Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal Issues and Monetization Strategies In a Quarantine-Streaming Music World, Part 2
This article is Part Two of a two-part article. Part One appeared in our January 2021 issue.
Livestreaming Monetization
Performance Royalties
Detection technology for musical compositions lacks sophistication in connection with livestreaming. As such, because a livestream show is a public performance, the technology issue makes it quite impossible to pay composers and publishers their earned performance royalties. Accordingly, certain performing rights organizations have expanded their setlist submission process, which was typically reserved for live performances with an audience, to accommodate livestreams. According to Billboard, ASCAP offers this feature through ASCAP Onstage, so songwriters affiliated with ASCAP may submit their livestream setlists, including covers, if any, through the portal, and the relevant writers and publishers for the songs performed will receive performance royalties. SESAC also offers a similar program to its writer affiliates. SOCAN, the Canadian performing rights organization has developed its own livestreaming payout program. A Facebook/Instagram livestream show may be eligible to generate a total of CAD $150, with that amount being split amongst the rightsholders of the musical compositions. To be eligible, the livestream show must be at least 30 minutes long, or consist of 10 songs, while having been viewed by at least 100 people (which can be shown via a screenshot).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.