THE MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT: A BREAKDOWN OF THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE FOR ARTISTS AND SONGWRITERS

The Music Modernization Act (“MMA”) passed both the Senate and the House after the herculean efforts of some individuals and organizations who worked tirelessly to negotiate compromises to accommodate all sides, and was signed into law. The MMA finally moved the recorded music industry forward in a way that facilitates more artists and songwriters being able to make a fair living from making music. The MMA proposes to reform the music licensing landscape in several substantive ways -  and vigilance is required to ensure that composers, songwriters and other copyright creators receive all the benefits available to them under the MMA.

The MMA is comprehensive and sweeping in its scope. The MMA revamped Section 115 and repealed Section 114(i) of the U.S. Copyright Act. It creates a public database to facilitate and expedite payments to songwriters and it overhauls the rate Court system and upgrades the standard for setting rates to a "free market" standard. The MMA also incorporates several other major pieces of legislation including the CLASSICS Act (Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society Act) which grants copyright protection to pre-1972 sound recordings so songwriters and artists can receive royalties on pre-1972 recordings and the AMP Act (Allocation for Music Producers Act), which improves royalty payouts for producers and engineers from SoundExchange when their recordings are used on satellite and online radio. Notably, this is the first time producers have ever been mentioned in copyright law.

Here are some details of the highlights of the MMA’s benefits explained:

Section 115 Reform and the Public Database

The MMA ends the bulk Notice of Intent (NOI) process through the Copyright Office, which can prevent songwriters from being compensated or compensated in a timely manner for uses of their works. Under the MMA, the digital services would fund a Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), and, in turn, be granted blanket mechanical licenses for interactive streaming or digital downloads of musical works. The MLC would be governed by publishers and self-published songwriters. The MLC would address the challenges digital services face today when attempting to match songwriters and publishers with recordings. The MMA also creates business efficiencies for the digital services by providing a transparent and publicly accessible database housing song ownership information. Additionally, because the database would publicly identify songs that have not been matched to songwriters and/or publishers, publishers would also be able to claim the rights to songs and get paid for those songs. Songwriters and publishers would also be granted an audit right which is not currently available under Section 115 of the US Copyright Act.

Willing Buyer/Willing Seller Standard

The MMA upgrades the current standard to a free market standard. Section 115 of the Copyright Act has regulated musical compositions since 1909—before recorded music even existed. Section 115 allows anyone to seek a compulsory license to reproduce a song in exchange for paying a statutory rate. Current law directs the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB)—the government body responsible for setting the statutory rate—to apply a legal standard to determine rates that does not reflect market value. The MMA replaces the current flawed legal standard with a standard that requires the Court to consider free-market conditions when determining rates.

Rate Court System Overhaul & Section 114 Repeal

The MMA overhauls the rate Court system. Currently, ASCAP and BMI are each assigned to a single, respective rate court judge. Every case must be adjudicated before each performance rights organization's (PRO’s) respective designated consent decree judge. Under the MMA, a district judge in the Southern District of New York would be randomly assigned from the wheel of district judges for rate setting disputes. The “wheel” approach would enable BMI and ASCAP, as well as licensees, to go before any judge in the Southern District of New York on a rotating basis - rather than being assigned to a single judge - for the purpose of rate setting disputes. This approach ensures that the judge will find the facts afresh for each rate case based on the record in that particular case, without impressions derived from prior cases. The MMA would also repeal Section 114(i) of the U.S. Copyright Act which prevents rate courts from considering sound recording royalty rates as a relevant benchmark when setting performance royalty rates. As a result, the playing field has been uneven, at the expense of songwriters. The MMA moves the industry to a fairer system under which PROs and songwriters would have the opportunity to present evidence about the other facets of the music ecosystem to judges for their consideration. This repeal creates the opportunity for songwriters to obtain fairer rates for the public performances of their musical works.

Wallace Collins is a lawyer with 30+ years’ experience specializing in entertainment law and copyright, trademark and internet law matters. He was a teenage recording artist for Epic Records before attending Fordham Law School. T: (212)661-3656 / www.wallacecollins.com

BEWARE THE "CONTROLLED COMPOSITION" CLAUSE IN RECORD CONTRACTS

Under U.S. Copyright law, Congress has seen fit to legislate a minimum statutory mechanical royalty rate for songwriters and their publishers.  Based on an upward-sliding scale tied to a cost-of-living index, the mechanical royalty rate is set by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal on a per song per record basis. The current rate in effective is $.091 per song.  However, most record companies use their substantial leverage over fledgling recording artists to cause them to enter into record contracts which purport to reduce this minimum rate pursuant to the "controlled composition" clause - and this provision might also be made to apply to producers and songwriters who do work for those artists.

The controlled composition clause is one of the most insidious of a plethora of royalty-reducing provisions in any record contract. It reduces the mechanical rate for a songwriter/recording artist and its publisher on songs written or otherwise "controlled" by the artist.  Most such clauses not only reduce the payment per song, but may also put a limit on the total number of songs on which such payment will be made and may fix the point in time at which such calculation will be made (thereby circumventing the cost of living index increase). This is an issue not only for the songwriter/recording artist but for the producer/songwriter and for non-contractual songwriters who may chose to collaborate with an artist who is signed to a recording agreement with a controlled composition clause.

A full analysis of a controlled composition clause is beyond the scope of this article.  However, for a simplified example of how it works, lets assume a typical clause where the songwriter/artist will receive 3/4 of the minimum statutory mechanical rate (assuming the minimum rate is 6 cents per song at the time) on a maximum of 10 songs per LP. The mechanical royalty on the artist's entire LP usually has a "cap" of 68.25 cents (3/4 of $.091x 10 songs) so that, even if the songwriter/artist writes 12 songs for its own album, the artist's publishing is not worth $1.09 per album ($.091 x 12 songs) but only 68.25 cents.

To further illustrate, assume the 12 song album has 6 songs written by the artist and 6 songs from outside publishers. Unless otherwise agreed, the outside publishers are not subject to the artist's 3/4 rate so the 6 outside songs get the full rate and are entitled to a total of 51 cents. Since the mechanical royalty on the entire LP has a "cap" of 68.25 cents, the songwriter/recording artist is limited to applying the remaining 13 cents to the songwriter/artist's 6 songs, so that the artist's publishing is worth a little more than 2 cents per song. And keep in mind, if the artist's producer agreement has language tying the record producer to the artist's controlled rate or an outside songwriter's mechanical license has similar language, then both the producer and the outside writer would also be subject to the reduced rate and the "cap."

To take it one step further, imagine a case where 8 of the 12 songs on the LP were from outside publishers. The outside publishers would be entitled to at least 72 cents in mechanical royalties ($.091 x 8 songs).  Since the artist's contractual cap is 68.25 cents, then for each LP sold the songwriter/record artist would actually lose mechanical royalties and owe its record company a few cents for each record that sells which would be deducted out of the songwriter/artist's recording royalties. The net effect is that the songwriter/artist's own 4 songs receive no mechanical royalties at all.

A controlled composition clause may also contain language which further reduces the mechanical rate on mid-priced and budget sales, etc., providing for a 3/4 rate on the 3/4 rate.  In addition, record contracts often contain several subparagraphs that eliminate royalty payments for free goods and records sold below wholesale price, etc.  Several of these categories would ordinarily be subject to mechanical royalties absent the controlled composition clause.  Moreover, although this provision reduces mechanical royalties on the artist's publishing, it does not reduce payments to outside publishers since they are not subject to the clause.

The most treacherous dilemma for the songwriter/artist is that, even if the record company does not acquire the artist's publishing in its contract, the value of the artist's publishing may so greatly be reduced by the controlled composition clause that the artist may find it difficult to get a publishing deal elsewhere.  This is especially true if the mechanical royalties are cross-collateralized with the artist royalties since, until the artist is recouped, no mechanical royalties will be payable to the songwriter/recording artist or its publisher.

The foregoing scenarios raise numerous legal issues including antitrust, interference with prospective financial advantage and restraint of trade.  Another issue raised is whether, under partnership law (where one partner can bind the partnership), a co-writer who is not actually a signatory to the record contract is subject to the 3/4 rate by virtue of being a "partner" in the song's creation.

These days almost every record contract contains a controlled composition clause.  Although certain aspects of a controlled composition clause can be made less onerous by some persistent negotiation (such as escalations of the rate based on sales thresholds), record companies are generally inflexible in their insistence *on this provision and their position can only be tempered by their desire to sign a particular artist or by an artist's importance and stature. This provision should be reviewed very carefully by an artist and his lawyer; any artist's lawyer who failed to discuss this clause and explain its ramifications to the client (under the assumption that it is "standard" in every record contract) would certainly be inadequately representing the client, and may suffer the consequences when the actual effect of the provision is eventually revealed to the artist.

In fairness to record companies, with the exorbitant cost and high risk of the record business, record companies need to cut costs where they can to try to make a profit on the few artists who do succeed.  However, the question is one of whether devaluing the artist's publishing is a fair way of doing it.  Record companies contend that, since they are financing the production and marketing of the artist's recordings, the artist should give them a break on the publishing royalties they would otherwise have to pay.

By way of analogy, imagine a particular record company, in order to cut costs, decided that, despite the Federally mandated minimum wage, any employee who wanted to work for that label would have to accept three-quarters of the minimum wage.  It is unlikely such a preposterous policy would hold up in court.  When it was tried by calling in an "internship program" the Courts did now permit it. Whether the contractual reduction by a record company of a Congressionally legislated minimum royalty rate would hold up in a court of law has yet to be tested.

Wallace Collins is an entertainment and intellectual property lawyer with more than 30 years of experience based in New York. He was a recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Tel: (212) 661-3656; www.wallacecollins.com 

What Is A Music Publishing Deal? - and Do I Really Need One?

    Sometimes I hear songwriters talk about wanting a "publishing deal" without even really understanding what that means. Depending on the circumstances of each writer and the terms of the particular contract, sometimes no publishing deal is better than the wrong publishing deal.

    The term "publishing", most simply, means the business of song copyrights.  Under US copyright law, a songwriter owns 100% of his song copyright and all the related publishing rights until the songwriter signs those rights away. Under the law, a copyright (literally, the right to make and sell copies) automatically vests in the author or creator of a work the moment the expression of an idea is "fixed in a tangible medium." (i.e., the moment it is written down or recorded on tape.)  With respect to recorded music, there are really two copyrights: the copyright in the musical composition owned by the songwriter and the copyright in the sound of the recording owned by the recording artist (but usually transferred to the record company when a record deal is signed).

     A writer owns the copyright in his or her work the moment he or she writes it down or records it, and by law can only transfer those rights by signing a written agreement to transfer them. Therefore, a songwriter must be wary of any agreement he or she is asked to sign. Although it is not necessary, it is advisable to place a notice of copyright on all copies of the work. This consists of the symbol "c" or the word "copyright", the author's name, and the year in which the work was created, for example: "(c) John Doe 2020."

     The filing of a copyright registration form in Washington D.C. provides additional protection in so far as it establishes a record of the existence of such copyright and gives the creator the presumption of validity in the event of a lawsuit. Registration also allows for lawsuits to be commenced in Federal court and, under Federal law, allows an award of attorneys fees to the prevailing party.  To order forms and for additional information on copyright registration go to www.loc.gov\copyrights. These days, a songwriter can register for a copyright on line.

     As defined by the copyright law, the word "publish" most simply means "distribution of copies of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental lease, or lending". As a practical matter, the music publishing business consists primarily of all administrative duties, exploitation of copyrights, and collection of monies generated from the exploitation of those copyrights. If a writer makes a publishing deal and a publisher takes on these responsibilities then that publisher "administers" the compositions. Administrative duties range from filing all the necessary registrations (i.e., copyright forms) to answering inquiries regarding the musical compositions.

     One important function of a music publisher is exploitation of a composition or "plugging" a song. Exploitation simply means seeking out different uses for musical compositions. Sometimes a music publisher will have professional quality demos prepared and send them to artists and producers to try to secure recordings of the songs. They may also use these tapes to secure usage in the television, film and advertising industries (known as a "synchronization" use).

     Equally important as exploitation is the collection of monies earned by these musical usages. Particularly in in the digital age, when transactions amount to billions and payments to fractions of pennies, the administration of song copyrights and the collection of revenues can be a complicated and massive undertaking. There are two primary sources of income for a music publisher: earnings that come from record sales (i.e., mechanical royalties from both physical and digital copies) and revenues that come from broadcast performances (i.e., performance royalties).  Mechanical royalties are collected directly from the record companies and paid to the publisher. Performance royalties are collected by performing rights organizations (e.g., ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC in the United States and different entities in each other country) and then distributed proportionately to the publisher and to the songwriter. In addition to plugging and administrative functions, it is also important to know that there is a creative side to music publishing. Since producing hit songs is in the best interest of both the writer and the publisher, good music publishers have whole departments devoted to helping writers grow and develop. The creative staff finds and signs new writers, works with them to improve their songs, pairs them up creatively with co-writers and hopes the outcome will be hit records.

     A publishing deal concerns rights and revenues. If a writer decides to do a publishing deal then the main issue for negotiation is going to be the language pertaining to the calculation and division of the rights in the copyright and division of the monies earned. In the old days, most deals were 100% copyright to the publisher and 50/50 share of the revenues because there was a concept that the "writer's share" was 50% and the "publisher's share" was 50%. This, of course, was an invention of the publishers. Legally, these terms have no such inherent meaning but their calculation is defined in each individual agreement. Most modern publishing deals, however, are referred to as "co-publishing" deals where the copyrights are co-owned 50/50 and the monies are usually calculated at around 75/25 meaning the writer gets 100% of the 50% writer's share and 50% of the publisher's 50% share for a total of 75%. It is best for the writer to insist that all calculations be made "at source" so that there are not too many charges and fees deducted off-the-top before the 75% calculation is made. Keep in mind, however, that the advance paid to the writer by the publisher is later recouped by the publisher out of the writer's share of income from the song. So, the net business effect is that the publisher pays the writer with the writer's own money to buy a share of the copyright (and the right to future income) from the writer.

     Although a writer can be his own publisher and retain 100% of the money, the larger publishers in the music business usually pay substantial advance payments to writers in order to induce them to sign a portion of their publishing rights to the publisher - and this can be a good thing for the writer. Although a deal for a single song may be done with little or no advance payment (provided there is a reversion of the song to the writer if no recording is released within a year or two), there should be a substantial advance paid ($5,000-$100,000+) to a writer for any publishing deal with a longer term (e.g., 3-5 years or more). Moreover, sometimes the length of an agreement is more than just a function of time, it might also be determined based on the number of songs delivered by the writer or, even more difficult to calculate, based on the number of songs that get recorded and released on a major label (something neither the writer nor the publisher may have any control over). 

     Publishing deals have to do with more than just the money though. Since every music publisher is different, it is important for the songwriter to assess both the business and the creative sides of a music publisher before signing any deal. Ultimately, the songwriter is trading a share of something the writer already owns 100% of (the song copyright) so it is important to be mindful of what it is exchanged for by way of services and money.

Wallace Collins is an entertainment and intellectual property lawyer. He was a recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Tel: (212) 661-3656; www.wallacecollins.com