Business
Page: 224
Drag-focused management firm Producer Entertainment Group (PEG) is officially expanding their stiletto-shaped footprint in the entertainment industry. On Thursday (Feb. 1), PEG announced their acquisition of Five Senses Reeling (FSR), a touring and events agency catering to LGBTQ audiences, Billboard can reveal. FSR joins PEG’s growing suite of businesses, including music label PEG Records, SERV […]
To judge from the results of a report commissioned by GEMA and SACEM, the specter of artificial intelligence (AI) is haunting Europe.
A full 35% of members of the respective German and French collective management societies surveyed said they had used some kind of AI technology in their work with music, according to a Goldmedia report shared in a Tuesday (Jan. 30) press conference — but 71% were afraid that the technology would make it hard for them to earn a living. That means that some creators who are using the technology fear it, too.
The report, which involved expert interviews as well as an online survey, valued the market for generative AI music applications at $300 million last year – 8% of the total market for generative AI. By 2028, though, that market could be worth $3.1 billion. That same year, 27% of creator revenues – or $950 million – would be at risk, in large part due to AI-created music replacing that made by humans.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Although many of us think of the music business as being one where fans make deliberate choices of what to listen to – either by streaming or purchasing music – collecting societies take in a fair amount of revenue from music used in films and TV shows, in advertising, and in restaurants and stores. So even if generative AI technology isn’t developed enough to write a pop song, it could still cost the music business money – and creators part or even all of their livelihood.
“So far,” as the report points out, “there is no remuneration system that closes the AI-generated financial gap for creators.” Although some superstars are looking to license the rights to their voices, there is a lack of legal clarity in many jurisdictions about under what conditions a generative AI can use copyrighted material for training purposes. (In the United States, this is a question of fair use, a legal doctrine that doesn’t exist in the same form in France or Germany.) Assuming that music used to train an AI would need to be licensed, however, raises other questions, such as how many times and how that would pay.
Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of songwriters want credit and transparency: 95% want AI companies to disclose which copyrighted works they used for training purposes and 89% want companies to disclose which works are generated by AI. Additionally, 90% believe they should be asked for permission before their work is used for training purposes and the same amount want to benefit financially. A full 90% want policymakers to pay more attention to issues around AI and copyright.
The report further breaks down how the creators interviewed feel about using AI. In addition to the 35% who use the technology, 13% are potential users, 26% would rather not use it and 19% would refuse. Of those who use the technology already, 54% work on electronic music, 53% work on “urban/rap,” 52% on advertising music, 47% on “music library” and 46% on “audiovisual industry.”
These statistics underscore that AI isn’t a technology that’s coming to music – it’s one that’s here now. That means that policymakers looking to regulate this technology need to act soon.
The report also shows that smart regulation could resolve the debate between the benefits and drawbacks of AI. Creators are clearly using it productively, but more still fear it: 64% think the risks outweigh the opportunities, while just 11% thought the opposite. This is a familiar pattern with the music business, to which technologies are both dangerous and promising. Perhaps AI could end up being both.
A federal judge ruled Wednesday (Jan. 31) that a tribute band sued by Earth, Wind & Fire for trademark infringement can continue to try to prove its bold counterargument: That the legendary R&B group abandoned the intellectual property rights to its name.
Faced with a lawsuit for using the name “Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion” at concerts, the smaller act argued last summer that the original group had allowed plenty of other tribute bands to use its name without repercussion — so many, in fact, that it could no longer claim any exclusive legal rights to it.
Lawyers for Earth, Wind & Fire have called that argument meritless and demanded that it be dismissed, but in a decision Wednesday, Judge Federico A. Moreno refused to do so. Though he said Legacy Reunion might ultimately find it “difficult” to prove that “abandonment” argument, he said they had “done enough” to avoid having it tossed out entirely in the early stages of the case.
Earth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and White’s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from an entity called Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company owned by Maurice White’s sons that formally owns the name.
In a March lawsuit, that company accused Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a “Reunion,” the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few “side musicians” who briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote.
Tribute acts — groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must be clear that they are a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original. In 2021, ABBA filed a similar case against a what it called a “parasitic” band called ABBA Mania.
Facing the lawsuit filed by Earth, Wind & Fire, Legacy Reunion filed a response in August that listed out a dozen other tribute acts that allegedly feature “Earth, Wind & Fire” as part of their name. Legacy Reunion argued that since the original band had “taken no action to enforce its purported trademark rights,” it had legally abandoned them.
“Due to the unchecked third-party use of the phrase, [EW&F] has abandoned ‘Earth, Wind & Fire,’ and [the name] has lost its trademark significance,” wrote attorneys for Substantial Music Group, which operates Legacy Reunion.
In a response fired back in September, attorneys for Earth, Wind & Fire said the band had very obviously not abandoned its rights to the name, adding that the “bare allegations” made by Legacy Reunion, combined with just a “handful” of other tribute bands, falls “woefully short” of what they would need to prove.
Wednesday’s decision by Moreno rejected Earth, Wind & Fire’s motion to dismiss the abandonment argument, but it does not mean that Legacy Reunion has evaded the band’s infringement allegations. To the contrary, the smaller group must now actually prove that argument in future proceedings.
An attorney for the Earth, Wind & Fire did not immediately return a request for comment.
It’s too soon to say what impact Universal Music Group’s plan to pull all its music from TikTok will have. But if you’re looking for a clue, try asking an Australian.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Last February, TikTok began running tests in the country in which it limited the amount of licensed music some users encountered on the platform. The intent was to measure and compare the different ways people interact with the app — and what impact music has on their experience.
Some users took to X (formerly Twitter) to decry the tests: “Tiktok really ruining its own app with all this ‘sound removed’ garbage,” one Australian user posted. Another added: “wtf is up with tiktok removing like half the sounds??? like i swear ive seen SO many tiktoks where the sound has been removed.”
Some guessed at the time that the results were possibly meant to inform TikTok’s licensing strategy, but now, the social platform is facing an even bigger test.
Starting today, music from the Universal Music Group (UMG) catalog will begin to disappear from TikTok in countries around the world after negotiations between the companies soured. According to an open letter penned by UMG, the two failed to agree on key points like compensation, artificial intelligence and infringing works on the social app.
The ramifications will reverberate across the entire music business. UMG’s TikTok license covered its recorded music and publishing holdings, meaning that it’s not just artists on UMG labels like Republic and Interscope whose music will soon disappear. Universal Music Publishing Group is the second largest publisher in the world, holding a 21.16% market share on the Pop Airplay chart in the third quarter of 2023, not to mention a formidable trove of evergreen catalogs. When the company pulls that catalog, it will pull any song any of the songwriters it represents contributed to as well, impacting many other labels and publishers in the coming weeks.
As one A&R from another publisher put it last night at Spotify’s Songwriter of the Year Grammy event, this move by the world’s largest music company feels akin to the Writers Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA strikes that halted much of the film business last year. Though the pain will be felt in the short term, the hope is that UMG’s stand will lead to substantive change that benefits everyone in the music industry in the long term. There’s an opportunity for the “movement” to grow too, should the other major music companies, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group (WMG), as well as indies, decide to pull their catalogs as well when their licensing deals expire. (WMG, however, announced a multi-year licensing deal with TikTok last July, and it is unclear when other licenses will be up for renewal.)
Much like the Hollywood strikes, this battle will also come with casualties. UMG-affiliated artists and songwriters with releases already slated for the coming weeks, those who just released something new, and those who are currently trending on TikTok are all likely to feel the effects. Among them: Sophie Ellis-Bextor’s “Murder on the Dancefloor,” which has seen a remarkable resurgence more than 20 years after its release on UMG’s Polydor label thanks to Saltburn and, now, TikTok; and “Made For Me” by Muni Long, which was released in September via Supergiant/Def Jam and is currently No. 2 on the TikTok Top 50 chart. As Justin Lehmann, manager to Amine and Khai Dreams, previously said in an interview with Billboard, “without breaking [on TikTok], it’s difficult to say what else can cause a big moment to happen for anybody.”
It’s easy to imagine that some artists affiliated with UMG would consider pushing back their release dates given how important TikTok has become to label marketing efforts. If the holdout lasts months, it could lead to a bottleneck for major album releases awaiting a resolution. Meanwhile, UMG will be forced to protect its copyrights against unlicensed user uploads, issuing takedown notices to combat them.
In the interim, indie artists might see a bigger window to get their songs noticed on the short-form app. One major label employee joked that he could see some people trying to make soundalike recordings or covers of big songs by UMG recording artists in hopes of filling the void.
The risk with UMG’s gamble is that TikTok fares just fine without its giant catalog, eventually forcing UMG and other music companies into worse negotiating positions than ever. It’s hard to imagine a comparable user experience without the likes of Taylor Swift, Drake, BTS, The Weeknd, Olivia Rodrigo and so many other superstars, but this moment will serve as the ultimate test. It turns out Australia was just the warm up.
Showtime is facing a lawsuit over its 2022 television series centered on country music legends George Jones and Tammy Wynette, filed by the estate of Wynette’s late husband over allegations the show unfairly turned him into “the villain.”
The case, filed Wednesday (Jan. 31) in Delaware court, claims that “George & Tammy” conveyed a “negative and disparaging portrayal” of the late George Richey, a songwriter and producer to whom Wynette was married for decades after her split from Jones.
“The series depicts Richey as a devious husband who abused Wynette and Richey’s prior wife, facilitated and encouraged Wynette’s addiction to prescription painkillers, and engaged in financial and managerial manipulation of Wynette,” write attorneys for Richey’s daughter, Sheila Slaughter Richey.
Though the allegations sound like a defamation lawsuit, they’re not. Instead, the case actually accuses Showtime of violating a 2019 settlement agreement that allegedly barred Wynette’s daughter, Georgette Jones, from making disparaging statements about Richey.
Since George & Tammy was based on Georgette’s 2011 memoir about her parents, the lawsuit claims that Showtime committed so-called tortious interference with contract — meaning the network essentially encouraged Georgette to breach her settlement with Richey’s estate.
“The defendant [was] specifically told, in a written letter delivered prior to the broadcast of the Series, that the Series was based on and featured disparaging information that was the ill-gotten product of Georgette’s violation of the agreement,” the estate’s lawyers wrote. “Nonetheless, Showtime chose to broadcast the Series anyway.”
The case was filed by estate executor Sheila Slaughter Richey, who married Richey in 2001 after Wynette’s 1998 death, and by their son Tatum Richey. In a statement to Billboard, Sheila and Tatum’s attorney, Todd McMurtry, said the case raises “many serious issues” and that he and his clients “look forward to addressing them with the court.”
“Showtime transformed George Richey into the villain of its story, raking in profits and views,” McMurtry said. “Showtime unjustly benefitted from Georgette’s violation of her prior contractual promise to never again disparage or encourage the disparagement of the Richey family.”
A spokesperson for Showtime did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
Released in December 2022, George & Tammy was well-received by critics — particularly Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain’s respective portrayals of Jones and Wynette. Both were later nominated for Emmy Awards for their performances.
The six-episode limited series was based on The Three of Us: Growing Up with Tammy and George, Georgette Jones’ 2011 memoir, and she’s listed in credits as a “consulting producer” on the series. In an August interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Georgette said she had “many, many conversations with the creative team” ahead of the production.
According to Wednesday’s lawsuit, Georgette was tightly restricted in what she could say about Richey. That’s because Sheila previously sued her in 2015 over allegations that she made “false accusations” about Richey and his family. That case settled in 2019, with Georgette allegedly signing a strict non-disparagement clause.
Under the terms of that deal, she agreed to not make “any statements, written or verbal, or cause or encourage others to make any statements, written or verbal, that defame, disparage, or in any way criticize the personal or business reputation practices or conduct” of Richey or his heirs.
But despite that agreement, the lawsuit claims that Showtime “repeatedly disparages” Richey inGeorge & Tammy. The lawsuit claims that in the series, Richey — portrayed by Steve Zahn — encourages Wynette’s drug addiction, is physically abusive toward her and manipulates her to maintain complete control over her career.
The lawsuit takes particular exception to the series finale. In one scene, Jones appears to find a will that Wynette has written on a yellow note pad. Later, a series of text epilogues flash on screen, telling viewers that “George Richey inherited the vast majority of her estate” and that “Tammy’s yellow note pads were never found.”
“The obvious implication is that Richey destroyed the yellow note pads that contained Wynette’s will,” the estate’s lawyers write.
Big Machine Label Group (BMLG) has elevated Kris Lamb to executive vp/GM of Big Machine Records, effective immediately.
Lamb, who will report directly to BMLG chairman/CEO Scott Borchetta, most recently served as senior vp of promotion and digital, where he led radio and digital strategy for the Big Machine Records imprint, which includes artists Tim McGraw, Carly Pearce and Midland. In his new role, Lamb will focus on breaking, building and retaining Big Machine Records’ roster of artists and focus on fan acquisition and engagement.
“Kris has been with the label group for 13 years; he started with us as a regional promotions director and I’ve loved watching him work his way up through our system, excelling at each new level. I am so proud that he is now leading the charge for our flagship imprint, Big Machine Records,” Borchetta said in a statement. “There is an added pressure being the imprint that founded the company and I’m thrilled he has accepted the challenge to take it even higher. Game On, Lamb Chop… GAME ON!”
“I am beyond honored to represent this remarkable roster of culture-shaping storytellers and blessed to lead this team of forward-thinking executives at Big Machine Records,” Lamb added. “BMR has always been the tip of the spear and I look forward to elevating our impressive roster of artists even higher as a team and making an impact on the future of this imprint, its talent and the country music genre.”
With Lamb’s promotion comes more shifts at the Big Machine Records imprint, with the elevation of Brooke Diaz to national director of promotion and marketing.
Lamb says, “Brooke is one of the most multi-dimensional promotion executives in the field and her passion, ideation and execution is next to none. I am so thrilled to watch her, along with Erik as VP, guide our radio promo team and strategy to the highest level.”
Additionally, Bill Lubitz has been promoted to senior director of West Coast promotion and national strategy. The promotion team also includes vp of promotion Erik Powell, director of Midwest promotion Jane Staszak, director of Southeast promotion Jay Cruze and promotions coordinator Sara Barlow.
Lamb’s promotion follows Tuesday’s (Jan. 30) news that Big Machine Label Group has promoted Mike Rittberg to COO and Clay Hunnicutt to executive vp of label operations.
When fake, sexually-explicit images of Taylor Swift flooded social media last week, it shocked the world. But legal experts weren’t exactly surprised, saying it’s just a glaring example of a growing problem — and one that’ll keep getting worse without changes to the law and tech industry norms.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The images, some of which were reportedly viewed millions of times on X before they were pulled down, were so-called deepfakes — computer-generated depictions of real people doing fake things. Their spread on Thursday quickly prompted outrage from Swifties, who mass-flagged the images for removal and demanded to know how something like that was allowed to happen to the beloved pop star.
But for legal experts who have been tracking the growing phenomenon of non-consensual deepfake pornography, the episode was sadly nothing new.
“This is just the highest profile instance of something that has been victimizing many people, mostly women, for quite some time now,” said Woodrow Hartzog, a professor at Boston University School of Law who studies privacy and technology law.
Experts warned Billboard that the Swift incident could be the sign of things to come — not just for artists and other celebrities, but for normal individuals with fewer resources to fight back. The explosive growth of artificial intelligence tools over the past year has made deepfakes far easier to create, and some web platforms have become less aggressive in their approach to content moderation in recent years.
“What we’re seeing now is a particularly toxic cocktail,” Hartzog said. “It’s an existing problem, mixed with these new generative AI tools and a broader backslide in industry commitments to trust and safety.”
To some extent, images like the ones that cropped up last week are already illegal. Though no federal law squarely bans them, 10 states around the country have enacted statutes criminalizing non-consensual deepfake pornography. Victims like Swift can also theoretically turn to more traditional existing legal remedies to fight back, including copyright law, likeness rights, and torts like invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Such images also clearly violate the rules on all major platforms, including X. In a statement last week, the company said it was “actively removing all identified images and taking appropriate actions against the accounts responsible for posting them,” as well as “closely monitoring the situation to ensure that any further violations are immediately addressed.” Sunday to Tuesday, the site disabled searches for “Taylor Swift” out of “an abundance of caution as we prioritize safety on this issue.”
But for the victims of such images, legal remedies and platform policies often don’t mean much in practice. Even if an image is illegal, it is difficult and prohibitively expensive to try to sue the anonymous people who posted it; even if you flag an image for breaking the rules, it’s sometimes hard to convince a platform to pull it down; even if you get one pulled down, others crop up just as quickly.
“No matter her status, or the number of resources Swift devotes to the removal of these images, she won’t be completely successful in that effort,” said Rebecca A. Delfino, a professor and associate dean at Loyola Law School who has written extensively about harm caused by pornographic deepfakes.
That process is extremely difficult, and it’s almost always reactive — started after some level of damage is already done. Think about it this way: Even for a celebrity with every legal resource in the world, the images still flooded the web. “That Swift, currently one of the most powerful and known women in the world, could not avoid being victimized shows the exploitive power of pornographic deepfakes,” Delfino said.
There’s currently no federal statute that squarely targets the problem. A bill called the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act, introduced last year, would allow deepfake victims to file civil lawsuits, and criminalize such images when they’re sexually-explicit. Another, called the Deepfake Accountability Act, would require all deepfakes to be disclaimed as such and impose criminal penalties for those that aren’t. And earlier this month, lawmakers introduced No AI FRAUD Act, which would create a federal right for individuals to sue if their voice or any other part of their likeness is used without permission.
Could last week’s incident spur lawmakers to take action? Don’t forget: Ticketmaster’s messy 2022 rollout of tickets for Taylor’s Eras tour sparked congressional hearings, investigations by state attorneys general, new legislation proposals and calls by some lawmakers to break up Live Nation under federal antitrust laws.
Experts like Delfino are hopeful that such influence on the national discourse — call it the Taylor effect, maybe — could spark a similar conversation over the problem of deepfake pornography. And they might have reason for optimism: Polling conducted by the AI thinktank Artificial Intelligence Policy Institute over the weekend showed that more than 80% of voters supported legislation making non-consensual deepfake porn illegal, and that 84% of them said the Swift incident had increased their concerns about AI.
“Her status as a worldwide celebrity shed a huge spotlight on the need for both criminal and civil remedies to address this problem, which today has victimized hundreds of thousands of others, primarily women,” Delfino said.
But even after last week’s debacle, new laws targeting deepfakes are no guarantee. Some civil liberties activists and lawmakers worry that such legislation could violate the First Amendment by imposing overly-broad restrictions on free speech, including criminalizing innocent images and empowering money-making troll lawsuits. Any new law would eventually need to pass muster at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has signaled in recent years that it is highly skeptical of efforts to restrict speech.
In the absence of writing new laws that make deepfake porn even more illegal, concrete solutions will likely require stronger action by social media platforms themselves, which have created vast, lucrative networks for the spread of such materials and are in the best position to police them.
But Jacob Noti-Victor, a professor at Cardozo School of Law who researches how the law impacts innovation and the deployment of new technologies, says it’s not as simple as it might seem. After all, the images of Swift last week were already clearly in violation of X’s rules, yet they spread widely on the site.
“X and other platforms certainly need to do more to tackle this problem and that requires large, dedicated content moderation teams,” Noti-Victor said. “That said, it’s not an easy task. Content detection tools have not been very good at detecting deepfakes so far, which limits the tools that platforms can use proactively to detect this kind of material as it’s being posted.”
And even if it were easy for platforms find and stop harmful deepfakes, tech companies have hardly been beefing up their content moderation efforts in recent years.
Since Elon Musk acquired X (then named Twitter) in 2022, the company has loosened restrictions on offensive content and fired thousands of employees, including many on the “trust and safety” teams that handle content moderation. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, laid off more than 20,000 employees last year, reportedly also including hundreds of moderators. Google, Microsoft and Amazon have all reportedly made similar cuts.
Amid a broader wave of tech layoffs, why were those employees some of the first to go? Because at the end of the day, there’s no real legal requirement for platforms to police offensive content. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a much-debated provision of federal law, largely shields internet platforms from legal liability for materials posted by their users. That means Taylor could try to sue the anonymous X users who posted her image, but she would have a much harder time suing X itself for failing to stop them.
In the absence of regulation and legal liability, the only real incentives for platforms to do a better job at combating deepfakes are “market incentives,” said Hartzog, the BU professor — meaning, fear of negative publicity that scares away advertisers or alienates users.
On that front, maybe the Taylor fiasco is already having an impact. On Friday, X announced that it would build a “Trust and Safety center of excellence” in Austin, Texas, including hiring 100 new employees to handle content moderation.
“These platforms have an incentive to attract as many people as possible and suck out as much data as possible, with no obligation to create meaningful tools to help victims,” Hartzog said. “Hopefully, this Taylor Swift incident advances the conversation in productive ways that results in meaningful changes to better protect victims of this kind of behavior.”
LONDON — Record labels, publishers and streaming services in the United Kingdom have signed up to a voluntary code of good practice that requires them to provide clear and transparent information to artists and creators about how their streaming royalties are calculated.
“The UK Code of Good Practice on Transparency in Music Streaming” was published Wednesday (Jan. 31) by the U.K. government’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
It obliges key players in the British music industry to supply musicians, songwriters, composers and producers with “timely, accurate and clear royalty accounting information,” as well as detail any deductions that have been applied.
Signatories include representatives of major and independent record labels, publishers, creators, collecting societies and streaming services.
Trade bodes BPI — which represents more than 500 labels, including the U.K. arms of Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group — and the Association of Independent Music (AIM), which acts on behalf of U.K. independent record labels and music companies, are among the music groups backing the pledge.
The U.K. government says the agreement forms a “significant point” in improving transparency around licensing deals and music streaming royalties that will build greater trust between record labels, streaming services and creators.
“This pioneering code, designed by the music industry with Government backing, has trust at its core,” said Viscount Camrose, minister for AI and Intellectual Property, in a statement.
The cross-industry pact, said Camrose, will “help ensure artists get the royalties and protections they deserve when their music is played on streaming platforms.”
Wednesday’s transparency agreement is the latest in an ongoing series of government-led interventions into the U.K. music industry fuelled by artist discontent over low payments from streaming.
In 2021, a Parliamentary inquiry into the music streaming business called into question the major record labels’ dominance of the industry and branded the global streaming model as unsustainable in its current form, saying it “needs a complete reset.”
Numerous government-led working groups, investigations and initiatives spun out of the eight-month-long Parliamentary probe, including last year’s industry-wide pledge – also made at the behest and overseen by the IPO – to improve the digital metadata for song recordings.
The new transparency agreement further increases the obligations on rights holders and digital services to address long-standing issues in music streaming, but it does not constitute a regulatory change and it is not clear what, if any, repercussions a record label or DSP would face for breaching its terms.
Rather, the voluntary code is intended as a stimulus for music companies to lift standards and deliver more accurate returns to artists by following a number of agreed principles.
They include labels, publishers and managers making it clear to artists the terms of their contracts, licence deals and remuneration terms, including any recoupable costs.
Streaming services are required to provide to all relevant rights holders accurate and timely usage data. The code also states that artists and creators should have a contractual right to audit financial information, including royalty payments, from labels, publishers, distributors, collecting societies and, in the case of self-releasing artists, streaming services that they hold contracts with.
Other music groups backing the transparency code include the Digital Entertainment and Retail Association (ERA), whose members include streaming services; the Music Publishers Association (MPA); Musicians’ Union (MU); Featured Artists Coalition (The FAC); Music Managers Forum (MMF); Music Producers Guild (MPG) and U.K. collecting societies PRS for Music and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).
The code will come into force on July 31 with the IPO set to carry out a first review of its implementation early next year.
In the meantime, several other government initiatives looking into the digital music business will continue to operate in the background, including a new working group –made up of industry stakeholders — looking into artist remuneration from music streaming.
Details on membership of the remuneration working group, which was first announced last May, will be published shortly, said the government. A report into equitable remuneration commissioned by the IPO is due to be published in the coming months
Commenting on the new transparency requirements, BPI chief executive Jo Twist said the “landmark agreement… builds meaningfully on the recent progress around metadata and other significant measures addressing creator concerns around music streaming.”
U.K. trade group The Council Of Music Makers said that while the commitments contained in the code “are modest, it provides a framework that can be used to start tackling the “systemic lack of transparency” in music streaming. The organization said it will be launching a complaints mechanism when the code comes into force for artists and their managers to report non-compliance with its terms.
“The big music and streaming companies need to stop using ‘artist-centric’ as a hollow buzzword and actually put artists and other music-makers at the centre of their businesses,” said a Council Of Music Makers spokesperson.
The Conga Room — the nightclub that for years defined Latin entertainment in Los Angeles and featured artists like Celia Cruz, Carlos Santana, Fito Páez and Alejandro Sanz — is closing its doors after 25 years. Its final concert will be a private show March 27 featuring Puerto Rican salsa star Gilberto Santa Rosa and an array of friends, hosted by actor and producer Jimmy Smits and MC’d by comedian Paul Rodriguez, both co-owners.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Established in 1999 by entrepreneur Brad Gluckstein, the Conga was — and still is — an anomaly in Los Angeles: an upscale, celebrity-studded nightclub devoted to Latin music and entertainment. Gluckstein’s co-owners at opening were luminaries Smits, Rodriguez, Jennifer Lopez and Sheila E., all representing different sides of entertainment. In contrast with New York, which for decades boasted legendary nightclubs devoted to Latin music, Los Angeles didn’t have a Latin venue backed by star power and that sought to highlight a broad swath of Latin music.
Maluma performing at the Conga Room in 2016
The Conga Room
From the onset, the Conga did just that.
When it opened in its original Wilshire Boulevard location, it featured Celia Cruz as its first headliner, and artists who performed there included Buena Vista Social Club and Tito Puente, but also Carlos Santana and Alejandro Fernández. In 2008, the Conga Room moved to its current, ritzier location at L.A. LIVE, where it continued to expand its programming, bringing in reggaetón and Mexican acts; Maluma and Bad Bunny, for example, played there in the early days.
In 2013, Billboard hosted a show by norteño band Calibre 50, as part of its Mexican Music Awards. While the room also featured other genres, with shows by artists like Lenny Kravitz, Ed Sheeran and Avicii, its core remained Latin music. All told, the venue hosted more than 500 performances in both locations, in addition to special events.
Gilberto Santa Rosa performing at the Conga Room in 2021
The Conga Room
“The Conga Room brought Latin music to the forefront, presenting both international and local artists in an intimate and upscale setting,” said Gluckstein in a statement. “It also became part of the cultural fabric of Los Angeles, hosting cultural, political and community events for a quarter of a century.”
However, offered Gluckstein, “Unfortunately, with the pandemic, the lack of events at the convention center, and the difficulty in booking national acts with AEG and Live Nation controlling national routing, our business model was changed. Coupled with an inflammatory economy and high interest rates, [it changed] consumer behavior significantly.”
Although the venue is shuttering, the nonprofit organization Conga Kids will continue to operate. Founded in 2016, the program reaches roughly 50,000 elementary school children per year in largely under-resourced communities in LA County, offering a curriculum of dance and music of the Afro-Diaspora.
After more than 1,500 votes cast over three rounds of voting, Billboard Pro members selected Universal Music Publishing Group chairman/CEO Jody Gerson for the 2024 Power Players’ Choice Award, which honors the executive they believe had the most impact across the business in the past year. Since Gerson joined UMPG in 2015, the company’s annual […]