Navigating the Tangled Web of Webcasting Royalties

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Navigating the Tangled Web of Webcasting Royalties To make matters more complicated, Navigating the Tangled Web most recorded songs also have multiple copyright owners. Songwriters, compos- of Webcasting Royalties ers, and publishers of a musical composi- tion (a “song”) have rights in the song. BY CYDNEY A. TUNE AND CHRISTOPHER R. LOCKARD For example, these owners have the right to receive royalties every time a copy of the song is sold in sheet music form or ver since Napster launched to Services such as iTunes sell permanent as part of an album, as well as when the enormous popularity in 1999 and downloads and ringtones that consum- song is broadcast over the radio, the In- Edrew the ire of heavy metal band ers download to their computers and ternet, speakers in a restaurant, or when Metallica, the record industry has looked cell phones. Other companies, such as it is performed in a concert. Addition- at online music with a highly suspicious Amazon.com, sell physical phonorecords ally, artists who perform on a recorded and combative eye. The last decade has (like records and CDs). Music is also version of a song (a “sound recording”), seen record labels fight numerous Web contained in other online content, such and the owner of the copyrights in that sites and software makers that have fa- as podcasts, commercials, and videos car- sound recording (generally the record cilitated the distribution of online music ried on Web sites like YouTube. Finally, label), also have the right to receive and even individuals who simply shared thousands of Web sites, known as web- royalties for sales of that sound recording or downloaded music. But while some casters, stream music over the Internet and for the digital transmissions of that companies have attempted to distribute to listeners. Each of these uses implicates sound recording. music without obtaining licenses or pay- different licensing and royalty schemes. ing royalties, many other Web sites sim- The term “webcasting” generally refers PERFORMANCE RIGHTS ply want to distribute or perform music to the distribution of an audio or video The right to perform music publicly legally within the confines of copyright file over the Internet using streaming impacts webcasters most significantly. law. However, such companies have en- media technology. Some webcasters are Traditional radio station broadcasters ob- countered a confusing, impractical, and companies that operate Federal Commu- tain licenses from the performance rights intimidating maze of laws and regulations nications Commission (“FCC”)-licensed organizations—the American Society governing music copyrights. radio stations that stream their over-the- of Composers, Authors and Publishers The last several years have seen both air programming simultaneously on the (“ASCAP”), Broadcast Music, Inc., and enormous growth in the number of Web Internet. Other companies deliver their SESAC (collectively, the “PROs”)—that sites seeking to capitalize on online mu- programming solely over the Internet. together represent virtually all songwrit- sic and tremendous controversy over the Even in this latter category, there is a wide ers, composers, and music publishers in amount of royalties owed to copyright range of businesses. Some webcasters offer the United States for purposes of licens- owners by Web sites that broadcast, or a format similar to traditional radio, where ing and collecting royalties from any webcast, music online. These webcasters all listeners hear the same preprogrammed public performance of a song. However, have struggled in the face of ever-chang- set of songs at the same time. Other when music is broadcast over the Inter- ing rules and resistance from the record webcasters have developed technology net, the Digital Millennium Copyright industry. Over the last year, however, that allows users to create their own chan- Act (“DMCA”) requires both traditional copyright owners and webcasters have nels by rating songs, artists, or genres that broadcasters and Internet-only webcast- negotiated compromises on many of their they do or do not like. Still other webcast- ers to obtain additional licenses from, differences, bringing some clarity to this ers offer subscription services that allow and pay additional royalties to, the complicated framework. users to select music on demand. Some owners of the copyrights in the sound Those wanting to take advantage of webcasters are even expanding into new recordings and the performers featured in the exciting opportunities associated forms of delivery—for instance, Pandora the sound recording. with online music must understand what music streams now can be listened to via music licenses are required for different iPhones and some Blu-ray players. Song Licenses and Royalties media and methods of distribution, how Under U.S. copyright law, the owner Over-the-air radio station broadcast- these licenses are obtained, and what of a copyrighted work, such as a song, has ers obtain licenses from and pay royal- royalties will need to be paid. These the exclusive right to make copies of the ties to the PROs for use of songs, which complexities are not insurmountable, and work, prepare derivative works based on compensate the composers and copyright an understanding of the various licenses the copyrighted work, distribute copies of owners of songs that are broadcast by and royalty obligations is essential in the work, and display or perform the work these traditional radio stations. When today’s webcasting environment. This publicly, including, in the case of a sound the signal of an over-the-air radio sta- article is intended as a guide through that recording, by means of a digital audio tion is simulcast over the Internet on a tangled legal web. transmission. Webcasters’ use of music nonsubscription basis, the fees for such may implicate three of these rights—the use are generally covered by the music OVERVIEW right to reproduce the work, the right licenses that have already been obtained There are myriad ways that music is to distribute the work, and the right to from the PROs. However, if the broad- used and distributed on the Internet. perform the work publicly. caster is operating an Internet station Published in Entertainment and Sports Lawyer, Volume 27, Number 3, Fall 2009. © 2009 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. that is not also being broadcast simulta- license must be obtained and royalties that implies an association between the neously over the air, or if the over-the- negotiated directly from the sound re- music and the product is prohibited. The air license does not cover a simulcast, a cording copyright owner, who has discre- compulsory license only applies to record- separate Internet-only license must be tion over whether to give such a license ings lawfully made, so webcasters may not obtained from the PROs. and over what fees to charge. lawfully play unauthorized bootlegs. To Webcasters whose streaming of music SoundExchange is a nonprofit make it more difficult for members of the is not connected to a radio broadcast organization that was established by public to record music from the streams station must also obtain a license from, the Recording Industry Association of that are being transmitted, there are also and pay royalties to, the PROs for the use America (“RIAA”) and designated by various antipiracy efforts with which web- of their songs. Each PRO uses different the U.S. Copyright Office to administer casters are required to cooperate. licenses and royalty rates, although all the compulsory licenses for digital perfor- Webcasters that offer interactive charge a minimum royalty. In addition, services or features, such as temporary or they include royalties that are based permanent downloads, cannot obtain a either on revenues or on Web site usage. Section 114 license and thus must negoti- Fees may also vary based on the type of ate a performance rights license directly service. For example, ASCAP charges a with the record company that owns the higher fee for interactive Web sites that WHEN A WEBCASTER copyrights in that sound recording. If a we- let users select specific songs on demand STREAMS MUSIC bcaster does not have either a direct license or create highly customized playlists. or a compulsory license, that webcaster is OVER THE INTERNET, potentially liable for copyright infringe- Sound Recording Licenses and ment and, as such, can be subject to dam- Royalties THIS ACTION ages and penalties. It is therefore important The DMCA requirement that to comply fully with all of the requirements royalties be paid to performers and the ALSO IMPLICATES of the law, including the following. copyright owners of sound recordings should not be overlooked. These per- ANOTHER IMPORTANT Registration With the Copyright Office formance royalties are not applicable to To obtain a compulsory license for over-the-air broadcasts, because such RIGHT MENTIONED sound recordings, a webcaster must first radio stations had historically been register with the Copyright Office by fil- viewed as providing a substantial, in- PREVIOUSLY—THE ing a Notice of Use of Sound Recordings kind promotional consideration to the Under Statutory License and pay a filing record labels and performers. However, RIGHT TO COPY A fee before the digital transmission of mu- this long-standing regime is the subject sic begins. When filing a Notice of Use of legislation currently working its way WORK. form, webcasters need to obtain both a through Congress (H.R. 848 and S. 379, Section 112 and a Section 114 license. A introduced February 4, 2009). If enacted Section 114 license grants the webcaster into law, terrestrial broadcasters would, the right to perform the sound recording, for the first time, be required to obtain li- while a Section 112 license grants it the censes for the airing of sound recordings.
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
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • As General Managers of Public Radio Stations That Serve Millions of Americans in Communities Large and Small, Urban and Rural And;
    As General Managers of Public Radio stations that serve millions of Americans in communities large and small, urban and rural and; As Producers of local, regional and national content aired by stations throughout the nation committed to telling the evolving story of America, its proud history, and its committed citizens; We are writing to express our grave concern regarding the House legislation that would prohibit stations from using any Federal funds to pay for national programming and would eliminate CPB’s Program Fund. By prohibiting the use of Federal funds in any national programming, and in particular, by eliminating the CPB Program Fund, millions of Americans will be deprived of critical national and international news, information and cultural programming that cannot be found elsewhere. Local public radio stations will no longer reliably provide the community information and context so necessary to cities and towns challenged by change and faltering economies. Institutions and projects at risk include: - Radio Bilingüe’s national program service, public radio’s principal source of Latino programming - Koahnik Public Media’ Native Voice 1, public radio’s principal source of Native American programming - Youth Media, the California-based media network of young audio and video producers and a key source of a youth voice in the mass media - The Public Insight Network, American Public media’s expanding project to bring citizen experts into public radio journalism - Independent producers who depend upon the Program Fund for money to support production of series such as StoryCorps and This I Believe - Independent organizations dedicated to innovation, training, and excellence in journalism such as the Public Radio Exchange and the Association of Independents in Radio.
    [Show full text]
  • Comeseetv Streaming Guide and Proposal
    ComeSeeTv USA, Inc ComeSeeTv Streaming Guide and Proposal Cultural Live Streaming Done Right! ComeSeeTv – Can You See Me Now! 1 ComeSeeTv streaming proposal About Us ComeSeeTv is all of the following three things: First it is a global video content delivery platform that allows anyone to reliably stream their video content. Next, a website that pulls the individual channels of all our members to one place to increase the visibility of their content. Third, we are an agent for cultural development and unity across the Caribbean. When patrons pay to watch live streams on ComeSeeTv they are directly supporting the event organizer, or community! Why we’re different: Our webcasting solution concentrates on the viewer and is usually mixed live by a creative professional, so in essence our video stream experience looks and feels more like a TV production which our collective cultures deserve. Plus, though we are primarily a content delivery network service provider, we assign our global agents to oversee every stream of our clients, and to offer technical support to your customers. Nonetheless, ComeSeeTv was not designed to and does not compete with local streaming service providers in any country as our primary business is content delivery. Our streaming website is extremely secure and can be suited to match your business model as closely as possible. We are also able to handle the high visitor loads associated with all your events. Many local streaming service providers around the Caribbean are currently using ComeSeeTv to deliver video to their clientele 24/7. Four Main Package Offers 1. Event Streaming Using the very latest video mixing technology we can simultaneously project, live stream and record your event.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Npr Annual Report About | 02
    2010 NPR ANNUAL REPORT ABOUT | 02 NPR NEWS | 03 NPR PROGRAMS | 06 TABLE OF CONTENTS NPR MUSIC | 08 NPR DIGITAL MEDIA | 10 NPR AUDIENCE | 12 NPR FINANCIALS | 14 NPR CORPORATE TEAM | 16 NPR BOARD OF DIRECTORS | 17 NPR TRUSTEES | 18 NPR AWARDS | 19 NPR MEMBER STATIONS | 20 NPR CORPORATE SPONSORS | 25 ENDNOTES | 28 In a year of audience highs, new programming partnerships with NPR Member Stations, and extraordinary journalism, NPR held firm to the journalistic standards and excellence that have been hallmarks of the organization since our founding. It was a year of re-doubled focus on our primary goal: to be an essential news source and public service to the millions of individuals who make public radio part of their daily lives. We’ve learned from our challenges and remained firm in our commitment to fact-based journalism and cultural offerings that enrich our nation. We thank all those who make NPR possible. 2010 NPR ANNUAL REPORT | 02 NPR NEWS While covering the latest developments in each day’s news both at home and abroad, NPR News remained dedicated to delving deeply into the most crucial stories of the year. © NPR 2010 by John Poole The Grand Trunk Road is one of South Asia’s oldest and longest major roads. For centuries, it has linked the eastern and western regions of the Indian subcontinent, running from Bengal, across north India, into Peshawar, Pakistan. Horses, donkeys, and pedestrians compete with huge trucks, cars, motorcycles, rickshaws, and bicycles along the highway, a commercial route that is dotted with areas of activity right off the road: truck stops, farmer’s stands, bus stops, and all kinds of commercial activity.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IATSE LOCAL 16 CURRENT CONTRACT Theatrical Workers
    2016 PROJECT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES, MOVING PICTURE TECHNICIANS, ARTISTS AND ALLIED CRAFTS OF THE UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES AND CANADA LOCAL N0.16 Local 16 l.A.T.S.E. 240 Second Street, First Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415-441-6400 Fax: 415-243-0179 www.local16.org XX TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 4 A. Witnesseth 4 B. Recognition 4 C. Scope and Jurisdiction 4 D. Compensation 4 E. Rules and Regulations 5 F. New Categories and Classifications 5 II. DEFINITIONS 5 A. Rigging 5 B. Head of Department Rate 5 C. Multi-Source Technology 6 D. Multi-Source Technician 6 E. Computer Software Technician 7 F. General Computer Technician 7 G. General Audio Visual 7 H. Steward 7 I. Base Rate 7 J. Moscone Center Exhibit Booths Only 7 Ill. CONDITIONS 8 A. Work Week 8 B. Hourly Wage Calculations 8 C. Minimum Calls 8 D. Straight Time 8 E. Nine Hour Rest Period 8 F. Time and One-Half Rate 8 G. Double Time Rate 9 H. Un-Worked Hours 9 I. Vacation Pay 9 J. Meal Periods 9 K. Higher Scale 1O L. Holidays 1O M. Rates and Conditions 10 N. Cancellation of Calls 10 IV. FRINGE BENEFITS, WORK FEES AND PAYROLL 10 A. Health and Welfare 1O B. Pension 11 C. Check-Off Work Fees 11 D. Training and Certification Program Employer Contribution 11 E. Sick Leave 11 F. Reporting of Fringe Benefits and Work Fees 11 G.
    [Show full text]
  • Barbara Cochran
    Cochran Rethinking Public Media: More Local, More Inclusive, More Interactive More Inclusive, Local, More More Rethinking Media: Public Rethinking PUBLIC MEDIA More Local, More Inclusive, More Interactive A WHITE PAPER BY BARBARA COCHRAN Communications and Society Program 10-021 Communications and Society Program A project of the Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program A project of the Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Rethinking Public Media: More Local, More Inclusive, More Interactive A White Paper on the Public Media Recommendations of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy written by Barbara Cochran Communications and Society Program December 2010 The Aspen Institute and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation invite you to join the public dialogue around the Knight Commission’s recommendations at www.knightcomm.org or by using Twitter hashtag #knightcomm. Copyright 2010 by The Aspen Institute The Aspen Institute One Dupont Circle, NW Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 Published in the United States of America in 2010 by The Aspen Institute All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 0-89843-536-6 10/021 Individuals are encouraged to cite this paper and its contents. In doing so, please include the following attribution: The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program,Rethinking Public Media: More Local, More Inclusive, More Interactive, Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute, December 2010. For more information, contact: The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program One Dupont Circle, NW Suite 700 Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Royalty Sources That an Artist Is Technically Able to Benefit From
    ALL ABOUT SONGWRITING ROYALTIES Who collects and pays out to the songwriter? Money from record sales [mechanical royalties] is collected by the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society- MCPS and is paid to the publisher, who pays this on to the songwriter. Money from radio and television plays [performing rights] is collected by the royalty organisations [like the Irish Music Rights Organisation - IMRO] which pay the songwriter directly. Money from record sales applicable to a songwriter who is also a recording artist [recording royalties] is paid by the record label to the artist. The amount receivable is stated in the recording contract between the artist and the record company and is usually based on a percentage of the wholesale price of the recording. There are four royalty sources that an artist is technically able to benefit from. The first royalty source is "artist" recording royalties. These are royalties due to an artist from record sales. Usually an artist can be offered anywhere between 10 to 20 royalty points depending on his/her credibility (Note 1). These royalties have nothing to do with songwriting. Recording royalties are amounts receivable by an artist for each recording sold (Note 2). The amount receivable is stated in the recording contract between the artist and the record company and is usually based on a percentage of the published dealer price of the recording (roughly equivalent to the wholesale price of the recording, not the retail price). The percentage is agreed at the time that the recording contract is being negotiated and usually provides for an increasing percentage as the level of sales increases.
    [Show full text]