The Ultimate Guide to Buying Music Royalties 2021-Sm
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Licensing 101 December 3, 2020 Meet the Speakers
Licensing 101 December 3, 2020 Meet The Speakers Sushil Iyer Adam Kessel Principal Principal fr.com | 2 Roadmap • High level, introductory discussion on IP licensing • Topics – Types of IP – Monetization strategies – Key parts of a license agreement – Certain considerations • Licensing software, especially open source software • Licensing pharmaceutical patents • Trademarks • Trade secrets • Know-how fr.com | 3 Types of IP Patents Trademarks Copyrights Know-how (including trade secrets) fr.com | 4 Monetization Strategies • IP licensing – focus of this presentation – IP owner (licensor) retains ownership and grants certain rights to licensee – IP licensee obtains the legal rights to practice the IP – Bundle of rights can range from all the rights that the IP owner possesses to a subset of the same • Sale – IP owner (assignor) transfers ownership to the purchaser (assignee) • Litigation – Enforcement, by IP owner, of IP rights against an infringer who impermissibly practices the IP owner’s rights – Damages determined by a Court fr.com | 5 What is an IP License? • Contract between IP owner (Licensor) and Licensee – Licensor’s offer – grant of Licensor’s rights in IP • Patents – right to sell products that embody claimed inventions of Licensor’s US patents • Trademarks – right to use Licensor’s US marks on products or when selling products • Copyright – right to use and/or make derivative works of Licensor’s copyrighted work • Trade Secret – right to use and obligation to maintain Licensor’s trade secret – Licensee’s consideration – compensation -
Calculating the Lessor's Royalty Payment: Much More Than Mere Math
LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources Volume 6 Issue 1 Fall 2017 3-23-2018 Calculating The Lessor's Royalty Payment: Much More Than Mere Math Patrick S. Ottinger Repository Citation Patrick S. Ottinger, Calculating The Lessor's Royalty Payment: Much More Than Mere Math, 6 LSU J. of Energy L. & Resources (2018) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jelr/vol6/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Calculating The Lessor’s Royalty Payment: Much More Than Mere Math Patrick S. Ottinger* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction...................................................................................... 3 A. Preface ...................................................................................... 3 B. Basic Formula for the Calculation of the Lessor’s Royalty Payment ..................................................................................... 5 C. The Lessee’s Duty to Pay Royalty, and the Time for Payment ...................................................................... 6 D. Obtaining Information in Support of the Royalty Payment....... 7 1. The Check Stub................................................................... 8 2. Sophisticated Lease........................................................... 10 3. Online Data ...................................................................... -
Converting Royalty Payment Structures for Patent Licenses
THE C RITERION J OURNAL ON I NNOVAT I ON Vol. 1 E E E 2016 Converting Royalty Payment Structures for Patent Licenses J. Gregory Sidak* The parties to a patent-licensing agreement may choose from a variety of royalty structures to determine the royalty payment that the licensee owes the patent holder for using its patents. Three common structures of a royalty payment are (1) an ad valorem royalty rate, (2) a per-unit royalty, and (3) a lump-sum royalty. A royalty payment for a license might use a single royalty structure or a combination of these three structures. Converting a royalty payment with one structure into an equivalent payment with another structure enables one to compare royalty payments across different licensing agreements. For example, in patent-infringement litigation, an economic expert can estimate damages for the patent in suit by examining royalties of comparable licenses—that is, licenses that cover a similar technology and are executed under circumstances that are sufficiently comparable to those of the hypothetical license in question.1 However, licenses for a single patented technology might specify the royalty payment using different structures. One license might specifya per-unit royalty, a second might specify a lump-sum royalty, and a third might combine a lump-sum payment with a royalty rate. To analyze and compare the differ- ent royalty payments of those licenses, an economic expert or court must convert the royalties to a common structure. For example, a question related to the conversion of the royalty structure arose in August 2016 in Trustees of Boston University v. -
Copyright by O'neal Anthony Mundle 2008
Copyright by O’Neal Anthony Mundle 2008 The Dissertation Committee for O’Neal Anthony Mundle Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Characteristics of Music Education Programs in Public Schools of Jamaica Committee: Eugenia Costa-Giomi, Supervisor Leslie Cohen Jacqueline Henninger Judith Jellison Hunter March Laurie Scott Characteristics of Music Education Programs in Public Schools of Jamaica by O’Neal Anthony Mundle, BSc.; M.M. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May 2008 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my parents Hylton and Valvis Mundle who recognized my musical abilities at an early stage and constantly supported and prayed for me. I also want to pay tribute to Calvin Wilson, Kenneth Neale, Eileen Francis, Noel Dexter, and Dr. Kaestner Robertson, who were my musical mentors. Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to Colleen Brown and Joan Tyser-Mills who were principals that supported my development as a music educator. Acknowledgements I would like to thank God for giving me the mental capacity and the will to complete this exercise. Special thanks to Dr. Costa-Giomi for her expert supervision, mentorship and dedication to the project. Similarly, many thanks to the members of my committee for their guidance throughout my graduate school experience. Thanks to Deron who spent countless hours reviewing and editing my work and to Paul for his insightful contributions. Likewise, credit is due to Monica for her tremendous support and sacrifice especially in addressing many of my technological challenges, and Marie for encouragement and constant willingness to tackle any task. -
The Music Industry and the Fleecing of Consumer Culture
The Music Industry: Demarcating Rhyme from Reason and the Fleecing of Consumer Culture I. Introduction The recording industry has a long history rooted deep in technological achievement and social undercurrents. In place to support such an infrastructure, is a lengthy list of technological advancements, political connections, lobbying efforts, marketing campaigns, and lawsuits. Ever since the early 20th century, record labels have embarked on a perpetual campaign to strengthen their control over recording artists and those technologies and distribution channels that fuel the success of such artists. As evident through the current draconian recording contracts currently foisted on artists, this campaign has often resulted in success. However, the rise of MTV, peer-to-peer file sharing networks, and even radio itself also proves that the labels have suffered numerous defeats. Unfortunately, most music listeners in the world have remained oblivious to the business practices employed by the recording industry. As long as the appearance of artistic freedom exists, as reinforced through the media, most consumers have typically been content to let sleeping dogs lie. Such a relaxed viewpoint, however, has resulted in numerous policies that have boosted industry profits at the expense of consumer dollars. Only when blatant coercion has occurred, as evidenced through the payola scandals of the 1950s, does the general public react in opposition to such practices. Ironically though, such outbursts of conscience have only served to drive payola practices further underground—hidden behind co-operative advertising agreements and outside promotion consultants. The advent of the Internet in the last decade, however, has thrown the dynamics of the recording industry into a state of disarray. -
14Th Annual ACM Honors Celebrates Industry & Studio Recording Winners from 55Th & 56Th ACM Awards
August 27, 2021 The MusicRow Weekly Friday, August 27, 2021 14th Annual ACM Honors Celebrates SIGN UP HERE (FREE!) Industry & Studio Recording Winners From 55th & 56th ACM Awards If you were forwarded this newsletter and would like to receive it, sign up here. THIS WEEK’S HEADLINES 14th Annual ACM Honors Beloved TV Journalist And Producer Lisa Lee Dies At 52 “The Storyteller“ Tom T. Hall Passes Luke Combs accepts the Gene Weed Milestone Award while Ashley McBryde Rock And Country Titan Don looks on. Photo: Getty Images / Courtesy of the Academy of Country Music Everly Passes Kelly Rich To Exit Amazon The Academy of Country Music presented the 14th Annual ACM Honors, Music recognizing the special award honorees, and Industry and Studio Recording Award winners from the 55th and 56th Academy of Country SMACKSongs Promotes Music Awards. Four The event featured a star-studded lineup of live performances and award presentations celebrating Special Awards recipients Joe Galante and Kacey Musgraves Announces Rascal Flatts (ACM Cliffie Stone Icon Award), Lady A and Ross Fourth Studio Album Copperman (ACM Gary Haber Lifting Lives Award), Luke Combs and Michael Strickland (ACM Gene Weed Milestone Award), Dan + Shay Reservoir Inks Deal With (ACM Jim Reeves International Award), RAC Clark (ACM Mae Boren Alabama Axton Service Award), Toby Keith (ACM Merle Haggard Spirit Award), Loretta Lynn, Gretchen Peters and Curly Putman (ACM Poet’s Award) Old Dominion, Lady A and Ken Burns’ Country Music (ACM Tex Ritter Film Award). Announce New Albums Also honored were winners of the 55th ACM Industry Awards, 55th & 56th Alex Kline Signs With Dann ACM Studio Recording Awards, along with 55th and 56th ACM Songwriter Huff, Sheltered Music of the Year winner, Hillary Lindsey. -
Texas Music Education Research 2008
Texas Music Education Research 2008 Reports of Research in Music Education Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Texas Music Educators Association San Antonio, Texas, February, 2008 Robert A. Duke, Chair TMEA Research Committee School of Music, The University of Texas at Austin Edited by: Edited by Mary Ellen Cavitt, Texas State University, San Marcos Published by the Texas Music Educators Association, Austin, Texas contents The Effect of Self-Directed Peer Teaching on Undergraduate Acquisition of Specified Music Teaching Skills .......................3 Janice N. Killian & Keith G. Dye & Jeremy J. Buckner The Effects of Computer-Augmented Feedback on Self-Evaluation Skills of Student Musicians .............................................16 Melanie J. McKown & Mary Ellen Cavitt Relationships Between Attitudes Toward Classroom Singing Activities and Assessed Singing Skill Among Elementary Education Majors .................................................................................................................................................................................33 Charlotte P. Mizener Texas Music Education Research, 2008 J. N. Killian, K. G. Dye, & J. J. Buckner Edited by Mary Ellen Cavitt, Texas State University—San Marcos The Effect of Self-Directed Peer Teaching on Undergraduate Acquisition of Specified Music Teaching Skills Janice N. Killian, Keith G. Dye, and Jeremy J. Buckner Texas Tech University Peer teaching is a time-honored method of practicing teaching skills prior to entering a classroom. Traditionally, a pre-service educator teaches an assigned lesson and the instructor gives feedback regarding lesson content and structure (Fuller & Brown, 1975). Drawbacks of peer teaching include the fact that peers often can perform the content of the lesson; thus the pre- service teacher does not get accurate feedback nor does he/she practice error-detection skills because the “students” do not make errors on familiar material. -
Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 27 Volume XXVII Number 1 Article 1 2016 Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty Eli Greenbaum Yigal Arnon & Co., [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Eli Greenbaum, Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty, 27 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol27/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty Cover Page Footnote Partner, Yigal Arnon & Co. J.D., Yale Law School; M.S., Columbia University. This article is available in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol27/iss1/1 Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty Eli Greenbaum* Patentees increasingly exploit their intellectual property rights through royalty-free licensing arrangements. Even though patentees us- ing such frameworks forfeit their right to trade patents for monetary gain, royalty-free arrangements can be used to pursue other significant commercial and collaborative interests. This Article argues that modern royalty-free structures generate tension between various otherwise well- accepted doctrines of patent remedies law that were designed for more traditional licensing models. -
Exclusive Patent License Agreement Between Alliance and Company
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY EXCLUSIVE PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT Between Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC And [COMPANY NAME] This License Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”), which shall be effective on the date it is executed by the last Party to sign (the “Effective Date”) below, is between Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (hereinafter "Alliance"), Management and Operating Contractor for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (hereinafter “NREL”) located at 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, Colorado 80401 and [COMPANY NAME], (hereinafter "Licensee"), a for- profit company organized and existing under the laws of the State of [NAME of STATE] and having a principal place of business at [COMPANY ADDRESS], hereinafter referred to individually as “Party” and jointly as “Parties”. BACKGROUND: Alliance manages and operates NREL under authority of its Prime Contract No. DE-AC36- 08GO28308 (hereinafter "Prime Contract") with the United States Government as represented by the Department of Energy (hereinafter "DOE"); Researchers at NREL have developed certain inventions pertaining to [Description of the technology], as part of their employment at NREL, and which were conceived or first reduced to practice in the performance of work at NREL under the above Prime Contract. Pursuant to the terms of the Prime Contract and existing laws of the United States, Alliance acquired rights in and to the patent rights covering such inventions; Licensee is a [TYPE of BUSINESS] business located in [NAME of STATE], and has worked closely with -
Intellectual Property Policy Is Meant to Encourage and Enable Technology Development and Transfer for the Benefit of the Public
Intellectual Property Policy 1 Contents A. General Comments ............................................................................................................. 3 B. Legal Considerations ........................................................................................................... 3 C. University Inventions and Works ........................................................................................ 4 C.1. Definitions .............................................................................................................. 4 C.2. University Rights to Inventions and Works ............................................................ 6 C.3. Research Financed by Outside Sponsors and Outside Consulting Arrangements ........................................................................................................ 8 C.4. Relationships between the Creator and the University Regarding Inventions ............................................................................................................... 8 C.5. Relationships between the Creator and the University Regarding University-Supported Works .................................................................................. 9 C.6. Distribution of Net Income from Works and Inventions ...................................... 10 D. Procedures Regarding Inventions and University Works .................................................. 12 D.1. Organization ........................................................................................................ -
PAUL F. DOERKSEN, PH.D. Mary Pappert School of Music, Duquesne University [email protected] • (412) 396-1888
PAUL F. DOERKSEN, PH.D. Mary Pappert School of Music, Duquesne University [email protected] • (412) 396-1888 Table of Contents Professional Background Education 1 Academic Positions 1 Administrative Accomplishments (Department Chair, 2004–18) Accreditation 1 Assessment 1 Budgets 1 Curricula 2 Facilities and Equipment 2 Faculty and Staff 2 Student Recruitment 2 Professional Development 3 Scholarship Publications Chapters 4 Books 4 Articles 5 State Education Columns 5 Music Reviews 5 Presentations Professional Meetings International 6 National 6 Regional (Multistate) 8 State 9 Local 10 University Settings 11 Music Performances Guest Conductor 12 Band Clinician 12 Grants 13 Teaching Undergraduate Instruction Courses Taught 13 Advisor, Mentor, and Sponsor 14 Directed Study: Music Education 1 14 Music Education Internship 1 14 Practicum 2 14 Reading and Conference 2 14 Institutions: 1 Duquesne University, 2 University of Oregon, 3 Ball State University, 4 The Ohio State University. 10/26/20 PAUL F. DOERKSEN, PH.D. Duquesne University Research 2 15 Graduate Instruction Courses Taught 15 Directed Study in Music Education 1 15 Pedagogy and Practicum 2 15 Practicum 2 16 Reading and Conference 2 16 Research 2 16 Supervised College Music Teaching 2 17 Service Professional Associations National Association for Music Education 17 State Music Education Associations 17 Additional Professional Committees 18 Education Settings Arts-Education Programs 18 Consultant and Evaluator 18 Adjudicator 18 Service Learning and Community Engagement 19 Institution -
Directory of Music Publishers
Directory of Music Publishers Music-makersThe tap major into this and directory indie publishers to connect in thiswith MC indie directory labels, marketingpromote, exploit & promo and experts collect andpayments indie publicists. for their writers’ Plus loads music. of contact informationAll info tois aidupdated you in for promoting 2020 with your info music supplied career, by theDIY listees. style: T-shirt Please and respect CD development, those who do blog not sitesaccept and unsolicited social media material. tools. R3 RING CIRCUS MUSIC 818-922-0807 Los Angeles DEEP WELL RECORDS 2209 Grantland Ave Email: [email protected] 6100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600 1750 Vine St. Nashville, TN 37204 Web: bigdealmusicgroup.com Los Angeles, CA 90048 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Email: [email protected] How to Submit: no unsolicited material 323-969-0988 Email: [email protected] Web: 3ringcircusmusic.net Email: [email protected] Web: deepwellrecords.com Contact: Darrell Franklin, General Manager BIG FISH MUSIC (BMI) CALIFORNIA SUN MUSIC (ASCAP) Nashville DEFEND MUSIC, INC. ABET MUSIC 12720 Burbank Blvd., Unit 124 29 Music Sq. E. 1667 N Main Street 411 E. Huntington Dr., Ste. 107 Valley Village, CA 91607-1421 Nashville, TN 37203 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Arcadia, CA 91006 818-508-9777 615-329-3999 323-305-7315 626-303-4114 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: facebook.com/bigfishmusicbuilding Web: defendmusic.com Web: abetmusic.com Contact: Chuck