Author: Courtney Lang

Community Partner Spotlight: Free Juice

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: July 18, 2024

Today, we turn the spotlight over to one of our newest community partners, Free Juice. They are a non-profit organization that seeks to “accelerate diversity in the photography industry through mentorship.” After you read their spotlight blog, be sure to follow them on Instagram and Facebook.

What is the history of your organization, and what is its mission?

Our organization, Free Juice, accelerates diversity in photography through mentorship, supporting early-career photo-workers by breaking barriers to success. Based in Houston and led by a Black woman, we extend our influence to cities like New York and Los Angeles, fostering a diverse photo industry. Our annual Free Juice University mentorship program connects emerging photographers with industry professionals. We equip them with skills, resources, and support to thrive, emphasizing accessibility and professional readiness. Collaboration is central to our mission, amplifying BIPOC-owned creatives and businesses.

How do you support members of the creative community, and how can a creator get involved with your organization?

We partner emerging photo professionals with our Juice Champs (people who are currently in the industry) through mentorship.

What inspired your organization to become a Copyright Alliance community partner?

We love the mission of the Copyright Alliance. It is a pillar in the creative community and a core learning staple. I think it’s important for every creator to have a sense of their value, and the mission of the Copyright Alliance and their work makes that possible.

How have copyright and related issues affected your organization and its creator base?

It wasn’t until I was a professional myself, well into the industry, that I realized the impact of copyright. Being able to advocate for yourself and your work as a creator is one of the most self-sufficient things you can do. Historically, copyright is not the most intriguing context and content type that creators like to learn, but I cannot express how beneficial it is to have in your arsenal.

What is one thing you wish creators understood more clearly about copyright?

Knowing your rights will save you a lot of time and money. Standing in your power when discussing money and budgets is the most important thing.

What advice would you give aspiring creators just starting out and unsure of how to protect their work?

Invest in resources like the Copyright Alliance or work closely with someone who understands the nuances of copyright.

What are some current debates or issues surrounding copyright law that your organization is paying attention to, and what is your stance on them?

Free Juice is closely following debates around the impact of AI-generated content on copyright law, the balance between fair use and copyright infringement, and the challenges posed to creators by digital piracy. We believe that while AI offers exciting possibilities, it’s crucial to ensure creators’ rights are protected and their work is not exploited without proper attribution and compensation. We advocate for clear guidelines and updated regulations that address these emerging issues. We also work with partners with greater knowledge of AI technology and copyright.

What are some common misconceptions that creators have about copyright, and how does your organization address them?

A common misconception among creators is that registering their work is unnecessary or too complicated. Many also believe that simply posting their work online offers sufficient protection. Our organization addresses these misconceptions through educational workshops, resources, and one-on-one mentorship. We emphasize the importance of formally registering work to secure legal protection and provide guidance on how to effectively manage and enforce their copyrights. We introduce our community to resources to help them understand and navigate the copyright process.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

House IP Subcommittee Holds Hearing on the American Music Fairness Act

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: July 2, 2024

On June 26, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing titled “Radio, Music, and Copyright: 100 Years of Inequity for Recording Artists.” The hearing examined a longstanding anomaly in the music industry: the fact that recording artists do not get paid when their songs are aired over terrestrial AM/FM radio. Under the current copyright regime, sound recordings do not have a terrestrial broadcast right, meaning that when a copyrighted sound recording is played over AM/FM radio, the sound recording copyright holder does not get a performance royalty. Under the “American Music Fairness Act” (AMFA), sound recordings would be given a terrestrial broadcast right, requiring broadcasters to pay royalties to sound recording copyright owners.

Adding a terrestrial broadcast right for sound recordings is something the sound recording industry and recording artists have been fighting unsuccessfully almost for 80 years. The hearing showcased strong support for the bill amongst stakeholders and members of the Subcommittee. Testifying on the sound recording side was legendary country and gospel musician, Randy Travis and his wife Mary Travis. The couple testified in support of AMFA alongside SoundExchange CEO, Michael Huppe. Testifying in opposition to the bill was the National Association of Broadcaster’s (NAB) CEO, Cutis Legeyt and Regional Vice President of Radio One, Eddie Harrel.

Opening Statements  

Chairman of the Subcommittee Darrel Issa (R-CA) opened the hearing, recognizing the “invaluable role that radio plays in American history” by bringing Americans the news, weather, and sports. However, he emphasized that when news, weather, and sports are broadcasted over AM/FM radio, those radio stations “pay for those words to be spoken”; a sentiment that would be echoed through the rest of the hearing. Chairman Issa used a notable example, explaining that Frank Sinatra once stood before Congress to support a terrestrial broadcast right, “not because he wanted the money, but because he had earned it.” It’s a sentiment that holds true for recording artists to this day and one that would be emphasized by Randy Travis, Mary Travis, Michael Huppe, and many members of the Subcommittee.

Randy and Mary Travis

Randy Travis is an iconic gospel and country singer/songwriter, whose accolades are far too great to summarize in this blog. In 2013, Randy Travis suffered from a stroke leaving him unable to walk or speak. As a result, Randy’s wife, Mary, delivered a powerful testimony on his behalf, emphasizing music is “Randy’s lifeline,” although “that lifeline has changed.” She explained that consumers are no longer rushing to “buy concerts and t-shirts,” but instead are playing music through services that pay artists fractions of a penny per stream. She also noted that, while the musical consumption landscape has changed, “one thing remains the same…the voice is still the mandatory bridge between the writer and the listener.” Therefore, according to Mrs. Travis, it is time to do right by those who bring the emotion, melodies, and soul to music and to compensate them for it.        

Curtis Legeyt

Testifying next was Cutis Legeyt, who started his testimony by highlighting the important role radio plays in American society, e.g. “inform[ing], educat[ing], and alert[ing] listeners to important events and emergencies.” He also emphasized the symbiotic relationship that has been fostered, for decades, between the recording and broadcast industry, asking the audience to reminisce on “the countless artists, whose careers were made, when their first songs were play on our airways.” Mr. Legeyt then stressed that while the musical landscape has changed, radio play continues to drive music discovery for both new musicians and legacy artists. Legeyt argued that AMFA would “undermine our mutually beneficial relationship” by imposing a “financially untenable” royalty for broadcasters of all sizes, since radio already invests so much in finding on-air talent, updating broadcasting equipment, and paying royalties to songwriters through performing rights organizations (PROs) like BMI, ASCAP, and SoundExchange. He concluded that Congress should not impose “the recording industries one sided radio proposal.”

Michael Huppe

Michael Huppe’s opening statement pushed back on a few major points made by the broadcasting industry. First, Mr. Huppe noted that it is an “embarrassment” that the United States is the “only democratic nation in the world without a performance right on AM/FM radio.” Mr. Huppe characterized the broadcasting industry actions as “an unpermissioned taking” since the broadcasting industry generates 15 billion dollars in revenue. He continued to pushback on Mr. Legeyt’s promotional relationship argument by explaining that “72 percent of music played on the radio today is not new music.” Moreover, other promotional activities, like broadcasting a baseball game and adapting a book into a movie requires broadcasters to obtain a license. Mr. Huppe stated that when music is played overseas, artists lose an estimated “300 million dollars in royalties.” While those overseas nations collect royalties, they are not paid out to artist in the United States. He concluded by telling Congress that during the time of the hearing, over 200,000 songs will be played on terrestrial radio, and those recording artists who make up Congresspeople’s constituents, neighbors, family and friends will not be paid.

Eddie Harrel

Last to testify was Eddie Harrel. Mr. Harrel, the regional vice president of Radio One, who offered an insider perspective as to why Congress should not adopt a terrestrial right for sound recordings. Mr. Harrel’s testimony focused on how local broadcasting is a pillar of his and many others’ communities, and how added costs to broadcasting stations would result in a decrease of investments in those communities. Mr. Harrel argued, just as Mr. Legeyt had, that recording artists benefit from the exposure and promotion that broadcasters provide. To illustrate the point, Mr. Harrel explained that through a local radio concert, Summer Jam, the world was introduced to the now highly successful hip-hop group Migos.

Questions by Subcommittee Members

Congressman Fitzgerald

Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) asked the panel of witnesses whether passing AMFA would be the first step in doing away with “all transmission and retransmission exemptions in digital performance rights” granted in the 1995 Sound Recordings Act. Mr. Huppe responded that “it is, has, and will always be about terrestrial radio and making sure that everybody gets paid fairly, for their content.” Huppe added that AMFA would ensure that broadcasters “do not get a break” from paying what their competitors must. Congressman Fitzgerald then scrutinized overseas performance royalties and asked whether record labels are collecting sound recordings royalties overseas. Mr. Legeyt said he supported broadcasters paying out royalties in other countries but also said that any comparison of the United States “broadcast recording industry relationship …. to that of any other country is unfair.” Moreover, Mr. Legeyt pushed back on the notion that there are 300 million dollars in royalties lost overseas, arguing that the broadcasting industry has been unable to substantiate that number.

Congressman Nadler

Next to question the witness was Chairman of the full Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and he started off by asking Mary and Randy Travis what opening another channel of royalty income would mean to them. Mary stated that since Randy’s stroke, royalties have been what the couple “has counted on for income.” She emphasized the couple is testifying today not only on behalf of musicians of Randy’s generation, but all past and present, who deserve to be compensated for their music. Moreover, she explained that the newer generation of musicians are more working class, meaning they, like Mary and Randy, depend on royalties to support their families and to continue pursuing their careers in music. Mr. Nadler then asked Mr. Huppe if AMFA adequately accounts for the ability of small broadcasters to pay additional royalties. Mr. Huppe answered in the affirmative, noting that AMFA would require small broadcasters who make 1.5 million dollars or less annually to only pay $500 in royalties a year.

Congresswoman Lofgren

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) asked whether there might be unintended consequences if AMFA was passed, specifically whether emergency broadcast services would be jeopardized. First, Mr. Legeyt argued that comparisons shouldn’t be made to other countries that pay sound recording royalties and also successfully fund emergency broadcast services. He supported his contention by noting that “there is no comparison to the U.S. locally focused, freely available broadcast model in any other country.” Mr. Huppe argued that it shouldn’t be hard for local stations to fund emergency services and pay recording artists because there are plenty of stations that pay for talk radio talent and sports content and still manage to make a profit.  

Congressman Moran

Congressman Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) prefaced his questions by underscoring the importance of radio in his rural east-Texas community. First, Congressman Moran probed the broadcasting industry on their promotional efforts and their relationship with the recording industry. Mr. Legeyt responded by highlighting the uniqueness of broadcast stations, explaining that each station fosters a relationship with its community, which other mediums cannot do. Moreover, Legeyt explained that because terrestrial radio is free, it is more widely available and thus enhances promotion for musicians. Mr. Legeyt quantified the promotional efforts to an estimated 2.4 billion dollars. Mr. Harrel then mentioned that “new artists, existing artists, [and] stars” are asking to play their music on radio stations. Mr. Harrel, when asked about the monetary cost, said that radio station will have to make “tough decisions” with any new expenses.

Congresswoman Lee

Congresswoman Laurel Lee (R-FL) focused her questions on the distinction between foreign nations and the United States, when it comes to a performance right. Mr. Huppe repeated his earlier sentiment, that the “U.S. stands alone in the industrialized world as the only democratic nation that does not pay performance right for terrestrial radio.” As a result, Huppe explained that many countries “do not pay us that similar right,” and artists are losing out on almost 300 million dollars a year.  Congresswoman Lee then asked Mr. Huppe if he could foresee any procedural amendments needing to be adopted if AMFA is passed. Mr. Huppe answered in the negative, noting that AMFA is “a simple law, as laws go.”

Congressman Massie

Congressman Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) main question was aimed at finding a compromise between broadcasters and sound recording industry, asking whether there was a “free-market solution” to the issue at hand. He asked Mr. Legeyt if it’s feasible for artists to be able to negotiate licensing fees with local stations, to which Mr. Legeyt responded in the negative. Mr. Legeyt told Congressman Massie that there are 15,000 stations across the country with different ownerships groups and therefore the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which he described as a “one-stop shop,” has its efficiencies.

Ranking Member Johnson

After a brief recess, Ranking Member Hank Johnson (D-GA) asked Mr. Huppe to explain how AMFA would not hurt local broadcast stations that are weathering technological changes to the industry. Mr. Huppe again explained that small local stations are accommodated in the bill because the royalties they pay annually are capped. Mr. Legeyt responded by claiming that if you apply the current CRB streaming framework to terrestrial radio, stations will have to pay millions upon millions in performance royalties. Mr. Huppe pushed back stating that when the CRB sets rates, factors such as licensee contributions and promotional value, are considered.

Congressman Cline

Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA) asked Mary and Randy Travis whether the “shift in listeners ways of finding music affected the balance between the benefit of radio play and the balance of royalties.” Mary stated that streaming music sometimes pays well, but there are still millions of dollars that artists are missing out on. Mrs. Travis conceded that many radio stations are small businesses but stated that artists are small businesses as well and when they are not paid what they are owed “it can be hard to make ends meet.”  

Congressman Ivey

Congressman Glenn Ivey’s (D-MD) first asked Mr. Huppe how Spotify licenses music. Mr. Huppe explained that Spotify operates under direct licenses with copyright owners of sound recordings. Mr. Legeyt then said that, unlike Spotify, local broadcasters can’t charge subscription fees and they cannot nationalize their services, lest they lose their competitive advantage.

Congressman Fry

Congressman Russell Fry (R-SC) asked Mrs. Travis her thoughts on the repercussions that a performance royalty for terrestrial play would have on local broadcasting stations. She stated that radio stations would “not fall apart if they had to share their royalties” and that she thinks it would increase their listenership and revenue. Mrs. Travis also noted that artists participate in and organize similar community efforts as local broadcasters; they play charities and organize fundraisers and benefits.

Chairman Issa

Chairman Darrel Issa (R-CA) concluded the hearing with an intense line of questioning aimed at the broadcasters. He asked Mr. Legeyt if it’s true that NAB has “never made an offer to the performers that gave them a net increase in their revenue.” Mr. Legeyt argued that was not a fair categorization and reiterated that the sound recording industry’s claim that there is 300 million dollars of lost royalties hasn’t been substantiated. Chairman Issa said that NAB “did not offer one net penny…that their negotiations were on a net savings.” He added that if broadcasters can afford to pay NAB’s dues, then they should be able to make some offer to sound recording copyright owners.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

House Administration Committee Holds Hearing on U.S. Copyright Office Modernization

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: June 27, 2024

On June 26, the Committee on House Administration held a hearing titled The U.S. Copyright Office: Customers, Communities, and Modernizations Efforts. The hearing featured Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office, as the only witness. Throughout the 70-minute hearing, Register Perlmutter took questions on the status of the Office’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) study, registration modernization, modernization efforts surrounding its Enterprise Copyright System (ECS), resources needed for modernization efforts, the notice of proposed rulemaking for electronic deposit copies, and right-to-repair issues. While Register Perlmutter discussed general timelines and commitments on the modernization of the registration system and straightforwardly answered Committee members’ questions, many pressing modernization issues, unfortunately, went unaddressed.

Opening Remarks

Chairman Bryan Steil (R-WI) opened the hearing by outlining the Committee’s legislative branch oversight over the Copyright Office and explaining that the goal of the hearing would be a focused discussion on large batch registration, IT modernization and AI policy, and the safe promotion of innovation. Modernization efforts, he said, “make [registration] simpler, easier, and more efficient for everyday copyright holders to register their works.” Ranking Member Joe Morelle (D-NY) also delivered brief opening remarks that detailed recent accomplishments of the Copyright Office, like the Copyright Claims Board and the ECS. Additionally, Morelle echoed Steil’s AI concerns and the importance of the Copyright Office’s AI guidance and leadership, while also highlighting the importance of right-to-repair issues, particularly in the context of the triennial rulemaking process.

Register Perlmutter Describes USCO Modernization Efforts

In her opening remarks, Register Perlmutter stressed that the Office closely collaborates with the Library of Congress’s Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), but that the Copyright Office determines the business priorities of its modernization efforts. She detailed advancements in modernizing the ECS, including the introduction of electronic recordation, which replaced a paper-based system and allowed for more efficient and faster recordation. Perlmutter also described plans to initiate a pilot version of the standard registration application and improve deposit upload capabilities by the end of the year. Other achievements she mentioned were prioritization of outreach and communication on other updates to the copyright system including administration of the Music Modernization Act (MMA) and the operations of the Copyright Claims Board (CCB).

Questions for the Register

Chairman Bryan Steil

Chairman Steil (R-WI) first questioned Register Perlmutter about AI and the status of the Copyright Office’s review on the Artificial Intelligence landscape. He stressed the importance of guidance and leadership from the Office. Perlmutter responded that the report will be released in intervals, with the first section addressing digital replicas to be released in the coming weeks. The second section on the copyrightability of AI will be released toward the end of summer, and the other sections on infringement, fair use, licensing, and allocation of liability will be released in the fall.

Chairman Steil then asked about delays to those issuance dates, and Register Perlmutter said that, except for the digital replica report, which they had hoped to publish in June, the other reports would be on time. Steil also inquired about potential state legislation concerning various AI issues, including digital replicas, that could be enacted before the Copyright Office issues their reports and whether that was a concern for the Office. Register Perlmutter responded by saying that a patchwork of inconsistent state laws is a concern, but that Congress is also looking into legislative solutions. Lastly, Steil asked if Register Perlmutter believed that the Copyright Office had sufficient “human capital” and knowledge to navigate the new technology issues. Register Perlmutter answered in the affirmative, stating that the Copyright Office does not see AI as being any different than challenging technological issues of the past. She assured the Committee that the Office’s staff has routinely faced challenges surrounding new technologies and that they strive to stay up-to-date and educated.

Ranking Member Joe Morelle

Ranking Member Morelle (D-NY)continued the AI conversation and Register Perlmutter explained the Office was examining AI issues from two lenses: a policy lens (with assistance from Congress) and an administrative lens focusing on the registration of copyright claims for works containing generative AI elements. Morelle asked whether works generated by AI, where you cannot trace a human authorship element, are copyrightable, to which Register Perlmutter replied that there was no copyright protection for such works. She explained that this position has been confirmed by the D.C. District Court in a recent copyrightability case, though the case is currently appealed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Morelle further inquired about where the line is drawn when human authorship and AI generation interact and overlap in a resulting work. Register Perlmutter explained that this is an ongoing discussion, and the right question was if the human input determines the expressive elements of the output.

Ranking Member Morelle then shifted to right-to-repair issues and asked what factors the Office was weighing for expanding the 1201 exemptions beyond consumer products. Register Perlmutter explained that the Office is in the middle of rulemaking now, so she could not specifically articulate any position the Office might ultimately take on a particular exception, but she assured the Congressman that the Office will be looking at any evidence that may warrant an expansion of the exemption. She also noted that in the past the Office has considered a permanent exemption that is “broader than the evidence they see in any particular proposal.”

Representative Barry Loudermilk

After a brief recess, the questioning continued with Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), focusing his questions on cybersecurity and asking for an elaboration of the Copyright Office’s partnership with the Library of Congress. Register Perlmutter explained that they work extremely closely with the Library of Congress, specifically the OCIO, and that they have a shared vision of modernization and modernization timelines. Loudermilk further asked what IT modernization efforts have been made to protect electronic deposits. Perlmutter stated that to the best of her knowledge, the Office uses “state of the art” security, complying with federal standards, to protect deposits that are in transit and being held by the Office. 

Representative Loudermilk then asked about how the new IT system will benefit copyright owners and Perlmutter restated how the ECS will be easier and more user-friendly and will have controlled testing of pilot versions before official implementation. She stated that a limited pilot of the standard registration application will be available by the end of the year and that it will be much easier to upload deposits, especially in bulk, to the system. Lastly, Loudermilk asked about the timeframe and budget, and Register Perlmutter stated that they will remain within budget but will request more funding for fiscal year 2026 to keep pace with their current timeline.

Representative Terri Sewell

Representative Terri Sewell (D-AL) turned the conversation toward the Copyright Office’s efforts to digitize historical records. She asked whether the Office would be working on improving searchability and usability for historical copyright records. Register Perlmutter explained the extraction of metadata from the electronic records are the next steps. Further, Sewell asked about a timeframe for the digitization of the remaining records, to which Perlmutter responded that it would be a few years. Lastly, Sewell asked whether the Copyright Office is leveraging public and private partnerships and Perlmutter acknowledged that this was a good idea with potential.

Representative Morgan Griffith

Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA) asked for clarification about the digitization process, and whether the Copyright Office was taking analog works that have been deposited with the Office during the registration process and digitizing those. Register Perlmutter assured him that they were simply digitizing copyright registration records and not the physical copies of works.

Representative Derek Kilmer

Representative Derek Kilmer (D-WA) then focused the discussion on the local news media industry. He asked whether the Copyright Office specifically sought out feedback and comments on modernization from local news organizations and media, as their business models are threatened by AI. Register Perlmutter stated that there had been conversations with local news media publishers and that the Copyright Office has always maintained an “open door” policy if a particular stakeholder wants to discuss an issue. Kilmer then asked what the Copyright Office may need from Congress to help with any copyright issues that affect local journalism. Register Perlmutter mentioned that through its press publishers’ protections report, the Office determined that there were many other areas of law outside of copyright, such as antitrust and collective bargaining, where the news media publishers might find better recourse. She also mentioned that the proposed rule to create a group registration option for updates to news websites will be finalized in July.  

Representative Stephanie Bice

Following Representative Kilmer, Representative Stephanie Bice (R-OK) asked a question about the Copyright Office’s notice of proposed rulemaking that would grant the Office authority to make and transfer electronic deposit copies for Library access. Perlmutter explained that the rule specifically addresses digital deposits for copyright registration. She noted that this would allow the Library of Congress to choose from a broader selection of digital works, extending beyond just newspapers and serials. However, Perlmutter emphasized that strict access controls would be in place, such as the use only on library premises, only on dedicated terminals, only two authorized users at a time, and a prohibition of further reproduction.

Representative Bice pivoted to concerns regarding modernization, asking why the Copyright Office did not convene the Copyright Public Modernization Committee (CPMC) more frequently and highlighting the unilateral desire among CPMC members for more meetings. Register Perlmutter explained that under the regulations, the committee is set to meet publicly two times per year, but that the Office had informally met with members in between those times and that they are discussing more frequent meetings. Lastly, Bice asked if Perlmutter believed she needed more authority or directive to meet more frequently, and Perlmutter replied that it was not necessary.

Representative Mike Carey

Representative Mike Carey (R-OH) asked for an update about the ECS as it relates to the copyright registration system, noting that the Office has been working on it for over a decade. Register Perlmutter said that those modernization efforts started in 2020, but that modernization of the registration component of ECS was not a priority until the past year. Register Perlmutter explained that the Office has been moving resources and allocating more time to modernizing the registration system and plans on conducting a limited test of the new standard application by the end of this calendar year (2024).

Representative Carey then asked whether these updates would happen all at once, or in increments. Register Perlmutter responded by saying that once the updates have been fully tested, with feedback from the public, the new registration system will be implemented all at once. However, she stressed that testing will be incremental and done in phases. Lastly, Representative Carey asked about the Copyright Office’s resources, and Register Perlmutter restated that they currently have adequate funding and staff to complete the new system and retire the legacy eCO system in 2026.

Representative Laurel Lee

Lastly, Representative Laurel Lee (R-FL) focused her questions on the Music Modernization Act (MMA) and AI.  Lee inquired about the progress of the five-year redesignation of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) and Register Perlmutter explained that the Office has sought public comments on the issue and that they are currently reviewing those comments. Representative Lee, then, asked how the process could be improved, and Register Perlmutter indicated that such issues would be addressed in the forthcoming report. Representative Lee also asked if the Office would be making any other significant recommendations and Register Perlmutter noted that the Office is finalizing a rule on termination rights that could have a major impact and make it into the final report.

Lee switched gears to AI and asked if copyright law is the right vehicle to tackle the digital replica challenges AI introduces. Register Perlmutter explained that there are ways copyright law can address some of the challenges, but that it does not directly protect someone’s identity. She further noted that the Copyright Office’s report will incorporate references to many different state laws, including the Lanham Act, and right of publicity laws. Lastly, Representative Lee asked how copyright law could provide an avenue for relief for harm caused by unauthorized digital replicas. Register Perlmutter responded that if someone’s identity is linked with a copyrightable work, there could be a path toward relief using copyright infringement claims related to AI ingestion.

Concluding Remarks

Chairman Steil and Ranking Member Morelle concluded the hearing by thanking Register Perlmutter and acknowledging the list of groups and stakeholders who submitted testimony and statements for the record, including the Copyright Alliance, the Coalition of Visual Artists, the Copyright Clearance Center, the News/Media Alliance, the Digital Media Association, the Nashville Songwriters Association International, the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild, Professional Photographers of America, PLUS Coalition, and the National Music Publishers Association, and then finally, the committee adjourned.

Conclusion

Overall, the hearing shed light on concrete goals that the Copyright Office has in its sights for registration modernization. The Office confirmed that a pilot version of the standard application will be released by the end of this year; that upload capabilities will be improved by the end of this year; and that the registration modernization updates will be rolled out in phases with the opportunity for public testing and feedback; and that the current eCO registration system will be retired by 2026.

Though these aspects of the registration modernization are crucial, many other issues were not addressed during the hearing that we hope the Copyright Office will provide updates on shortly. These issues include (i) prioritization of recordation modernization over registration modernization, (ii) project management and how resources are allocated between the Copyright Office and OCIO, (iii) the Government Accountability Office’s recent issuance of a bid protest decision and the effect it may have on modernization efforts, (iv) deposit requirement adjustments following the Valancourt v. Garland decision, (v) group registrations, specifically for photographers, (vi) tiered fee structures and dynamic pricing for registrations, (vii) when the Office will adopt a new rule for group registration system for updates to news websites, (viii) updates to the Office’s modernization website, and (ix) overall transparency surrounding modernization timelines and benchmarks. 

We stand ready to provide any help and feedback on the registration modernization process and to engage further with the Office to ensure that our copyright registration system truly meets the needs of all creators. Read more about other crucial updates that are needed in the new copyright registration system in the Copyright Alliance’s written testimony

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

World Music Day 2024: The History of Music and Copyright

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: June 20, 2024

From classical to hip-hop and metal to opera, music is a medium that unites people despite linguistic and cultural barriers. In celebration of World Music Day 2024, we recognize the importance of music, its evolution, and all that it has done for humanity. While the importance of music is something that has been written about time and time again, the copyright laws that protect music have evolved just as much as the medium has. As technology improved and advanced, so did music copyright law through a long history of litigation and amendments to the Copyright Act.

Copyrights are a Constitutionally protected and created right that grants authors certain exclusive rights to an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.  These five exclusive rights are the right to: (1) reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted works; (3) distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership (or by rental, lease, or lending); (4) perform the copyrighted work publicly; and (5) display the copyrighted work publicly.

Copyright Protections for a Song: Sound Recordings vs Musical Works

In terms of copyright protection for a song, the Copyright Act recognizes two distinct copyrights—the sound recording and the musical work. The sound recording is a work that results from a fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds but not including sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, whereas a musical work is the underlying compositional arrangement of notes, lyrics, melodies, and chords of a song.

For example, using the song Blinding Lights by The Weeknd, the sound recording would be the recording of a specific performance of the song by The Weeknd. The sound recording is owned by XO Records/Republic Records, while the musical work is owned by The Weeknd and other songwriters, like Max Martin. 

Because sound recordings and musical works are two different kinds of copyrightable works, they are treated differently under the Copyright Act. Musical works are subject to compulsory licensing, meaning, to reproduce a musical work, a person does not need to get permissions from the musical work copyright owner. Instead, the user pays a statutorily set licensing fee, pursuant to §115 of the Copyright Act. Sound recordings on the other hand are not subject to compulsory licensing, meaning that one would need to get permission from the copyright owner to use their sound recording. However, pursuant to §114 of the Copyright Act, sound recordings have a statutory licensing scheme only for non-interactive digital streaming services, like Pandora or Sirius XF.

To understand why music was given two distinct copyrights and why they are each treated differently, we must examine the history of the Copyright Act.

Shortly after the U.S. gained independence, Congress, using its enumerated powers, enacted the Copyright Act of 1790. Under the 1790 Act, when works were registered, creators were granted the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, or vend their maps, charts, and books for an initial period of 14 years. Music, however, was not specifically mentioned.

Since 1790 was well before the advent of cassettes, vinyl records, and streaming, music was primarily a live endeavor, i.e., people could not listen to pre-recorded music. Moreover, if people wanted to play any music, they had to rely on sheet music or their musical ear. Therefore, a musical performance of a song was not protectable. Similarly, music was not an enumerated category in the 1790 Act since, if artists wanted copyright protections over their musical works, they could simply register their sheet music under the books categories of books. The first musical composition to be registered as a book, under the Copyright Act, was “The Kentucky Volunteer”. Musical works would not be a separate copyrightable work until the passage of the Copyright Act of 1831.

As a part of the 1831 revision, musical works were finally listed as their own separate category of work eligible for copyright protection. However, public performances of composition were still unprotected and would not be awarded protection until 1897. The first musical work to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, under the category of musical works, was “Maid of My Love”, written by David L. Richardson and I.T. Norton.

Another notable development in American copyright law was the Berne Convention. While the Berne Convention would not be ratified in the United States until 1989, 103 years after its development in 1886, it laid the groundwork for contemporary-American copyright. The Berne Convention included rights for musicians to control who, what, and how their musical works were reproduced and established minimum exclusive rights for copyright owners. Moreover, it provided immediate copyright protection once a work was fixed.

The Birth of Compulsory Mechanical Licenses

The third general revision of the Copyright Act occurred in 1909, and included a response to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company. The issue in this case centered on whether piano rolls were considered musical copies. A piano roll is a roll of paper with holes punched in it, each holes representing notes on the piano. When a player piano’s reading device came across a hole in the paper, the piano would play a sound, and thus play a song over time. SCOTUS ruled that piano rolls were not copies of musical works because the holes in piano roll paper were not an intelligible musical notation to an ordinary human being. In a response to SCOTUS’s ruling, Congress recognized a mechanical reproduction right for musical works and also created the compulsory licensing system, which allowed people to, without the permission of the copyright owner of the musical, make reproductions of a musical work if they paid a statutorily set royalty fee payable to the copyright owner.

Protection of Sound Recordings in Response to Technological Shifts

Before the passage of the 1971 Sound Recording Act, sound recordings were protected in a piecemeal manner, by state law. Therefore, there was a lack of uniformity and understanding over a sound recording’s copyright protection. As such, record labels continually asked Congress to protect sound recordings, so that these creative works could be protected in a uniform and consistent manner. In response, Congress enacted the 1971 Sound Recording Act, which extended protections to sound recordings fixed and published, with a copyright notice, on or after February 15, 1972. However, sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, were still unprotected and would not be protected until the passage of the Music Modernization Act in 2018. Also, notably, the public performance right was also not included as an enumerated exclusive right for sound recordings.

The 1976 Act made other major improvements to the 1909 Act. Congress reasoned that due to technological advances in communicating printed material like, information storage, retrieval devices, motion-pictures, and sound recordings, the Copyright Act needed to be modernized. As such, Congress, recognized copyright protections for any “original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” For musicians or any artists, this would mean that the minute they create a sound recording, write lyrics, or compose a piece, there would be a de facto copyright. While there is a de facto copyright with fixation, artists should still register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office so they can pursue litigation and get special remedies like, statutory damages and attorney’s fees. More information can be found here.

In 1995, Congress passed the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRA). The DPRA granted sound recording copyright holders the exclusive right to perform their sound recordings publicly via digital audio transmission. Congress purposefully excluded the right to perform sound recordings via terrestrial broadcast, i.e., AM/FM radio. Congress reasoned that “performers have benefitted considerably” from airplay and other promotion activities provided by both noncommercial and advertiser-supported, free over-the-air broadcasting”. Moreover, Congress did not want to “jeopardize the mutually beneficial” relationship between over-the-air broadcasting and sound recording industries, by imposing burdens on over-the-air broadcasting industry.

Music Piracy in the Digital Age

With the rise of the Internet, transmitting media across platforms became easy as ever. While the internet brought numerous benefits, it also ushered in rampant piracy issues via peer-to-peer sharing networks like Napster, LimeWire, and Pirate Bay. With peer-to-peer sharing, users were able to upload and copy unauthorized replications of all kinds of copyrighted works, including music, movies, and videogames. The music industry, in particular, took a massive financial hit from rampant online piracy. The rise of peer-to-peer networks were the progeny of infamous lawsuits, like Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, LTD., and A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.These cases, set precedent to help the music industry recover from peer-to-peer sharing and continue growing.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, LTD.

In Grokster, defendants Grokster and StreamCast Network distributed peer-to-peer sharing software. Most of what was disseminated through their software was copyrighted material, resulting in a suit commenced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM), record companies, and other copyright holders. The U.S. Supreme Court, ruled the defendants were liable for infringement because Grokster distributed the software, and promoted it to infringe copyrights.

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.

Similarly, In Napster, A&M Records sued Defendant Napster for the distribution of A&M Records copyrighted music on Napster’s peer-to-peer sharing network. The district court granted A&M a preliminary injunction finding there was a likelihood Napster was contributorily and vicariously infringing; Napster appealed. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Napster knew that there was infringing material being distributed on their software and that Napster could police such activity, but chose not to do so, for their financial gain.

While these lawsuits did effectively establish secondary liability for major pirating sources, online piracy was still a rampant issue bleeding the industry. As such, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), became a tool for record labels. The DMCA provided a method for record companies to have unauthorized uses of their copyrighted material taken down. For example, if a YouTube account is posting unauthorized copies of the song “The Party and the After Party” by the Weeknd, the Weeknd’s authorized representative can send YouTube a takedown notice requesting said infringing copy to be taken down. The takedown notice informs YouTube that one of their users is uploading copyrighted material and if YouTube does not act swiftly to take it down, then they could potentially be vicariously or contributorily liable for copyright infringement because the DMCA safe harbors no longer grant them immunity from their users’ infringements.

The Music Modernization Act of 2018

As on-demand-music streaming took over, there was a growing problem of musical works royalties that were not being properly paid out to songwriters and music publishers. In response to this and other music issues, the Music Modernization Act (MMA) was enacted with the aim of bringing music copyright law up to par with the digital age. The first major portion of the MMA was the creation of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) to administer blanket licenses. The MLC created a database of musical works containing all corresponding information on who the musical works’ copyright holders are. As such, when royalties are passed through the MLC, copyright owners can be paid in an easier and more streamlined fashion.

The next major portion of the MMA is the Classics Act. As discussed above, in 1971, sound recordings made on or after February 15, 1972, were given federal copyright protection; however, sounds recordings made before that date were not. Under the Classics Act, sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, would be extended copyright protections. As such, these recordings are now subjected to the statutory licensing scheme for non-interactive streams, thus allowing for the payment of these uses of such sound recordings in the streaming age. Rights owners of such sound recordings could also be awarded special remedies like attorney fees and statutory damages. Moreover, The Classics Act also extended copyright term lengths for pre-72 recordings. For example, sound recordings published between 1947 and 1956 were given an additional 15 years of protection, on top of their 95-year term.

The last major portion of the MMA is the Allocation for Music Producers Act. The Allocation for Music Producers Act allowed producers and engineers to obtain royalties, from satellite and radio performances, in a more streamlined fashion. Traditionally, producers and engineers would have to negotiate directly with an artist and apply through said artist to collect royalties. Now, producers and engineers can provide a Letter of Direction to Sound Exchange and receive their hard-earned royalties.

Conclusion

To celebrate World Music Day 2024, we commemorate all that music has done for the world. The music industry has and continues to evolve greatly over time, adapt to cultural and technological changes, and has been at the center of many important issues in copyright law and jurisprudence. But given all the obstacles thrown at the industry, the music community has shown time and time again that music will stand the test of time no matter the hurdles it must jump.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Creator Spotlight with Artist, Author, & Doctor Grisell Vargas

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: June 6, 2024

This week we’d like to introduce Artist, Author, & award-winning physician, Grisell Vargas. Grisell is the author of three pain management books and has been published in over 60 medical articles. After reading her spotlight blog, be sure to follow her on Instagram.

What was the inspiration behind becoming a creator? What do you enjoy most about the creative process?

Since my childhood, creation has been part of my life. When I was a child, I made up stories for my siblings and created decorations. I also painted and made posters to decorate our bedrooms.

Creation has always been part of my life. Creating is giving life to something that does not exist from an idea and expressing it in different materials and means of communicating such as writing and the transmission of knowledge.

What I enjoy most about the creative process is trying to give shape to my ideas and finding a way to transform that idea and creative energy into something tangible. The second thing is to give color to my created forms and transmit joy in each brushstroke to the eye of the observer. In each brushstroke and each combination of colors I leave a dash of emotion and a part of myself. It is a little piece of me that goes into creation and is what makes it unique and unrepeatable. Each work is a reflection of that journey, that personal path, it is like a window to a little piece of my inner world as a creative artist.

Can you talk through your creative process? How long does it take? Does everything you produce make money?

I could say that my professional and artistic life are marked by creativity.       

In addition to being an artist, I am a doctor who works in pain management. I have a professional life that I practice with passion and in which I have expressed my creative spirit through clinical research. I have written several books, and I have created innovative methods in medical pedagogy. On the other hand, the artistic part has always grown in parallel to my very active medical life. Unfortunately, I have not yet made money from my art.

What do you think is the biggest misconception about your line of work?

That artists only need to know how to create art. In fact, we need to about marketing too, and I am not yet sure of how to sell my works.

When did you first become aware of copyright, and why?

The first time I learned about copyright was in 2010, after creating all the teaching materials needed for a therapeutic education program for patients suffering from chronic pain. After doing so, a person tried to take possession of the material and it was at that moment that I had to investigate and create the copyright protections for the therapeutic education program.

Before this happened, I was also robbed many times in presentation creations and in photos used at conferences, making me realize that it’s essential to protect my works through copyright.

Have you experienced copyright infringement and, if so, how has it affected you personally and financially?

Feeling that someone takes possession of an intellectual work produces a lot of anger and what I do is defend my creation with strength and enthusiasm. It is very hard, but I am a person who always looks for the positive in every experience and I firmly believe that fighting for something builds an internal strength that helps the process of healing the wound of intellectual theft.

Financially speaking, I didn’t lose money, but I did lose time and time is priceless.

What do you do when you encounter someone stealing something you’ve invested your intellect, time, and money into?

I feel a lot of emotions. Firstly, I feel very angry with myself for not having seen this coming and secondly, I demonstrate that the intellectual theft occurred by presenting concrete facts such as my copyright registrations. I am a fighter and I have learned to fight for what is important.

What is the best piece of advice that you would give other creators in your field about copyright and how to protect themselves?

I think it is important to be well informed, and secondly not to let yourself be overcome by the negative emotions that feeling stolen from can generate; thirdly, I establish a plan on how to prove that the work is copyrighted; and, fourthly, I fight to prove that the creation is my work.

What is your biggest copyright-related challenge?

Being well informed, knowing how to act and who to turn to, to prevent the theft of intellectual property and how to deal with it when it happens.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Creator Spotlight with Stop-Motion Animator Blake Derksen

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: May 30, 2024

This week we’d like to introduce you to stop-motion animator, Blake Derksen. Some of his more well-known projects include Robot Chicken (2001), Fall Out Boy: Love from the Other Side (2023), and Crossing Swords (2020). After reading his spotlight blog, be sure to check out his work on both his website and on Vimeo. You can also follow him on Instagram.

What was the inspiration behind becoming a creator? What do you enjoy most about the creative process?

I’ve always enjoyed drawing and making things. Growing up, my uncle always used to fold origami flapping birds for me every time I’d visit his office. Eventually, I asked if he’d teach me how to make one. Fascinated with the process and possibilities I checked out books about origami and learned more models. This snowballed and soon I was folding complex pieces and learning how to develop my own models.

So when my dad taught me the basics of how to edit videos in iMovie, it didn’t take long before my best friend and I were making movies together every weekend. After seeing these, my uncle asked if I’d ever tried stop motion? I didn’t quite know what that was, but I had an inclination as to what it meant. My best friend and I were immediately hooked. We had been bitten by the animation bug and there was no going back.

My favorite part of the process is the fulfillment of taking something I’ve sculpted or built and making it come to life through the magic of animation. It’s fun to take something inanimate and bring it to life to tell stories.

Can you talk through your creative process? How long does it take? Does everything you produce make money?

It takes a lot of time to do anything in stop motion as it is very interdisciplinary. You have to take time to flush out your concept and idea, storyboard it, and edit it before you even start building the puppets. Once you’re sure you’re headed in the right direction, you can start building your sets and puppets.

The miniatures built for stop motion have to be very sturdy so that they don’t jitter or move as you’re animating, and the puppets have to be made out of a variety of different materials depending on what you want them to be capable of. There’s usually some time spent researching and developing fabrication techniques that are unique to each production as simple motions and facts of life we take for granted never come for free in animation.

Once everything is built, it gets lit and dressed to camera, and then you can start animating. Pushing the puppet from one frame at a time, a single shot can take anywhere from a couple hours to multiple days depending on its complexity. On average I’m able to animate 8-10 seconds a day, but again that really depends on how complex the shot is.

I do some personal animation work for fun. That stuff I usually post on social media to share with friends, family, and colleagues. Most of the animation I’ve made has been done in the studio setting under contract work.

What do you think is the biggest misconception about your line of work?

One of the biggest misconceptions with stop motion is how time consuming it is. While many people may know that it is generally labor intensive, I don’t think there’s a good understanding of just how intensive it is. This often has a bad knock-on effect on most stop motion productions. There’s a saying in the film business: good, fast, cheap; pick two. I don’t think enough people truly understand that quality animation is going to take a long time. I’ve had people ask me if I could independently animate an entire music video for them for $500. In a best case scenario, where I somehow have a set, puppets, and all the other requisite materials ready to go, I could maybe crank out a minute of animation in a week. The reality is that it takes an army and a lot of time and money, or it is going to take a really long time on a tighter budget. No-one wants a super cheap product that was made quickly, it’s just gonna be bad. I wish more clients understood this better.

When did you first become aware of copyright, and why?

I first became aware of copyright in high school because of my interest in origami. As my origami skills started to mature enough, I was thinking of selling some of the models I was folding. After learning about how copyright worked surrounding origami, I decided I would rather sell my own original models.

Another thing that I learned was the importance of crediting creators, even when you’re just folding a model for fun and sharing it on social media. The origami community is largely very respectful of each other’s rights in my experience. Most people who share pictures of origami models they have folded will credit the creator of the model in their description. I haven’t seen very many other art forms where proper credit is given so regularly.

What is your biggest copyright-related challenge?

My biggest copyright related challenge is protecting my work against generative AI. While big companies have the resources to protect their IPs from being included in training models, not many of us individual artists have the resources to protect our work as easily. And it is a genuine concern to me as there are many CG artists already out there that often try to emulate a stop motion look. At the end of the day it still doesn’t compare to the real thing to me, but I fear that those who care less about why and how something is made will pursue AI generated “stop motion” out of convenience instead of hiring stop motion artists. Hopefully, legal action will help protect our work eventually, but until then, it is nerve wracking knowing that someone else could be profiting off of my work that has been scraped from the web. Ideally, these models will at least be required to give proper attribution and compensation for their sources in the future.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Turning Books to Movies: Three Copyright Tips for Authors

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: May 21, 2024

What do “The Notebook,” “It,” “The Bourne Identity,” “Twilight,” “The Pursuit of Happyness,” and “The Color Purple” all have in common? You guessed it—they were all first literary works before being adapted into movies. Many of our favorite blockbuster classics began bound by a spine, printed, published, and placed on bookshelves. For authors who spend countless hours and incalculable amounts of energy expressing themselves through the creation of books, essays, short stories, graphic novels, and other literary works, hoping that one day their work might make it off the bookstore shelves and into movie theaters or onto television screens, it is possible. However, when the dream manifests itself, and these authors are approached with an opportunity to turn their work into a movie or television series, what should they know about copyright when negotiating?

In this blog, we’ll cover three copyright-related tips that authors should keep in mind when adapting or looking to adapt their literary works into works for the big and small screens. But before we get into our three tips, it’s important to know what a transfer of a copyright entails.

Transferring Copyrights: Exclusivity

The Copyright Act grants authors exclusive control over rights in their literary works. A copyright owner of a literary work has several exclusive rights: (1) the right to reproduce the work, (2) the right to distribute the work, (3) the right to create derivative works of the work, (4) the right to publicly perform the work and (5) the right to publicly display the work, as discussed in our Copyright Law for Writers webpage. These rights can be transferred or licensed to others, in whole or in part.

A transfer is the conveyance of one or more rights from the copyright owner to a third party. A license is a type of transfer where the owner grants a third party permission to exercise the owner’s rights under copyright law. In copyright, there are two kinds of licenses, non-exclusive licenses and exclusive licenses.

A non-exclusive copyright license is a license where the owner gives the licensee permission to exercise the rights but retains the right to authorize others to use the rights or to use the right themselves. A copyright owner could license their work to multiple parties.

An exclusive copyright license is a license where one or more rights is transferred by the copyright owner to a third party in manner such that only that third party can exploit that right or rights. The owner does not retain any rights throughout the duration of the exclusive licensing agreement. Under copyright law, an exclusive licensee is also able to sue for copyright infringement of the rights it has exclusivity to.

Authors can decide to retain the entire bundle of rights or transfer some or all rights to others. For instance, a writer can transfer all the rights to their novel, or they can agree to singularly transfer the right to make a derivative work of that novel. For example, when a movie is based on a book it is considered to be a derivative work in copyright law. However, we more commonly refer to such a work as an adaptation. For example, season one of the Netflix series Bridgerton is a derivative work of the book by Julia Quinn, Bridgerton: The Duke & I because the series is based on the book but reworked to a screen to appeal to viewers.

Whether the author transfers all rights to the work or just the right to make a derivative work, the terms must be negotiated and described in an agreement. The agreement must be made in writing signed by the copyright owner or the owner’s authorized agent. So, what should an author keep in mind about copyright law as they negotiate opportunities for adaptations? 

The first tip is that authors will want to register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office. Under copyright law, works are protected the moment they are created as long as they are original and have been fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Though registration is not required for copyright protection, it is beneficial, and may even be required in an agreement when transferring or licensing rights to a third party.

Registration Provides Information to Prospective Licensees

Registration with the Copyright Office creates a public record that includes key facts about authorship and ownership of a work, including information about the work, such as the title, year of creation, and publication date. The public record also includes information about the author, such as the author’s name and address. If a prospective licensee, like an entertainment company, were interested in using an author’s work to create an adaptation, the public record would be a valuable resource for locating the author’s contact information and other information about the work. This means that opportunities for the author could come to them more quickly. If the work is not registered, prospective licensees may not have any idea how to find the author to license the work.  

Additionally, having this information be part of the public record can help producers determine whether they are securing all rights necessary from all parties who may have an ownership claim. For example, if a producer found out that the literary work has derivative elements, that producer might do additional research to secure any additional and necessary rights for the underlying work in order to make their screen adaptation. Similarly, if a work was registered as a joint work, a producer may need to negotiate with more than one person.

Registration is Evidence of Validity

Registration serves as evidence of the validity of the copyright and the facts stated in the certificate of registration regarding ownership. The author of the registered work would not have to scramble to find proof of ownership to conduct negotiations because a registration certificate can serve as proof. In fact, an interested third party may require one as part of the agreement. Having a registration certificate in hand assists in negotiations because ownership information could be quickly verified.

Tip 2: Specify the Rights Being Transferred

The second tip is that authors should specify and understand what rights are being transferred. A first step for adapting a literary work into a film or television series is usually for a producer to seek an option to purchase the exclusive rights to adapt the work from the copyright owner for a period of time.

An option agreement, or “option,” is an exclusive agreement to start developing a work, such as a novel, into a film or television series. In return for the option to develop, the author or owner of the copyright is compensated. If the producer successfully secures funding and other elements necessary to produce the screen adaptation, the option is further negotiated and becomes an agreement to transfer and exclusively license the rights to the producer or film company. 

A purchase agreement is the final agreement that transforms option agreements into a more long-lasting licensing agreement. Producers and other types of prospective licensees may desire exclusive licenses over non-exclusive licenses because under an exclusive grant only the licensee can use the copyrighted work. The exclusivity gives producers a sense of security in knowing they are the only party allowed to adapt the literary work without pressure from competitors.

Specifying which rights the author intends to grant is crucial at the option stage. Under copyright law, the copyright owner may either transfer ownership of all or some of the rights. To maintain their rights, however, the author should carefully understand and appreciate what rights they are transferring in the agreement as well as the scope of those rights. 

For example, an author may choose to reserve their right to continue merchandising or their right to create future adaptations such as stage rights, and sequels in connection with the literary work. But wholesale transferring all rights leaves the author without the right to control where, how, or in what form their work appears. Ensuring that the terms and conditions of the copyrights transfer are very clear at the onset of the process helps to avoid future issues.

Tip 3: Enlist an Agent or Attorney to Help with Negotiations

Authors should consider enlisting the support of an attorney, literary agent, or film rights agent to negotiate on their behalf. A film rights agent is an agent who specializes in negotiating film terms. Typically, literary agents specialize in book publishing, but some literary agents also serve as film rights agents. Attorneys can help with specific copyright issues and contract negotiations. An attorney, literary agent, or film rights agent will have experience and background knowledge to help authors negotiate terms for film or television adaptations that align with their dream outcomes and future planning. If enlisting the help of an attorney sounds enticing, you can find an attorney using our Find a Copyright Attorney Directory.

Conclusion

Although the Copyright Act allows authors to transfer or license copyrights in whole or in part, authors should be aware of copyright law fundamentals and be prepared when negotiating and contracting their rights. That’s why authors should (1) register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office; (2) specify and understand the rights being transferred in their agreements and; (3) enlist an agent or attorney to help with their negotiations. These three tips related to copyright law will hopefully help authors prepare for when they negotiate film or television adaptations.

To learn more about how copyright law applies to writers, visit our webpage on What Writers Need to Know About Copyright Law. To access additional copyright law materials and resources, join the Copyright Alliance for our free creator membership.

Creator Spotlight with Children’s Book Illustrator Lauren Gallegos

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: April 18, 2024

This week we’d like to introduce you to children’s book illustrator, Lauren Gallegos. Lauren has illustrated over 30 books ranging from board books to historical fiction. After reading her spotlight blog, we encourage you to also follow her on Facebook, Instagram, and X.

What was the inspiration behind becoming a children’s book author? What do you enjoy most about the creative process?

Like most kids, I enjoyed making art, but it wasn’t until the end of high school that I started thinking of art as a possible career path. Before, I had never really thought that being an artist could be something you could make a living at. I went through college with that pursuit, but I didn’t have a clear goal until I took a Children’s Book Illustration class. Once I discovered that world, that was it for me. I knew I wanted to make narrative art and tell visual stories for kids. The books I read as a child were a huge inspiration to me as I got started. And as I grew, I became more familiar with current children’s illustrators that I loved. I love being able to create new and interesting worlds that you can escape into. I can imagine places that don’t exist, and make them real. And there is nothing more powerful than a story that brings someone hope. That is what I want to help bring to children through my art.

Can you talk through your creative process? How long does it take? Does everything you produce make money?

Either for client work, or personal work, it usually starts with some kind of story, either a finished manuscript, or some other narrative (a poem, a song, etc) any piece of text that sparks my imagination. Creating a children’s book involves everything from character design, environment design, narrative and sequential storytelling to thumbnail sketches, refined sketches, color sketches, and final art. It’s a huge process all crammed into 32 pages. Creating one children’s book can take anywhere between six months to one year. It’s a commitment and an investment, and so many people underestimate how much is involved in the process. Of course, it is most preferred to be hired to create art for a manuscript, in which case, you are paid for all the work you do. But there are certainly times when I am making art that I have not been hired for. To be hired, you have to have a strong, ever-changing portfolio, and not all paid work is something I want in my portfolio. So, I am constantly trying to make new work so that I will continue to get new jobs. It’s all about staying current and relevant in the children’s market, and sometimes that means making something for nothing in the hopes that it will produce interest from a publisher to eventually hire me.

What do you think is the biggest misconception about your line of work?

I think most people believe that making art for a children’s book takes a couple of weeks at most. They have no idea what amount of effort goes into every single piece of art, and not only that one piece, but an entire book full of art, which can be 16 images or more, And not only that, they all have to work together as one cohesive story. The pieces have to work together, but not all look the same. And you mostly have the same characters on every page, and they have to look consistent throughout the entire book. I think people think of kids’ books as a few fun, cute pictures. But each book is an entire body of work. Things like this take a lot of time.

When did you first become aware of copyright, and why?

I first became aware of copyright and protecting my work in college. This is going to make me sound SO OLD, but social media was still very new then, so we were encouraged to put our work on our own website or blog. At the time, sharing work on the internet was scary and who knows what was being stolen, so my professors taught us how to create our own watermarks to plaster across our work. They looked horrendous, but it felt like the most secure thing you could do at the time, so I did it. There was nothing official about it, but as a budding college-age artist with no money, it felt like enough.

What is the best piece of advice that you would give other creators in your field about copyright and how to protect themselves?

The illustrator will usually retain the copyright to their illustrations in the Publisher’s contract. But there are still plenty of publishers that only do “Work-for-Hire” contracts, which means the publisher holds the rights to your work. This is a decision an Illustrator has to make. If they are not comfortable, sometimes contracts can be negotiated differently, but that doesn’t always work. There are plenty of perfectly respectable Illustrators who will give up the rights to their work on occasion, usually for a job they aren’t completely tied to or in love with. Sometimes we all just need to work for money, and that’s fine. But there are stories of illustrators who do a Work-for-Hire project and, BAM! Now it’s being picked up to become a movie! Oh wait, but now the artist has zero say in how their work is used, if it’s even used at all. Work-for-Hire doesn’t have to be a deal breaker, but if you can negotiate the rights, definitely try to do so! And to protect your work with peace of mind, register them with the U.S. Copyright Office.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Community Partner Spotlight: National Association of Voice Actors (NAVA)

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: April 11, 2024

Today, we turn the spotlight over to one of our community partners, the National Association of Voice Actors (NAVA). They are a non-profit organization that seeks to “advocate and promote the advancement of the voice acting industry through action, education, inclusion, and benefits.” After you read their spotlight blog, be sure to follow them on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

What is the history of your organization, and what is its mission?

NAVA was formed in 2022 as a professional association for voice actors with the mission of being a place of advocacy in the voiceover industry. Our pillars are action, inclusion, education and benefits. When you think of “voiceover” images of cartoons and video games might come to mind. But voice actors do so much more than make funny voices on TV. Voice actors are the voices of the phone systems you interact with every day. We voice company training videos, and read medication safety information. We narrate your favorite documentaries and TV shows. We accompany you on long car rides through podcasts and audiobooks. And of course, we bring life to iconic animated characters in TV, film, and video games. Because of generative AI, our jobs, careers, security, and livelihoods are at risk.

NAVA exists not only to protect the voice actors who are currently working, but also to shape the future of our industry, so that there will be work available for generations of voice actors to come.

How do you support members of the creative community, and how can a creator get involved with your organization? 

In 2023, NAVA released a groundbreaking contract addendum/rider which helps protect creatives against the unauthorized use of their voice, likeness, and image for AI training and synthesization. The contract rider is free and available to the public on our website, and has been used successfully hundreds of times. We also launched our #fAIrVoices campaign on social media, which calls for fAIr consent, control, and compensation for creatives anytime artificial intelligence is involved. Professional voice actors can join NAVA by visiting NAVAvoices.org, and all creators can follow us on social media @NAVAvoices.

What inspired your organization to become a Copyright Alliance community partner?

The Copyright Alliance has been leading the way on issues surrounding AI from the very beginning, and NAVA is honored to be a community partner. We are thrilled to stand alongside so many impactful creative organizations, and know that together we can make a big difference not only for artists, but for the world at large. 

How have copyright and related issues affected your organization and its creator base?

Copyright is a complex topic for voice actors, because no one owns the copyright to the sound of their voice. In fact, as work for hire independent contractors creating the voices for characters which are a part of someone else’s IP, we often don’t have a direct claim over the performances we give. Voice actors have seen their voices scraped from video games and put through AI voice generation software to make all kinds of things, but because the video game company owns the intellectual property, it is the responsibility of the video game company to ask for it to be taken down, However, we do have some protections for sound files we create at home. We are looking into technology and legislation which would give all people rights over their own voice, likeness, and image. 

What is one thing you wish creators understood more clearly about copyright?

One interesting and important distinction we are trying to make is the difference between owning a sound file, and owning the rights to the voice print within that sounds file. Even if a sound file is in the public domain (for example in the case of LibriVox, which is a public domain audiobook platform which many AI companies have used to train their foundational models), it doesn’t mean the voice actor has agreed to give up their voice print. Voice print is considered sensitive and protected biometric data in many countries, but is not federally protected in the United States. We feel any time a synthetic version of a human being is created, that human being should give active, explicit consent in order for it to be legal to do so. If you want to use my voice, it should be my choice.

What advice would you give aspiring creators just starting out and unsure of how to protect their work?

For voice actors, the easiest thing to do is read your contracts. Be sure there is nothing in the contract that gives your end client the rights to your voice print. In addition to that, voice actors can add the NAVA AI/Synthetic Voice Contract Rider to every contract they sign to help ensure their end client won’t use their voice to make and train AI.

What are some current debates or issues surrounding copyright law that your organization is paying attention to, and what is your stance on them?

NAVA is meeting with lawmakers at the federal and state level to help shape legislation, and there are a few bills we are in full support of. The NO FAKES Act in the Senate would establish a federal right of publicity. And the NO AI Frauds Act in the House has a similar mission, and specifically references “voice” as a protected category and a property right. 

What are some common misconceptions that creators have about copyright, and how does your organization address them?

Many voice actors assume they own the rights to their voice, image, name, and likeness, and unfortunately at this moment in history, they do not. There are some right of publicity protections in certain states, but we all need to fight for federal protection. Especially for those of us who earn a living from licensing our voice, image, name, and likeness. 

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

Community Partner Spotlight: Asian American Arts Alliance (A4) 

Posted on by Courtney Lang
Post publish date: March 28, 2024

Today, we turn the spotlight over to one of our community partners, Asian American Arts Alliance (A4). They are a nonprofit “dedicated to strengthening Asian American artists and cultural groups through resource sharing, promotion, and community building.” After you read their spotlight blog, be sure to follow them on Instagram, Facebook, and X.

What is the history of your organization, and what is its mission?

The Asian American Arts Alliance (A4) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring greater representation, equity, and opportunities for Asian American artists and cultural organizations through resource sharing, promotion, and community building. Since 1983, A4 has sought to unify, promote, and represent the artistic and cultural producers of one of New York City’s fastest-growing populations. We are a diverse alliance of artists, organizations, and arts supporters who believe that working together as a pan-ethnic, multidisciplinary community is essential to nurturing the development of artists and arts groups. A4 serves as a thoughtful convener of the Asian American cultural workforce around issues of race, identity, and artmaking and provides a critical voice for this community. We are the only service organization in the country dedicated to the professional development of Asian American artists in all disciplines.

How do you support members of the creative community, and how can a creator get involved with your organization?

Asian American Arts Alliance offers programs that build community and provide resources through peer-learning, collaboration, and professional development, furthering the careers of Asian Americans in the arts and supporting a healthy arts ecosystem. Our programs include networking events, talks, workshops, and fellowships that lower barriers for engagement, embed pathways of access for artists to connect with cultural gatekeepers, advance opportunities for artists and arts administrators of color, and provide tools to develop Asian American leaders in the community.

There are numerous ways to join the A4 family and help us grow opportunities for Asian Americans in the arts. Donations help us provide the programs that build and connect our community. Attending our special events lets you experience and celebrate the rich and diverse talent for which we advocate every day. Volunteering and offering your time and services helps us execute our events and ongoing projects. Sharing your events and ideas allows us to support and amplify the Asian American creative sector.

What inspired your organization to become a Copyright Alliance community partner?

We are excited to partner with Copyright Alliance to broaden our network with experts who can share helpful information with our creative community consisting of artists, arts workers, designers, and more. Our community will also benefit from the complimentary workshops and cross-promotion they offer. 

What is one thing you wish creators understood more clearly about copyright?

Young emerging artists are often reluctant to think too far ahead into the future, but foresight to protect your work through copyright is essential to safeguarding against exploitation and infringement. We encourage all creatives to assume their work will take off and incorporate copyright into your work to protect your future, identity, and profits.

What advice would you give aspiring creators just starting out and unsure of how to protect their work?

Seek information from a professional, such as our colleagues at the Copyright Alliance!

Congrats to the Asian American Arts Alliance on their 40th Anniversary!

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members membership form! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

>