Friday, October 10, 2014

Why You Need a Better YouTube Strategy


I was recently honored to speak with an elite group of L.A.'s best business managers about how YouTube drives a recording artist's recoupment of video accounts and earnings.

According to a recent Viacom study, 91% of 13-40 year olds "listen to the song/watch the video on YouTube prior to purchasing."

Yet, YouTube cannibalizes record sales and it and Vevo - through which UMG and SONY take an extra cut - pay controversially low royalty rates.

Thus, whether independent or major, your clients are best served by a very thoughtful YouTube business strategy.

Here are four points I consider when helping business managers develop a YouTube financial plan for music clients:

Are you a business manager, attorney, personal manager or advisor?

Call me today at 
424.248.8866 to influence these and other key factors of your clients' financial success.


Sunday, October 5, 2014

Top 10 Items Last Week on LinkedIn and Twitter


Interested in music business news?  You should follow me on Twitter @Auditrix.

Interested in games or other IP rights?  You should follow me on Twitter @RoyaltyExpert.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Screenplay Prices: Q&A With Dinah Perez, Esq.


Entertainment lawyer Dinah Perez, Esq. wrote “The Legal 411 for Screenwriters,” section of the Hollywood Screenwriters Directory, available here.  In the Q&A below, Ms. Perez shares a bit of her vast expertise on the topic of screenplay purchase prices.  Many additional insights about screenplay rights and dealmaking can be found in her truly informative contributions to the Hollywood Screenwriters Directory.

Cedar Boschan: What is a standard purchase price for a screenplay?

Dinah Perez: There is no such thing as a "standard" purchase price for a screenplay. WGA members cannot accept less than the sum prescribed in the WGA Schedule of Minimums, but can exceed the minimum, and non-WGA members can sell their screenplays for any price they are able to negotiate. Sale prices typically range between 1% and 3% of the cash production budget of the picture.

Boschan: What factors do producers consider when making an offer?

Perez: Producers consider the screenwriter's track record; whether there is a bidding war for your screenplay; whether the screenplay is based on a best-selling novel; whether it is about a salacious, interesting or well publicized person or event; the screenplay's genre; and, if known ahead of time, the picture's potential production budget.

Boschan: Can you share any negotiation tips to get the best price?

Perez: If the production budget is not known going into the negotiations, I suggest a purchase price based on a sliding scale, e.g., "for a picture not to exceed $15,000,000 dollars, the purchase price shall be 2 ½% of the cash budget of the picture, but in no event less than WGA low budget minimum and no more than $250,000. The purchase price will be increased by $10,000 for every $1 million increase in the picture's production above $15,000,000 not to exceed a total purchase price equal to $500,000." The attorney attempts to secure the highest ceiling possible while the producer tries to limit it.

Boschan: Technically, what is an “Option?”

Perez: You acquire the rights to a literary work by entering into an “Option/Purchase Agreement” whereby you have the exclusive option to buy said literary work for a determined period of time.  The Option/Purchase Agreement has two components: the Option Agreement (“Option”) itself states how much time you have to buy the literary work, and the purchase agreement includes the sale price and rights to be granted. You purchase the literary work by exercising the Option and paying the purchase price prior to the Option’s expiration date.  You do not actually purchase the literary work until the commencement of principal photography – when you know that the picture is being produced.

###

DINAH PEREZ graduated Loyola Law School and has been in the practice of entertainment law since 1996.  She practices film, television, theater, music, new media, publishing, copyright, and trademark law. She enjoys practicing entertainment law because she has great respect for the arts and those who create, and relishes helping her clients attain their professional goals.  

Ms. Perez has been published in Story Board Magazine, Release Print, Script Magazine, “The Screenwriters Guide to Agents and Managers,” and “The Hollywood Screenwriting Directory”, and “Hollywood Screenwriters Directory” (2014).  She recently entered into a publishing agreement to co-write the “Hollywood Producers Directory” (2015). Ms. Perez has been quoted in Entertainment Weekly, Wired Magazine, Wired.Com, and featured in “Alone In  A Room.”  

Ms. Perez has participated in panels and/or spoken at the Black Hollywood Film Festival, the Latin Heat Film Festival, Women in Film, Cinewomen, Independent Feature Project West, American Film Market, the Inktip Pitch Summit, the Screenwriters World Conference, the Writers Store, and the Showbiz Store and Cafe.

She is a member of the Beverly Hills Bar Association (Entertainment Law Section, Executive Committee), the California State Bar, Film Independent, and NARIP (National Association of Record Industry Professionals). She was a founding board member of Cinewomen in Los Angeles, CA. 

Friday, September 26, 2014

Top items shared last week on LinkedIn and Twitter

Top items shared last week on LinkedIn and Twitter:


"the music industry generated $15 billion ... in 2013. Of that, 39% came from rapidly growing digital channels" 

Video: David Israelite on the Future of Music Publishing AIMP.org 



JOB: WMG is hiring an analyst in its audit group in Burbank.  I will locate details if you are interested in being audited by my team - ha!
"The best way to complain is to make things." - James Murphy
Interested in music business news?  You should follow me on Twitter @Auditrix.

Interested in games or other IP rights?  You should follow me on Twitter @RoyaltyExpert.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Top Posts Last Week #ICYMI

Top items shared last week on LinkedIn and Twitter:
Interested in music financial news?  You should follow me on Twitter @Auditrix.  (For other IP and interactive tweets, follow me @RoyaltyExpert.)

Top Tweets from the California Copyright Conference's "Streaming for Dollars" Panel

Top tweets from the California Copyright Conference's "Streaming for Dollars" panel held Tuesday, September 9, 2014:

Panelist Steve Winogradsky, Esq. with current CCC President, Anne Cecere @ BMI

  • At @cacopyright with Prez Anne Cecere @AnneCecere @bmi and Steve Winogradsky @WinSoMusic live webcasting www.theccc.org 
Moderator Michael Morris, Esq. with D.A. Wallach, artist in-residence @ Spotify


  • D. A. Wallach @dawallach: Many artists refuse to put new releases on @SpotifyUSA fearing cannibalization but keep it on YouTube @ low rates @cacopyright


Panelists at the California Conference's September 2014 "Streaming for Dollars" Dinner

  • Cheryl Hodgson @CherylHodgson @cacopyright: How do you incentivize the consumer to spend money when they get it for free?
  • David Lowery @davidclowery @cacopyright: Without getting paid, I would have made 2 records, not 20. pic.twitter.com/hn758ptWef

Chris Harrison, Esq. @ Pandora Radio

  • Chris Harrison @pandora_radio  @cacopyright: The decision not to pay pre-1972 sound recordings was made before I got there #getoutofjailfree
  • Chris Harrison @pandora_radio: The only investors in new music services are Apple, Amazon and Google @cacopyright 

Darryl Franklin @ Disney
  • Darryl Franklin @Disney: We spend $1k on cable every year.  How many spend $20/month on music? @cacopyright
  • Darryl Franklin @Disney @cacopyright: YouTube will be 10 years old next year 


To join the California Copyright Conference and physically or virtually attend its next dinner, click here.

Monday, September 8, 2014

Q&A with California Talent Agencies Act Expert Edwin F. McPherson, Esq.



Edwin F. McPherson, Esq.

Distinguished entertainment litigator Edwin F. McPherson is the foremost expert on California's Talent Agencies Act (the "TAA").  On the heels of a recent Billboard piece - "Did the California Labor Commissioner Just Shake Up the Music Industry?" - we share the Q&A below to benefit talent representatives.  

To contact Mr. McPherson, visit mcphersonrane.com or call 310-553-8833.

Cedar Boschan: What is the Talent Agencies Act?

Ed McPherson: The Talent Agencies Act is found in California Labor Code Section 1700 et seq.  Essentially, the Act governs the licensing and regulation of talent agents in the State of California.  However, what the Act also does is to preclude anyone who is not a licensed talent agent from procuring employment for “artists” in the entertainment industry.  The concept of “procurement” has been expanded over time to include any negotiation whatsoever, so that anyone who is not a licensed talent agent may not negotiate any terms of an employment agreement for an artist unless that person does so at the request of, and in conjunction with, a licensed talent agent.

Boschan: 
How does it impact recording artists and their representatives?

McPherson: The Act was enacted to protect artists.  Many questions have been raised in the last several years (primarily by me) as to whether the Act really does what it was designed to do, or whether it actually hurts the very artists that it was designed to protect.  Several years ago, professionals in the music industry lobbied to amend the Act to exempt recording agreements from the Acts proscriptions.  That amendment went unchallenged for many years until the California Labor Commissioner, in the Dwight Yoakam v. The Fitzgerald Hartley Co., etc., et al., Case No. TAC 8774, determined that, because modern recording agreements include elements such as music videos, there are parts of a recording agreement that are subject to the Act and parts that are exempted from the Act.  Now that most, if not all, recording agreements include many other “360” type elements, the so-called “recording agreement exemption” is all but gone.

Unfortunately, there was never an exemption made for the negotiation or procurement of publishing agreements, perhaps because nobody ever contemplated that a publishing agreement could be the subject of the TAA.  However, not all publishing agreements are subject to the TAA.  If the agreement is a simple licensing agreement, licensing the use of one or more compositions, the procurement of that agreement is not considered to be a TAA violation; however, if the agreement purports to require the services of the songwriter to write songs for a period of time, the procurement of that agreement is typically going to be found to be a violation of the Act.

The unfortunate fact of life in the music industry is that agents in the music industry do not typically negotiate recording agreements, publishing agreements, producer agreements, or even mixing agreements – so the TAA basically leaves a musical artist without anyone who is adept at negotiating such deals, who is legally authorized to do so.

Boschan: What about music producers and mixers, and their representatives?

McPherson: There is now an odd dichotomy between how producer agreements and mixer agreements are construed in accordance with the TAA.  There is a case from a few years ago, entitled Lord Alge v. Moir Marie Entertainment, Case No. TAC 45-05 (2008), in which the California Labor Commissioner ruled that a management company that essentially did nothing for two mixer partners but procure employment for them was not liable for violating the Act because a mixing agreement is a recording agreement under the recording contract exemption to the Act.  Moir Marie actually found an expert witness who testified as such – and I can tell you that there is probably nobody else in the music industry that would say that a mixing contract is a recording contract.  In fact, most of the time, mixers do not record anything; they only mix the tracks that have been recorded already.  Even the Labor Commissioner thought twice about her decision, and granted Lord Alge’s motion for reconsideration.  However, unfortunately, the case had already been de novo’d to Superior Court, and jurisdiction therefore removed from the Labor Commissioner.  Although it is doubtful that a similar case will be decided in the same way in the future, lawyers unfortunately are still allowed to cite to the case for authority.

More recently, in fact on August 11, 2014, the Labor Commissioner decided Lindsey v. Lisa Marie Entertainment, Case No. TAC 28811 (2014), in which the successor of the same management company, doing exactly the same kind of procurement for a producer client, was found to have violated the Act.  The Labor Commissioner determined that a producer deal is not a recording agreement.  This, of course, is the proper ruling.  However, the interesting thing is that one could argue that a producer agreement is much more akin to a recording agreement than a mixing agreement.  The hearing officer in the Lindsey case treaded carefully around the Lord Alge case, paying deference to the hearing officer in that case, simply by saying that his decision was limited to the (producer) agreement at hand.

Boschan: How do you help clients who are impacted by the Talent Agencies Act?

McPherson: Although I have often criticized the Act, I have represented countless artists against their former managers and others.  Although I question whether the Talent Agencies Act is good for the industry as a whole, it would be malpractice for me not to use it to the advantage of talent that I represent when their former representatives come after them for commissions.  Similarly, I have represented managers against talent when I do not feel that they have violated the Act, or at least have not violated the Act in a way that permeates the relationship, as defined in the Marathon v. Blasi case.

Boschan: You are a Talent Agencies Act activist.  What changes do you think should be made to the act and why?

McPherson: I think that the entire Act should be looked at very closely in light of the entertainment industry as it exists today – not when the law was originally enacted.  However, the first priority has to be the Solis v. Blancarte case!

###

Ed McPherson has been practicing law for over 30 years.  He is licensed to practice law in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, and has litigated cases all over the country.  He is a partner with the Los Angeles entertainment litigation firm McPherson Rane LLP, which specializes in the (talent side) representation of artists in the entertainment industry.  A substantial portion of Mr. McPherson’s practice involves the Talent Agencies Act, about which he has written numerous articles, given many panels, and has testified as an expert witness.

Top News Last Week #ICYMI

Top items shared last week on LinkedIn and Twitter, including my most popular tweet to-date (see image below):


Interested in music financial news?  You should follow me on Twitter @Auditrix.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Top News Last Week #ICYMI

Top items shared last week on LinkedIn and Twitter:


  • Spotify’s global expansion will include Japan, eventually - Quartz
    bit.ly/1uMIwoX
  • 9/18/14 @AIMPorg "BMI’s public comments to the  Department of Justice, and what lies ahead" bit.ly/1prw7GR
  • "Musicians Drinking the Spotify Haterade: The Collected Complaints" bit.ly/Vuzm3L
  • Google’s New Music Subscription Service, YouTube Music Key, Revealed | TechCrunch tcrn.ch/1sdUSo9


Follow me on Twitter @Auditrix.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Top News Last Week #ICYMI

Top items shared last week on LinkedIn and Twitter:
  • 5 Characteristics of a Great #Production #Accountant (Page 4) - http://t.co/1DLq1Fql9l
  • Los Angeles Calendar:
    September 18, 2014 11:30 a.m. - 1:45 p.m.
    @BMI Executives Speak to the @AIMPorg LA Chapter http://bit.ly/1onlbsE
  • Exclusive: This Is YouTube Music Key http://bit.ly/1pGlG1I
  • "Women Accounted for 10% of the entire workforce of film writers, a 5% fall from 2012" http://buff.ly/1yKUSOX
  • Harvard Faculty: 
    "Making Money by Giving It for Free: Radiohead’s Pre-Release Strategy" 
    http://bit.ly/1oTTyIs
  • "The total collections for African CMO's [collection societies] is 55 million Euros... growing at a rate of 25%." http://buff.ly/1zt5THM
Follow me on Twitter @Auditrix.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Top News Last Week #ICYMI

The following are the most popular items that I shared last week on LinkedIn and Twitter:
  • UMG settled w/ Rock River Communications. "Both...claimed...rights to early ...Bob Marley and the Wailers." http://buff.ly/1oSSfIo
  • Senior Director, Finance and Accounting at Warner Music Group in Greater Los Angeles Area - Job | LinkedIn http://linkd.in/1p8Yvwy
  • Los Angeles Calendar:
    Sept. 18, 2014 11:30 a.m. - 1:45 p.m.
    @BMI Executives Speak to the @AIMPorg LA Chapter http://bit.ly/1s09M1r
Follow me on Twitter @Auditrix for music news or @RoyaltyExpert for video game and other IP news.

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Top News Last Week #ICYMI

The following news items that I shared last week were the most popular on LinkedIn and Twitter:
  • Free Webinar Next Wed.: Emerging Licensing Growth Areas for the Entertainment Industry http://buff.ly/1ovL2dq
  • NY Job: Songs is looking for a Royalty and Copyright Coordinator http://buff.ly/UKBQuS
  • Beats sues Chinese counterfeiters for billions as Apple sale nears completion http://buff.ly/1jDUccF
  • "Labels are beholden to YouTube as a promotional channel.  They have turned a blind eye to whether its ‘unique’ licensing status might be stealing the oxygen out of the streaming market for all those services which have to pay far more for their licenses." http://buff.ly/1nUTwhB
  • On the music compensation situation...
    http://t.co/og4kSP2xu8
  • Los Angeles Calendar:
    September 18, 2014 11:30 a.m. - 1:45 p.m.
    BMI Executives Speak to the @AIMPorg LA Chapter 
    http://bit.ly/1o15A2g
  • AIMP : Jobs - Copyright/Licensing Coordinator / Wixen Music (LA) http://bit.ly/1kw8vjT
    @AIMPorg
  • "Three Overlooked Points to Consider When Negotiating an Audit Clause" http://bit.ly/1ook383
  • A/B It: Miami "Musicians Garfield Baker and Byron Smith Sue For Sample Royalties From Cumbia Hit" | Miami New Times http://bit.ly/1ohl2H6

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Three Overlooked Points to Consider When Negotiating an Audit Clause

Here are three often overlooked points to consider when negotiating an audit clause:

1) What records will be subject to audit?
Most audit clauses allow a party's "books and records" to be audited. Typical variations include clauses that:
  • Clarify certain records that should be included in the scope of an audit (e.g., manufacturing records, contract copies)
  • Limit the records subject to audit (e.g., "only records that specifically report sales of XXX")  
One way to improve this provision for clients with an audit right is to require that the books and records be made available in unredacted and electronic format.
Often more important than the type of books and records that would be subject to audit is the matter of whose books and records can be audited. For example, if you are a licensor, you may wish to include in your audit the books and records of your licensee's wholly owned subsidiaries or foreign affiliates (or your licensee's manufacturer). As another example, if your client may be audited by an ex-spouse, you may wish to expressly limit the audit rights to the personal books and records of your client, and not extend the audit right to any business or partnership in which your client may have an interest.
The entities that are subject to audit can make an enormous impact on the audit procedures and results.

2) Who must pay for an audit?
When representing royalty recipients, I suggest including a clause that requires the licensee, business partner or ex-spouse to pay for an audit that discloses an underpayment. This is standard in many industries, but less common in the entertainment industry. However, it is the most common "penalty" for underreporting that I see in contracts.
Note that most such clauses that I see are insufficient to cover the true cost of conducting and resolving an audit, which usually includes both accounting and attorney fees. If you are representing a party who may be liable for such audit fees, adding a cap of $10,000 is a good strategy, since a thorough audit will likely cost more than $10K and the cost of an audit may dissuade your payee from conducting an audit.
In any event, when I represent clients with a provision that requires the other party to pay for an audit, I advise them that they should not assume the other party will pay for the audit. This is because the audit costs are often waived in the audit settlement process.

3) Who may conduct an audit?
Many audit clauses require an independent CPA (and at times allow for an attorney) to conduct an audit, but if you have a client who wishes to conduct an audit of a licensee, business partner or ex-spouse, he or she will be best served by hiring an experienced auditor who may or may not be a CPA or an attorney – and who will focus on finding underpayments to his or her client, not overpayments (so strike “independent” as well as “CPA” if possible).
Also, some audit clauses require than the auditor not be engaged on a contingency basis or not be currently auditing the party that is subject to audit. Although most reputable auditors work on an hourly, not contingency basis, I were a royalty recipient, I would not want any restrictions on who I could hire and on what basis, especially given the very limited number of professionals who provide high quality royalty audits.

Bonus: Never overlook the objection clause
Although an audit clause is key, the objection provisions are often more important than the audit provision itself because it typically governs the time period subject to audit. However, the objection clause is a topic for a different post.
For a personalized consultation on accounting, audit and objection provisions, as well as contractual definitions, you are welcome to email me at cboschan@greenhassonjanks.com.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Q&A With
Copyright Grant Termination Expert
Lisa A. Alter, Esq.


Lisa A. Alter, Esq.

Many music clients require sophisticated copyright grant termination strategies.  A most distinguished expert on this complex topic is New York attorney Lisa A. Alter. In the full length interview below, Ms. Alter graciously shares her intricate knowledge.

For more information about termination of grants of copyright or other copyright related matters, please visit www.alterandkendrick.com or contact Lisa Alter at lisa.alter@alterandkendrick.com or (212) 707-8377.


Cedar Boschan: What is a copyright grant?

Lisa Alter: A copyright grant is a conveyance of any or all rights in an original work of authorship (such as books, compositions, motion pictures and sound recordings) that arise under copyright.  Those rights may include the right to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords and to distribute those copies, the right to create derivative works based on the original work and the right to publicly perform and/or display the work.

Boschan: Many entertainers earn a living from copyright grants to publishers, film studios and record companies.  Why would one want to terminate a copyright grant?

Alter: Termination rights can be very valuable. Typically, the author (or heirs) may be receiving only a fraction of the income derived from the exploitation of the copyrights under the grant.  Moreover, the author (or heirs) may have limited or no control or approval over how the copyrights are exploited.  Once rights have been terminated and recaptured in the U.S., the author or his/her heirs may self-administer the works, enter into an administration deal on terms more favorable than the original grant, renegotiate terms with the original grantee (perhaps for the world), or sell all or a portion of the copyrights to either the original grantee or a third party.  

Boschan: Under which conditions can one recapture a copyright after granting it to another party?

Alter: Some contracts provide for automatic termination of the grant after a term of years. For example, with respect to works that were copyrighted prior to January 1, 1978 the term of copyright protection is divided into an initial 28 year term and a 67 year extended renewal term. Unless the initial grant of copyright in these works expressly included a conveyance of “renewals and extensions” of copyright, the grant automatically terminates upon the expiration of the initial 28 year term. Other contracts may allow the grantor to terminate the grant in the event that certain conditions are or are not met.  With respect to “life of copyright” grants, the grantor may be able to exercise a statutory right of termination.  For pre-1978 grants made by the author or his/her statutory heirs, statutory termination may be effected during the five year period commencing 56 years after the date the work was first published or registered for copyright.  For post-1977 grants made by the author, the statutory termination may be effected during the five year period commencing 35 years after the date of the grant (or, where the grant includes the right of publication, the five year period commencing on the earlier of 35 years after publication under the grant or 40 years after the date of the grant).  In order to effect statutory termination for either pre-1978 or post-1977 copyrights, the statutory notice requirements must be fulfilled.

Boschan: Who may terminate a copyright grant?

Alter: The author, or if the author is deceased, the author’s statutory heirs may terminate a grant of copyright.  Statutory heirs include the author’s surviving spouse and children (and in the case of a deceased child, the children of such deceased child).  If the author leaves no surviving spouse, child or grandchild, the author’s executor, administrator, personal representative or trustee may terminate a grant in the author’s place.

Boschan: Works for hire cannot be recaptured.  How can one tell if one’s copyright is a work for hire?

Alter: Just because a contract says that a copyright is being created as a work made for hire does not mean that it is, in fact, a work made for hire.  The rules are different depending on whether the work was created before January 1, 1978 or on or after that date.  For pre-1978 works, the courts will typically apply an “instance and expense” test in determining if a copyrighted work is work made for hire, which examines whether the work in question was created at the instance and expense of the employer. From 1978 on, a work will be deemed to be a work made for hire if either (a) the work was created by an employee during the course of his/her employment (as determined by general agency standards), OR (b) the work was expressly commissioned as a work made for hire for inclusion in one of nine  enumerated categories (the categories include audio-visual works but, notably, do not including sound recordings).

Boschan: What steps do you take to terminate a copyright grant?

Alter: The first step is to evaluate all relevant information about the grant, the subject copyright(s), the author(s) and the parties to the grant.  Next, one determines the time frame for serving notice and, at the proper time, prepares the notice taking care that it complies in form and content with the criteria set forth in the Copyright Act and attendant regulations.  Then, one serves the notice on the original grantee and/or the grantee’s successor(s) in interest and records the notice in the Copyright Office.  It bears noting that the mechanism for proper service of notice of termination is complicated by design.  Since the effect of improper service may be forfeiture of one’s termination right, it is worth getting professional guidance in the process.  Recipients of notices of termination should also scrutinize the notice to ascertain whether the notice conforms to statutory requirements.

Boschan: After a copyright grant is terminated, what, if any, rights does the original assignee retain?

Alter: After a grant of copyright is terminated, the original assignee will retain the rights to derivative works created during the term of the grant.  For example, a music publisher who loses rights in a composition will retain the right to exploit sound recordings embodying the composition that were created prior to termination and will continue to collect mechanical license fees from the sale of those sound recordings. However, the publisher cannot release that sound recording in a different format or authorize new recordings of the composition after the effective date of termination.

Boschan: Does this apply in the USA only, or throughout the world?

Alter: Statutory termination is limited to the United States.  If a grant was a worldwide grant (whether made in the U.S. or abroad) the grant will terminate in the U.S. but continue outside the U.S.

Boschan: Do you help clients recapture foreign copyrights?

Alter: We frequently are asked to assist clients in asserting rights in the so-called “British Reversionary Territories” or “BRTs”.  There is a limited reversionary right that may be available in one or more of the countries that were part of the United Kingdom in 1911.  Depending on the date of the relevant grant made by an author, rights may automatically revert to the author’s heirs 25 years after the death of the author.  Keep in mind that for most of the BRTs the date of the grant is critical.  For example, in England the reversionary right only applies to grants made by an author on or before June 1, 1957.

Boschan: Are some copyrights easier to recapture than others?

The copyright termination provisions apply to all grants of rights under copyright.  There is no category of copyright that is “easier” to terminate.  Rather, the ease of termination will depend on the complexity of the relevant factors in the specific circumstances surrounding the copyrights and grants.

Boschan: What happens when there is a mistake on the termination notice?

Alter: Some mistakes may be deemed “harmless error” and will not invalidate the termination notice.  Other mistakes – including misidentifying the applicable termination provision, serving notice on the wrong party or failing to record a notice in the Copyright Office prior to the effective date of termination – may render the notice ineffective.  If a notice is ineffective and the time frame for serving notice closes before a new notice is served, then the author (or heirs) may lose the right to terminate the grant.

Boschan: Is terminating a copyright grant expensive?

Alter: The basic costs of serving a notice of termination by certified mail (not necessary, but recommended because it affords proof of service) and recording the notice in the Copyright Office are fairly minimal.  The related legal costs involved in reviewing a matter to determine the applicability of the statutory termination provisions, preparing the notice(s) of termination and implementing termination will vary, depending on the complexity of the situation.  Clearly, the more copyrights and/or contracts involved, the more complicated the process may be, which could impact the cost.  

Boschan: What happens after you notify a company of your client’s intention to terminate a copyright grant?

Alter: That depends.  Sometimes, the company will contact us right away to discuss reacquiring the terminated rights.  The original grantee (or its successor) has an exclusive negotiation period between the time that notice of termination is served and the effective date of termination (at least two years) during which it is the only party allowed to enter into a further grant of copyright with respect to the terminated rights.  In other circumstances, the company may remain silent in which case we may reach out to the company to discuss a new grant (if our client is interested in continuing its relationship with the company).  Otherwise, we wait until the rights actually revert on the effective date of termination, reclaim the works and help the client decide how the recaptured rights will be administered in the future.

Boschan: Do most people who are eligible to reclaim copyrights do so?

Alter: An increasing number of authors are exercising their termination rights.  Those who do not may simply be unaware of the opportunity.  An exception may be in a situation in which an author is deceased, leaving children and a spouse who is not the parent of those children.  In this case, a majority of the heirs may not be willing to act together to effect termination.  Since it is necessary for the spouse and at least one child to sign a termination notice, the opportunity to terminate may be lost. 

Boschan: Can you recover a partial interest in a copyright – for example, on behalf of one of two co-authors of a work?

Alter: Each author of a joint work may terminate a grant and recapture rights with respect to his/her share of the work.  There are frequently situations in which one author terminates a grant and recaptures his/her rights, while the rights of his/her co-author remain with the original grantee. The only caveat is that with respect to grants made by the author on or after January 1, 1978 where two or more authors were signatory to the same grant, a majority of those authors must sign off on the notice of termination.

Boschan: What about on behalf of only some of an author’s heirs?

Alter: Where an author is deceased, a majority of the author’s statutory heirs must execute the notice of termination.  For example, if an author dies leaving a widow (who by law has a 50% interest in the author’s termination rights) and two children (who share the remaining 50% interest), the widow plus at least one of the children must be party to the termination notice.  Once termination is effected, the rights will revert to all of the author’s statutory heirs in their pro-rata share (even those heirs who did not sign off on the notice of termination).

Boschan: How does the possibility of reversion impact the value of a copyright?

Alter:   Termination rights can be very valuable for authors or heirs.  However, the possibility of termination or reversion will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the value of a copyright for a grantee seeking to sell its assets.  For example, if a music publisher has a large catalog of compositions that includes songs which may, in the future, be subject to termination, a potential purchaser of the catalog may want to discount the value of the catalog to compensate for the potential loss of U.S. rights. Alternatively, a portion of the purchase price may be held back until the period for serving notice of termination closes without notice being served.

Boschan: How do you collaborate with accountants on copyright termination matters?

Alter: We collaborate with accountants on a variety of termination matters including analyzing potential termination issues affecting financial due diligence in connection with the sale or purchase of copyright catalogs, assessing the potential impact of copyright termination with respect to the appraisal of musical catalogs for estate, divorce, or other valuation purposes, and evaluating the potential risks or opportunities presented by the termination provisions for copyright owners or authors in conjunction with the accountants that represent them.

Boschan: Why do so few attorneys understand the intricacies of copyright grant terminations? 

Alter: The termination process is highly technical and involves a very particular knowledge base that many attorneys do not need to draw upon in their typical transaction or litigation practices.  Because of the potential complexities of termination – and the inherent dangers of lost opportunity if a termination notice is improperly served – termination matters are often referred to attorneys whose practice focuses in that area.

Boschan: What are the current “hot topics” in the world of copyright grant termination?

Alter: Perhaps the “hottest” topic involves the right to terminate grants of rights in sound recordings.  While in some instances record labels have taken the position that sound recordings are works made for hire and thus not subject to termination, this is certainly not uniformly the case.  A growing number of performing artists and producers are, in fact, serving notice of termination on record labels and either recapturing the rights to their sound recordings or renegotiating their agreements with the labels.

Another “hot topic” concerns so-called “gap issue” grants. That is, contracts that provided for the author to deliver works created over a term of years. Where that term begins prior to 1978 but continues thereafter, works created and delivered post-January 1, 1978 may fall into a “gap” in the termination provisions. The better approach is to treat these works as having been granted by the author when the work was created on or after January 1, 1978 despite the fact that the contract was signed before 1978.

###

Lisa A. Alter is a partner in the firm of Alter & Kendrick, LLP in New York City. Her practice is focused primarily in the area of copyright law, with a particular emphasis on domestic and international music copyright issues. She advises composers, authors, musical estates, and music publishers on a wide variety of transactional and licensing matters, conducts in-depth copyright due diligence in connection with the acquisition, sale and/or administration of copyright catalogues, and consults on issues involving termination of grants, recapture of copyrights, and foreign reversionary rights. Her clients include songwriters, composers and performing artists, prominent musical estates, and music publishing companies.  Ms. Alter has testified as an expert witness in matters involving music publishing interests and copyright termination rights.  Ms. Alter is a graduate of Wesleyan University and New York University School of Law and she is the author of “Protecting Your Musical Copyrights” which has recently been released in its third edition.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

WMG Download Settlement - Decision Due May 31, 2014

Opting in or out of the WMG Download Settlement?

You must decide by May's end!

Call now for analysis.

310.873.1600

http://buff.ly/OcOrEu