foreign country can implement a law that is violative of the core values of this country … imagine if we got an order from North Korea that said we could not publish anything critical of Dear Leader. Imagine if Russia doesn’t like what people are saying about Putin. It would be very dangerous to deny relief in this instance”. Courthouse News says "Underscoring the bizarre nature of the proceedings, no attorneys for Equustek Solutions or the Canadian court system showed up, allowing Caruso to state her case to U.S. District Judge Edward Davila unopposed."

And finally, CMU Daily reports that "According to law firm RPC, the three leading claimants in the [UK's] High Court in the year up to 31 Mar 2017 were all in the business of copyright. And two of them music copyright." Leading the way with 106 cases to court was the UK's recorded music collecting society PPL, while its counterpart in music publishing, PRS, came in third with 27 cases. The Football Association is in second place having filed 39 cases, mainly seeking to protect its intellectual property rights against those illegally accessing or airing footage of football matches.

Delhi High Court rules that three Indian collection societies must cease to issue licences

In a blow to three Indian music copyright collection societies, the Delhi High Court has restrained them from granting any such licence till April 24th 2017. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, in an interim order, restrained the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS), the Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) and Novex Communications Pvt Ltd from contravening section 33 of Copyright Act,  which provides that only registered societies can grant licences in respect of copyrighted work(s). 

In the order issued on the 23rd December the court ruled:

“Since the respondent 1 (Centre) and 2 (Copyright Office) have already initiated an inquiry and are taking action vis-a-vis the respondents 3 (PPL) and 4 (IPRS) and their stand is that neither of the three respondents, i.e 3, 4 and 5 (Novex) are registered in terms of section 33 of the Act, till the next date of hearing, respondents 3 to 5 are restrained from acting in contravention of section 33 of the Act..”. The  court listed the matter for a further hearing on April 24th.

In July 2015 The Delhi Organisers and Artists Society and the Mumbai based Organisers and Artists Welfare Trust said that the IPRS and PPL had been de-registered after the amendment to the Copyright Act in 2012 when it was laid down that any organisation had to re-apply for registration, which would be valid for five years. They also complained that IPRS had failed to make royalty payments to artistes.

The Event and Entertainment Management Association of India (EEMA) had filed a enquiry with the court, and EEMA said that iy had been working towards regularising and streamlining the music licensing regulatory framework for many years now. It has been engaged in a "long, slow but constant legal battle against the exploitation by the so called ‘Registered Copyright Societies’ who charge a ‘royalty’ for music played out at events." EEMA argued before the court that PPL and IPRS's registrations had lapsed in June 2013, and these had not been renewed, whilst Novex has never been registered as a copyright society.

Ankur Kalra, Secretary (Legal), EEMA, said, “The music licensing lobby (PPL / IPRS / Novex) has been engaged in illegal issuance of licences for over two years now and flouts all laws by openly threatening venues to stop events unless the licence is procured. Venues in turn pressurise event managers to do the same who despite knowing that it is wrong are forced to procure these licences to safeguard their events. The music licensing ‘societies’ today are private limited companies operating purely for profit and very little or no money actually reaches the artists. It has become an organised syndicate and when we highlighted the same to the court we got an injunction almost immediately. We will take this battle forward and ensure that all event managers, venues and police departments are educated on this matter.”

Abhishek Malhotra, Legal Counsel, EEMA, said, “The music industry has been going through a flux. While the law clearly provides that issue and grant of licences can be done only through a registered copyright society, these three entities have been effectively carrying on this business in violation of the clear legal provisions. This order as well as the government of India’s endorsement of the issues facing the users of music is a welcome development.”

The court also directed the Centre and the Copyright Office “to take action in accordance with law for any breach of provisions of section 33 by the respondents 3 to 5”. The Centre and the Copyright Office submitted that they have received complaints that PPL and IPRS were violating the Act and had already initiated an enquiry.

http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyright%20Societies.pdf

http://www.jantakareporter.com/india/music-copyright-hc-restrains-three-bodies-issuing-licences/88410/

http://www.bestmediainfo.com/2016/12/eema-gets-court-stay-against-music-licensing-societies/

http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz/music/representative-bodies/collection-royalty-iprs-and-ppl-illegal-says-artistes-and-organisers-delhi-and-mumbai

PRS and PPL lauch a new joint venture for public peformance licensing

In the United Kingdom, PRS for Music and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) have confirmed that, following a strategic review commenced in 2015, the two companies plan to create a joint venture. The new company, jointly and equally owned by PPL and PRS for Music, would focus on serving all PPL and PRS for Music UK public performance licensing customers for both music and sound recording rights. PPL is the music licensing company which works on behalf of record companies and performers to license recorded music played in public. PRS for Music represents the rights of over 115,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers in the UK. 

The two CMOs say that this will further streamline the experience for customers obtaining public performance licences, allowing them to secure a joint PPL and PRS for Music licence |"with a single phone call or a few clicks on the web, paid for with a single invoice." Over the coming months, PRS for Music and PPL will be undertaking the necessary preparatory work for the joint venture "Including engagement with regulators and other key stakeholders."

It is anticipated that the new company would start licensing in 2017, followed by a 12-month period during which the full transition of public performance licensing would be completed. It is likely that the new joint venture will be located in a UK city outside the M25.

Robert Ashcroft, Chief Executive, PRS for Music, said, “Creating a single point of contact for our UK public performance customers would allow us to significantly simplify music licensing for UK businesses. It is in our members’ and customers’ interests to ensure that our licensing is ever more accurate and efficient. A joint venture between our organisations would be a landmark event for both societies.”

Peter Leathem, CEO, PPL commented, “Both our organisations firmly believe that the proposed joint venture would be a very positive development for both our customers and our members, building on the successful joint licensing solutions and other joint working initiatives that PPL and PRS for Music have delivered over the last few years.”

For an interesing analysis of the cost efficiency of PRS and PPL see MBW here

Performers and the 20% Fund: it's all gone a bit quiet

"Musicians benefit from extended copyright term for sound recordings" was the grand and exciting title of a media release by the UK government's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Intellectual Property Office back in 2013 which read as follows:

Recorded performers will benefit from an extended length of copyright term for sound recordings and performers rights in sound recordings 

New rules introduced today (1 November 2013) will see recorded performers and musicians benefit from an extended length of copyright term for sound recordings and performers’ rights in sound recordings - increasing from 50 to 70 years.

The Copyright and Duration of Rights in Performances Regulations 2013 implement EU directive 2011/77/EU into UK law. Recorded performers and musicians will also benefit, after 50 years following publication of the sound recording, from some additional novel and innovative measures including:

• a ‘session fund’ paying many performers (such as session musicians) 20% of revenues from sales of their recordings [the '20% Fund']
• a ‘clean slate’ provision, whereby a producer may not make deductions from payments to performers (such as advances of royalties) from publication of a recording
• a ‘use it or lose it’ clause - which allows performers and musicians to claim back their performance rights in sound recordings if they are not being commercially exploited

The Minister for Intellectual Property, Lord Younger, said:

The new rules bring lasting benefits for our world class recording artists. These changes demonstrate the government’s ongoing commitment to, and support for, our creative industries - who are worth billions to our economy.

Artists who performed on sound recordings will benefit from this extension of copyright protection from 50 to 70 years. The changes should help ensure that musicians are rewarded for their creativity and hard work throughout their careers.

Jo Dipple, Chief Executive, UK Music said:

UK Music welcomes today’s announcement on extending the term of copyright for sound recordings. We are pleased that the government is implementing changes that acknowledge the importance of copyright to performers and record companies. This change will mean creators can rightfully continue to make a living from their intellectual property and works.

The directive also harmonises the length of copyright term for co-written works. The directive was approved by EU member states in September 2011 and the UK government has implemented the directive on time.

This blog has received an email from a concerned reader -- indeed a performer -- who reminds him that the task of administering UK performers' revenue arising from the copyright term extensions lies with the PPL (motto: "Standing Up For Music Rights") and that the first due date for the payment of monies by copyright owners to PPL for distribution to the Fund's beneficiaries --30 June 2015 -- has now passed. But there seem to be no details as to how the 20% Fund is to be administered and how monies are presumably to be collected from elsewhere in the European Union. PPL's own FAQs on copyright term extension don't run to that level of detail.

Musicians -- and particularly those who are not spring chickens -- are hoping to learn a bit more about the 20% Fund actually works. After all, where the performer of a work was 50 years old when the recording was made, his extra income will kick in when he is 100 years old. It might be helpful for him, though, if he could do his estate planning while he was still alive ...

The long and the short of it is that, if information is not available, it should be -- and if it is available, it isn't percolating through to musicians and other performers. If any readers can shed light on the situation, this blog and some of its elder and more venerable readers will be thrilled.

Additionally, non-UK readers may be able to share with us their own experiences as to how funds are collected and distributed in other EU Member States, which will have had to implement the same copyright extensions.

The CopyKat - A spliffing new case for Mr Prince!

Photographer Donald Graham has sent cease-and-desist letters to the 'appropriation' artist Richard Prince and the Gagosian Gallery, requesting that they stop displaying or disseminating any artworks or other materials that include Mr. Graham’s images. 1709 readers will remember Mr Prince from the 2013 U.S. case of Cariou v Prince where Mr Prince largely succeeded with his fair use defence after 'transforming' Mr Cariou's photographs of Rastafarians in Jamaica. The new complaint, which was first reported by the website Hyperallergic, stems from a work shown last Autumn at Gagosian in the exhibit “New Portraits” (see image) which featured ink jet prints of images that Mr. Prince had taken from Instagram. The work shows Mr. Graham’s photograph “Rastafarian Smoking a Joint, Jamaica” as it appeared on the Instagram feed of a third party, with the comment “Canal Zinian da lam jam” added by Mr. Prince as a caption. Yes, he added a caption to an Instagram grab. In Prince's earlier case, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit broadly supported Mr Prince's transformations, saying "Here, our observation of Prince's artworks themselves convinces us of the transformative nature of all but five, which we discuss separately below. These twenty-five of Prince's artworks manifest an entirely different aesthetic from Cariou's photographs. Where Cariou's serene and deliberately composed portraits and landscape photographs depict the natural beauty of Rastafarians and their surrounding environs, Prince's crude and jarring works, on the other hand, are hectic and provocative." Could the same apply on these facts? The CopyKat thinks not - but it's all good publicity! More on Artsbeat here. 

PPL, the UK collection society which licenses use of recorded music on behalf of performers and record companies, brought 230 High Court cases against operators of leisure establishments for alleged copyright infringements in 2014, an increase of 10% on last year, according to analysis by the City law firm RPC. As this Blog has previously noted, The Football Association Premier League also increased the number of High Court cases it launched in 2014. It brought 36 cases, compared with five in 2013, as FAPL and Sky focussed pubs allegedly infringing copyright by broadcasting matches without an appropriate licence. More here.

BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries accounted for only 5% of global copyright license revenue for authors and composers in 2013, according to a report from the International Confederation of Societies of Authors & Composers (CISAC). The CISAC Global Collections Report also quotes industry data estimating the Chinese advertising market as one of the fastest growing in the world. Advertising revenue is a key reference indicator in determining collective licensing tariffs. Much of the growth in advertising revenue comes from online advertising, with the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) separately reporting that China now has 649 million Internet subscribers.

Swedish songwriters have joined their UK counterparts in criticising the way in which the digital streaming pie is currently shared out, pointing out the unfair and unsustainable way in which royalties stemming from streaming services are being shared between different stakeholders - in particular the large share taken by record labels on their own behalf, and on behalf of recording artistes. Earlier this month Marty Bandier, head of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, used the Grammy's to argue that songwriters and publishers have been given an unpalatably small portion of the digital music pie, and the British Academy Of Songwriters, Composers And Authors (BASCA) launched a campaign called The Day The Music Died which stated that as the recorded music industry has shifted from CDs to downloads to streams, "songwriters and composers are now finding their livelihoods under dire threat". This view is now echoed by 133 Swedish writers who say the returns from the likes of Spotify and Deezer mean ""very few songwriters will be able to afford to create music other than as a hobby". CMU Daily estimated that in a typical business model, 30% of the income from subscription and advertising revenues are taken by the streaming service to cover non royalty costs, overheads and its own profit, record labels take 55-60% of gross revenues, leaving at the most 10-15% for songwriters and publishers - if that - with one report backed by CISAC saying the songwriting share can be as little as 3% and recommending upping the revenues shared by rights holders to 80% and rebalancing the shares taken for recorded music and the songs to an equal footing. More on the Guardian Blog by songwriter Helienne Lindvall and on potential US reforms here.

So what to do? Well here's a solution (maybe .......): Qtrax, which at one time looked like being a leader in the digital music market only to see its much lauded bubble, launched at the MIDEM conference in 2008, well and truly burst as the major labels refused to deal, is back!  Qtrax is an advert-supported music player that "for the first time allows the users to download, stream and create a personalised radio channel all from one place" - and, crucially, all for free - that is relaunching at the end of the quarter with the twin aims of cracking down on music piracy and - yes, here's the twist - ensuring artists get paid for their work.  The all new Qtrax will launch the Artist Manifesto and 30% of equity in the company will be set aside for an 'Artists Trust', while  an additional 10% of royalties will be paid directly to artists and songwriters whose content is available on the service with Qtrax boss Allan Klepfisz telling The Telegraph: "There is something very wrong with the current model. The current economic structure is not likely to ever compensate the artist... But it's not that difficult for a paradigm shift to occur. Traditionally the record companies get equity in digital services, but no one has asked on behalf of the artists. This could become a de facto way of doing business".

Is workplace music licencing 'double taxation'?

Back in September 2011 Jeremy posted a very interesting blog titled "two may be company but can one be a crowd?" - which attracted a wide range of comments from readers here - on how copyright should define the use of private radios in the workplace - and the interpretation put on the current legal provisions in the UK of the use of radios in public places by PPL and PRS, the UK's recorded music and music publishing collection societies.

Now Andrew Harrison, the boss of the RadioCentre, the trade body that represents the commercial radio sector, has called on the UK government to change the current regime so that those who listen to or provide radio services in public places do not need a an additional music licence beyond that already paid for by the broadcaster. Harrison was speaking at the Westminster Media Forum about government plans to review the Communications Act, and whilst his talk included pleas to de-regulate the radio sector and remove the current 'genre' licensing governing the music commercial radio stations can play, saying this was "a blunt instrument in an era of infinite music choice available through smartphones, downloads and streaming" , it was his comments on music licensing that caught my eye.

Harrison said his members felt there was now a "disproportionate cost to our business of copyright for licensing music in the digital age", and focussed on the fact that any business owner wanting to play the radio on their premises, even just for staff, needed their own (additional) licences from PPL and PRS, in what Harrison dubs "double taxation". An interesting battle could ensue - with the RadioCentre calling for a change in public performance licensing rules at a time when the collecting societies seem to be pushing more strongly than ever for workplace music licences.

You can download the speech in full here http://www.radiocentre.org/

The record labels vs the broadcasters - what’s phones got 2 do with it?

Here's a novel way to resolve a dispute between two parties. Ask the government to put an obligation on a third party to cure all your ills. The long-running dispute between US radio broadcasters and the recording industry over the royalties broadcasters should have to pay to use recorded music has taken an unexpected turn with a proposed settlement where a suggested new federal mandate would require all new mobile phones to come with a built-in FM radio chip. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has long been fighting any proposals that would require radio stations to pay royalties to record labels and performers for the right to play their sound recordings on the air. The US (unusually) has no current legal requirement for a royalty for the use of recordings for FM stations - although now in the US internet, cable and satellite radio services and stations do have to pay an equivalent of the UK’s PPL royalty: Broadcasters have long argued that airplay provides free promotion and drives music purchases and concert ticket sales.

The new idea is to push forward a proposed settlement that would establish a tiered system of royalty payments that would bring in a total of roughly $100 million for the music industry. Commercial radio stations with more than $1.25 million in annual revenue would pay royalties totalling 1 percent of revenue. The smallest commercial and not for profit stations would pay either 1 percent of revenue or $100 annually, whichever is less.

The prospect that the US government could dictate key design decisions for mobiles has alarmed electronics manufacturers as well as consumer groups, not least as many say they don’t actually want or need FM on their phones, that it is an outdated and redundant idea and that practical problems such as a second antenna, reduced battery life, additional weight and more bulk would be unattractive to consumers. Gary Shapiro, Presient of the Consumer Electronics Association said “Consumers clearly aren’t interested in (ad laden) FM radio on their mobile phones and other consumer gadgets - especially with the availability of Pandora, Slacker and other similar smartphone music apps that are now widely popular" adding the “backroom scheme” from the broadcasters and the labels to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, “is the height of absurdity” adding “Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace, NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do.”

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary Committees have passed bills that would give recording labels and artists a share of advertising revenue that the FM radio stations generate by playing their recordings, but neither of those contained a FM chip mandate. As both bills have stalled due to fierce broadcaster resistance, legislators asked the NAB and MusicFirst (for the labels and for recording artists) to try to negotiate a compromise. Hence the new mobile idea.

It seems that the parties are nowhere near concluding the deal despite optimism from the record labels with Recording Industry Association of America boss Mitch Bainwol saying that whilst “Nothing is locked down just yet" the parties were on "the precipice of an historic breakthrough”. Hmmmmmmmmm!

http://www.myce.com/news/riaa-broadcasters-want-fm-radio-mandatory-on-smartphones-33362/

PPL is behind Performance Rights Bill

Dominic McGonigal, Director of Government Relations, PPL has submitted the following post in response to earlier posts on this topic:

"Starting with a few inaccuracies, a previous post on this blog claims that PPL will be in a quandary if the USA introduces a broadcast right. On the contrary. A quick look at the facts reveals the opposite. PPL has been campaigning for a broadcast right in the USA from the start and will continue to the end.

It cannot be right that American, British or any other artist has their recordings used for free by American radio to create a $16bn industry. US radio stations have enjoyed a free ride for decades. It’s time now for fair play in the land of the free.

The lack of a broadcast right in the USA has had ripple effects beyond the States. It has meant that American artists have also lost out on overseas airplay royalties. But the picture is not straightforward. The failure of the USA to sign up fully to the international copyright treaties has produced anomalies as other countries have taken different approaches to this imbalance to international norms.

The UK’s approach has been to deny American performers rights to airplay royalties, but to allow sound recordings to be protected if they are released in a ‘Rome’ territory, in other words, most of the rest of the world where there is a broadcast right. In practice, US recordings are invariably released simultaneously (within 30 days) in a ‘Rome’ territory, generally Canada or the UK, and so gain protection. This means that US sound recordings are licensed by PPL for radio, but the American performers on those recordings do not get paid by PPL. Under UK legislation, the owner of the American sound recording is entitled to receive all the broadcast revenue for that recording so the PPL distribution goes direct to them.

Of course, all this will change when, we hope, the USA finally passes the Performance Rights Act. That will bring the USA up to international norms in the copyright treaties which will trigger reciprocal rights for American artists throughout the developed world. In the UK, American repertoire will be treated like any other, with revenue from a track split 50/50 between performers and record companies. For the first time, then, American artists on American recordings will be entitled to airplay royalties from PPL.

That is a fair result. Artists will get paid for their US airplay and American artists will finally benefit fully from their successes abroad – if their government passes the Performance Rights Act".