James A. Rose

We've all heard a lot of talk (and you are reading blog posts from me) about the Orrin G. Hatch - Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act of 2018 ("MMA").  You perhaps know only what information I have published about rate appeals, Copyright Royalty Judges, and the Mechanical Licensing Collective.   But you DO know about your income from streaming services (and it probably is not much).  In an effort to help the real-life Nashville developing songwriter/recording artist, I set out to write this blog post to decipher the boilerplate contracts published on the TuneCore web site.  TuneCore is a site that smooths the path for creative people to sell music online, i.e. Spotify, iTunes, Tidal, and Google Play.   I printed the contracts and began to highlight contract points such as non-exclusivity, 100% of net income, statute of limitation for objecting to accounting statements, and responsibility for securing licenses from owners of musical compositi...

If you're in the music industry in Nashville, you likely have heard something about the appeals filed by Spotify, Amazon, and Pandora. And although you have heard plenty from strong activist organizations such as Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) regarding recent rate determinations, it is perfectly normal to wonder exactly what has been determined and why appeals have been filed.  A big part of the answer comes from a publication rarely read by most but full of information about a recent finalization of rate determinations by a vote of 2-1 from Copyright Royalty Judges. These judges are appointed by the Librarian of Congress, who must consult with the Register of Copyrights regarding such appointments. Decisions by the judges may be appealed (and, in this instance, are being appealed) to the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. These determined rates are for the payment of royalties for compulsory licenses. An owner of a copyright has th...

I get it. The intricacies of compulsory licensing are not as cool of a read as analyses of litigation and other subjects that an entertainment attorney might choose to write about. And the metrics of this blog reflect that. And yet I follow my train of thought from the last blog post on section 115 of the Copyright Act and encourage industry professionals to read on. The Music Modernization Act is now law. If songwriters, publishers, and artists want to get paid for their music, basic knowledge of licensing and how this new system works are essential. And so we go to blanket licensing. A digital music provider that qualifies for a compulsory license may obtain a blanket license through the mechanical licensing collective, also known as the MLC.  The MLC has not yet been put formally into place. A recent editorial in Billboard magazine frames the quest of the American Music Licensing Collective to have authorization to name directors. This ultimately will be decided by ...

This edition of the James Rose Blog About Law is focused on the general scope of compulsory licensing of sound recordings and the major changes that stemmed from the Music Modernization Act ("MMA") signed into law by President Trump in October of 2018. Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1978 is the statute for this short blog analysis.  Parts of it are already well known.  A compulsory license may be obtained only if the primary purpose is to distribute the musical work to the public for private use.  The sound recording must be fixed lawfully in a material object known in the legal world as a phonorecord with distribution authorized by the owner of the copyright before another person may obtain a compulsory license. An important component of the MMA is the requirements of record keeping.  The copyright owner must  identify himself or herself in a registration or other public records of the copyright office.  This is an important point of detail f...