Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: August 11, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comReps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee for Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, recently introduced legislation to clarify the federal copyright protection available to pre-Feb. 15, 1972 sound recordings. The bill is entitled the Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society Act (the CLASSICS Act).
Sound recordings were first afforded federal copyright protection under the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971, which applies to recordings made on or after February 15, 1972. As a result, pre-1972 sound recordings are subject to a patchwork of state laws, and the scope of protection and of exceptions and limitations to that protection is unclear.
Because they are not covered by the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971, pre-1972 recordings are also excluded from new protections extended to sound recordings under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Simply put, digital music carriers such as Sirius/XM do not pay royalties for plays of pre-1972 master recordings, unlike post-1972 recordings.
This has led to a series of lawsuits filed in various state courts, most notably by Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan. Founding members of the 1960s band The Turtles and also known as Flo and Eddie, names given by Frank Zappa while Volman and Kaylan were members of Zappa’s Mothers of Invention and they were unable to use their legal names due to a prior contract with management, have led the charge in the litigation. However, the results have been mixed. While Volman and Kaylan secured a favorable settlement in their California lawsuit, last year, New York’s highest court ruled that Sirius XM was not liable for payment of royalties from songs released prior to 1972.
Over the past several years, both Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office have studied how to bring pre-1972 sound recordings under the federal copyright regime. The CLASSICS Act may now end the uncertainty.
Sponsors of the Classic Acts maintain that federal legislation is needed to clear up the legal ambiguity and ensure that digital transmissions of both pre- and post-1972 recordings are treated the same.
Regarding the importance of the federal copyright legislation, Rep. Issa said in a press statement:
This an important and overdue fix to the law that will help settle years of litigation and restore some equity to this inexplicable gap in our copyright system. It makes no sense that some of the most iconic artists of our time are left without the same federal copyright protections afforded to their modern counterparts. This bill is the product of a great deal of work to build consensus across party lines and varying interests all-over the music and entertainment landscapes on how to best resolve this long-standing problem. I’m very proud of the work we’ve done here. It will go a long way helping bring music licensing laws into the 21st century.
The CLASSICS Act does not accomplish full federalization of pre-1972 sound recordings. Rather, it seeks to harmonize how pre- and post-1972 recordings are treated, particularly with regard to digital audio transmissions. Below are several key provisions of the proposed legislation:
The CLASSICS Act has a long way to go before becoming copyright law. However, the bill has already garnered the support of organizations, including the Recording Industry Association of America, Pandora, musicFIRST, the GRAMMYs, SoundExchange, SAG-AFTRA, the American Federation of Musicians, the Future of Music Coalition, the Rhythm and Blues Foundation, and the Living Legends Foundation. We will continue to track its progress and post updates as they become available.
Do you have any questions regarding the CLASSICS Act? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Brent “Giles” Davis, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!