August 13, 2009

Fair Royalties: New Agreement Rescues Internet Radio

pandora_logo.png Independent internet radio service providers have struck a deal with the Copyright Royalty Board that will keep them afloat. The internet stations were concerned that astronomical royalties would inflate their costs to the point of sinking their businesses. Some had worried that required royalties could potentially be set at double their total revenue!

Internet radio stations continuously stream music and draw over 42 million American listeners every week. Traditional radio stations have licensing agreements in place which enable them to legally broadcast music and which are paid for by substantial income from advertising.

The contract agreed upon by the parties spans 10 years, expires in 2015, and includes a graduated royalty fee structure whereby artists and record companies receive progressively higher payouts over time which may be tendered in the form of a cut of the stations’ profits. The compensation paid will be directly proportional to the popularity of the radio stations.

Some key stations, such as such as Pandora, have yet to join the deal, but it is anticipated that they will soon sign on the dotted line. Such an agreement was critical for internet radio as it needed a plan that would enable it to be financially viable. The industry is still fairly new and in its formative years, so very few independent providers are turning a profit right now. It will take some time before these providers can compete with larger stations that are affiliated with large media conglomerates.

I love internet radio and listen to it practically every day! It has so many more dimensions than regular radio and gives users new ways to mix and match music to suit their individual tastes. I’m glad that some middle ground could be found so that internet radio can go on uninterrupted!

Are you a fan of internet radio? Let me know what you think!

May 1, 2009

Celebrity Trademarks: Martin Luther King Jr. -- Is His Family Entitled to Fundraising Royalties?

king.jpgControversy surrounds a future Washington D.C. memorial dedicated to the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation, a nonprofit organization, arranged the construction of the memorial and is paying for it through private fundraising efforts. The Foundation will transfer the memorial to the National Park Service upon completion. Dr. King’s descendants charged the Foundation nearly $800,000 in licensing fees for the use of his words and image in the fundraising materials.

In response to the royalties payments, critics have blasted the King family for “profiteering.” One professor even stated, “any family would be so thrilled to have their forefathers celebrated and memorialized in D.C. that it would never dawn on them to ask for a penny.”

Those criticizing the King Family fail to acknowledge they have a right of publicity. In the past, when commercial merchandisers or publishers used Dr. King’s words or image without permission, the Kings sued for their share of the income. The right of publicity is a common law doctrine, which allows an entity to charge royalties for, or prevent altogether, the commercial use of a protected name, likeness, or personality. Unlike copyrights or trademarks, the right of publicity does not expire after a certain number of years or death of the property holder. Rather, the right is descendible to the holder’s heirs and lasts as long as it is enforced.

To date, the King Family has not charged for the actual memorial because it only features public domain materials, which are not protected and can be used by anyone. The Foundation may be liable to the Kings for future fees, however, if it uses words or quotes that fall within the Family’s property rights. Some argue against this because the memorial will be given to the government, not a commercial entity. However, the King's should be permitted to charge at least a nominal fee in order to maintain their right of publicity.

November 10, 2008

Is Monogamy Right for your Patent or Trademark License?

While monogamy is the prevailing standard accepted in our society when it comes to spouses and boyfriends or girlfriends, this is not necessarily so when it comes to a license for your patent or trademark.

When you offer the rights to use your patent or trademark, in exchange for fees and royalties, you are licensing those opportunities to another. That other party is called the licensee.

A monogamous license, more appropriately termed, an exclusive license, is where you have only one licensee. Typically, licensees agree to paying higher fees and royalties for the benefit of being the only ones who are allowed to benefit from the intellectual property. NBC was hugely successful last month, because they were the exclusive network to provide Olympic coverage.

There are times, however, where it benefits the patent or trademark owner to enter into a licensing agreement with as many licensees as possible. This is a non-exclusive license. Although a licensee will probably pay less in fees and royalties, the patent or trademark owner benefits from collecting this revenue from multiple licensees. Franchises are an excellent example of non-exclusive licenses to numerous franchisees for the use of trademarks, patents, and other proprietary assets.

Labels: , , , , ,