Industry Insights

This week’s blog touches on several topics based on some very interesting blogs I had a chance to listen.  In these blogs I’ll discuss a little information from each concerning the 360 Deal, Trademarks, and a copyright infringement case.

Podcast #1: Entertainment Law Update: This podcast discusses the legal aspects of the 360 Deal.  It takes a look on whether on the deal is in violation of the California Talent Agencies Act. It says only a licensed agent or agency can only procure or find employment opportunities, except record deals, for their talent. If you are working with a licensed agent that the licensed personal and you were requested, then it’s ok to procure employment.  The website has the full article written by Firemark’s guest.

It goes so far that if the Act were violated, one would have to give back all commissions for any items that you needed a license.   My company wants to represent artist, and as an independent label and manager, I would first have to look to see how a 360 Deal would benefit me as a label, then how it would benefit my client.  I believe if the deal is based upon grooming my client to be a huge artist, then I believe the 360 Deal will be in that client’s favor.  As a label, that’s not something I’m interested in that will work for my company.

Podcast #2:  This Week in Law 176:This podcast talks about the legal perspective of copyright infringement.  The conversation goes into how technology has definitely advanced, but actually hurting our copyright owners.  Denise Howell called it the “Whac – A – Mole” mentality, meaning once there was success at handling how songs were getting out for free then something new came along that needed to be figured out.

Laws are still being developed on whether it will be okay to just give music away free.  Licensing has been more of an option through venues like Spotify and MOG. Licensing still does give some money to a songwriter, but nothing gets paid barely any money.  The example given by guest Loren Mulraine puts it in perspective when she gives an example of a songwriter who sees their royalty statement with 200,000 units, but received $.40 of income.  Her college students didn’t really see the significance of why it’s NOT okay to take free music.  Why pay for because it’s free?  But she said the students sang a different tune when they realized that they wanted to make a living at it.  Hopefully there will soon be some progress so that we as creators will benefit. This law applies greatly to my business plan because it seems that I’ll have to be even more creative with finding ways to get my music out there and get paid for it. I can see it’s already hurting the industry, so it will be important to my business to have great marketing strategies to find out who is actually buying music and then marketing to them.

Podcast #3:  This Week in Law 119: The legal issue deals with the trademark law with a real life court case in session. Five years in the running because Apple feels that Kokin used part of their trademark to create his brand.  Daniel Kokin is the creator of Video Pod.  Kokin said he wanted to invent something that would be more for the home and not the conference room.  He talks about how he didn’t even think Apple at the time as being a threat since they were focused on audio.  Unfortunately, this has been holding his small company from gaining success and Kokin feels trademark laws don’t really support him.

This case was instrumental in helping me make better decisions when developing my trademark for my company. It is important to conduct the proper research to ensure your idea for your business is secure and not infringing on anyone else.