Today, the United States Copyright Office released Copyright and the Music Marketplace, the result of last year’s Music Licensing Study—a project that combined roundtables in various cities with opportunities for written comments from stakeholders and the public. (FMC participated in the roundtables and official docket; see our initial comments here; reply comments here.)

There’s so much in the 245-page report that it’s impossible to offer a full breakdown of the recommendations in a single blog post. In fact, we’re still making our way through it, but the Executive Summary provides an overview of many of the key provisions. We certainly respect the effort it took to produce such a detailed report, and commend Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante for taking the initiative with such a thorny and complex issue set.

by Kevin Erickson, Communications & Outreach Manager

This week, cellist and composer Zoë Keating wrote an eloquent and impassioned blog post wrestling with the question of whether she should participate in YouTube’s new Music Key subscription service under terms she finds objectionable. By any estimation, Zoë is a savvy observer of the industry and a DIY success story. With regard to YouTube, Zoë took issue with several provisions of the contract presented to her, including the requirement that she make her entire back catalog available in the new service. She also raised questions about the company’s negotiation style. The post clearly struck a nerve and has been widely discussed.

Zoë’s post is well worth reading. Here are some additional things you should know to really understand the full picture:

Welcome back to our series on transparency in the music business. If you haven’t already, be sure to check out Part One, Part Two and Part Three.

Here’s an overview of the three types of transparency we previously outlined:

1.  structural transparency: how different services function and how they compensate artists
2.  rates and revenue transparency: how money is split, who gets paid what and why
3.  repertoire transparency: readily available ownership information to facilitate more efficient licensing and accuracy in payment

Today, we’ll take a closer look at revenue transparency. This goes beyond simply knowing how much you’re getting paid as a musician or songwriter.  Revenue transparency should also include information about the terms of compensation and how revenue is collected and distributed.

Before we get started, it’s crucial to understand that there are two distinct copyrights in music: the musical work (think lyrics and notes on paper) and the sound recording (think of performances captured to tape or hard drive). Musical works belong to publishers and composers, while labels typically own sound recordings (though sometimes it’s the artist).

In certain circumstances, the law treats these two copyrights completely differently. This can make the revenue picture even more complicated. For a great breakdown, check out our Music and How the Money Flows charts—they’re particularly helpful for visual learners.

Below, we present a few common types of digital service and assign a transparency grade of one to ten—where one equals not at all transparent and 10 equals highly transparent. Although this is a fairly lengthy post, this is by no means a complete list. Oh, and it probably wouldn’t hurt to keep the aforementioned charts handy to consult as you go.

Keep in mind that the laws and business practices that govern compensation are often in flux. New or hybrid technologies can emerge that require a novel approach to payment, and some individual deals end up affecting the entire marketplace. Additionally, the US government is currently examining current copyright law with an eye towards an eventual update. With those caveats in place, here are some examples to consider.

Welcome to Part Three of FMC’s look at transparency in the music industry. In previous posts, we highlighted three specific areas of transparency to address. Here’s a quick recap: read more