Business
Page: 350
Universal Music Group announced on Monday (Aug. 21) a partnership with YouTube to create a set of principles and best practices around the use of artificial intelligence within the music community, as well as a Music AI Incubator bringing together several UMG artists and producers to help study the effect of the technology, including Anitta, Juanes, Yo Gotti, Louis Bell, ABBA’s Björn Ulvaeus, Ryan Tedder and the estate of Frank Sinatra, among others.
In announcing the new incubator and the three principles — which boil down to embracing the new technological possibilities while protecting creators and establishing content and safety policies — UMG chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge penned an op-ed for YouTube’s blog, in which he acknowledged both the possibilities and the potential dangers of AI.
“Given this tension, our challenge and opportunity as an industry is to establish effective tools, incentives and rewards – as well as rules of the road – that enable us to limit AI’s potential downside while promoting its promising upside,” Grainge writes. “If we strike the right balance, I believe AI will amplify human imagination and enrich musical creativity in extraordinary new ways.”
In reference to the collaboration with YouTube, Grainge points to the video streamer’s development of its ContentID system, which helps screen user-generated content uploaded to the service for copyrighted works, and helps get creators (and copyright owners, such as UMG) paid for their use on the platform. That type of collaboration between DSP and music companies is foundational to the work YouTube and UMG are beginning with respect to AI, Grainge says.
“The truth is, great entertainment doesn’t just reach audiences on its own,” he writes. “It also requires the global infrastructure, new business models, scaled distribution, innovative partnerships and effective safeguards that enable talented artists to create with freedom and receive fair compensation. … Today, our partnership is building on that foundation with a shared commitment to lead responsibly, as outlined in YouTube’s AI principles, where Artificial Intelligence is built to empower human creativity, and not the other way around. AI will never replace human creativity because it will always lack the essential spark that drives the most talented artists to do their best work, which is intention. From Mozart to The Beatles to Taylor Swift, genius is never random.”
Read his full op-ed here.
PULSE Records has formed a joint venture through Brent Faiyaz’s newly established creative agency ISO Supremacy, with Virginia artist Tommy Richman as the first signee, it was announced Monday (Aug. 21). Richman currently serves as the opener for Faiyaz’s F-ck the World, It’s a Wasteland Tour and has caught traction with his songs “BUNKER / PREROLL” and […]
YouTube announced a new initiative with artists and producers from Universal Music Group on Monday (August 21): An “AI Music Incubator” that will include input from Anitta, Juanes, Ryan Tedder, Björn Ulvaeus from Abba, Rodney Jerkins, d4vd, Max Richter, and the estate of Frank Sinatra, among others.
“This group will explore, experiment and offer feedback on the AI-related musical tools and products they are researching,” Universal CEO Lucian Grainge wrote in a blog post. “Once these tools are launched, the hope is that more artists who want to participate will benefit from and enjoy this creative suite.”
Grainge added that “our challenge and opportunity as an industry is to establish effective tools, incentives and rewards — as well as rules of the road — that enable us to limit AI’s potential downside while promoting its promising upside.”
In a statement, Ulvaeus said that “while some may find my decision controversial, I’ve joined this group with an open mind and purely out of curiosity about how an AI model works and what it could be capable of in a creative process. I believe that the more I understand, the better equipped I’ll be to advocate for and to help protect the rights of my fellow human creators.”
Juanes noted in a statement of his own that “artists must play a central role in helping to shape the future of this technology” so “that it is used respectfully and ethically in ways that amplify human musical expression for generations to come.”
This sentiment was echoed by Richter: “Unless artists are part of this process, there is no way to ensure that our interests will be taken into account,” the composer said in a statement. “We have to be in this conversation, or our voices won’t be heard.”
Neal Mohan, YouTube’s CEO, also published the company’s “AI music principles” on Monday. The company promised to “embrace” AI “responsibly together with our music partners” and noted that any AI initiatives “must include appropriate protections and unlock opportunities for music partners who decide to participate.”
YouTube’s “AI music principles” as posted:
AI is here, and we will embrace it responsibly together with our music partners.
AI is ushering in a new age of creative expression, but it must include appropriate protections and unlock opportunities for music partners who decide to participate.
We’ve built an industry-leading trust and safety organization and content policies. We will scale those to meet the challenges of AI.
Jim Guerinot, former general manager of A&M Records, who later managed Nine Inch Nails, No Doubt, Social Distortion and other bands, worked for A&M co-founder Jerry Moss, who died Wednesday (Aug. 16) at 88, and its president, the late Gil Friesen, for years in the 1980s and 1990s. The retired music executive saluted his former boss in a phone interview.
“We had an artist who was getting to release an album and had a capable manger. I put the whole plan together. When I ran the numbers, I saw that we were going to lose money. I said, ‘I’m not going to get hung,’ so I went to Jerry: ‘Here’s the plan, the manager has signed off.’ He goes, ‘Well, good, what’s your concern?’ I go, ‘Well, we’re going to lose money because the artist will not sell records to make that happen.’ I said, ‘Can I ask you a question? Why would we put this record out?’ He goes, ‘Well, that’s easy. Because it’s an A&M artist.’ It was very much like, ‘The ‘M’ is me, pal. If I want to, I do it.’
And that’s how he slept at night and that’s how he and [Herb Alpert, label co-founder] slept at night.
From time to time when I arrived at work at A&M, I’d pass the main guys’ doors: Herb might be painting, and would invite you in to see what he’s up to to; Gil Friesen, the label president, inevitably would push a book on me and expect a report within days; and Moss wanted to play a few hands of gin. Generally speaking, if you and I play gin, I’m going to beat you. I have friends who played in the World Series of Poker and I win at least half the time. I not only never beat [Moss] at gin, I never even won one hand. It was depressing.
This guy had a vision for the business that was beyond what normal people would see. He walked into a room and saw things we didn’t see. He walked into situations and businesses and saw things we didn’t see.
He knew everybody, for starters. Like, literally, everybody.
Where somebody might see an artist, he would see a network of what that artist represented, and relationships and history. It was just much, much deeper. What he saw wasn’t what I saw. He read people differently. He read people very, very well. He knew people who were going to be honorable and who would not be.”
Two men who claim Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children can pursue their lawsuits against companies that were owned by the late singer, a California appeals court ruled Friday (Aug. 18).
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Wade Robson and James Safechuck filed their cases a decade ago, claiming that Jackson’s companies (MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc.) had a legal duty to protect them from the singer’s alleged abuse.
But Jackson’s companies argued — and a lower court agreed — that they had no such obligation to Robson and Safechuck since Jackson was the sole owner of the companies and they thus lacked the power to control him.
On Friday, the California Court of Appeal for Second District overturned that decision — ruling that the corporate structure did not automatically shield the companies from liability.
“We conclude a corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator of the abuse,” the court wrote.
“The corporations say these are ‘idiosyncratic circumstances,’ and perhaps they are. There is certainly no comparable case law to recite,” the court wrote. “But it would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder.”
In a statement, Jonathan Steinsapir, lead counsel for MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc., said he and his clients were “disappointed” by the decision.
“We remain fully confident that Michael is innocent of these allegations, which are contrary to all credible evidence and independent corroboration, and which were only first made years after Michael’s death by men motivated solely by money,” Steinsapir said. “We trust that the truth will ultimately prevail with Michael’s vindication yet again. Michael Jackson himself said, ‘Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons.’
Vince Finaldi, an attorney for Robson and Safechuck, said he and his clients were “pleased but not surprised” that the court had chosen to overturn “incorrect rulings in these cases, which were against California law and would have set a dangerous precedent that endangered children throughout state and country. We eagerly look forward to a trial on the merits.”
Robson’s and Safechuck’s allegations were detailed in the 2019 HBO documentary Leaving Neverland. Safechuck claims that Jackson abused him “hundreds of times in various locations”; Robson says Jackson began molesting him in 1990, when he was seven, and continued to do so until he was 14.
Robson sued in May 2013, at the age of 30, and Safechuck followed suit a year later when he was 36. The pair argued that Jackson’s companies were negligent in failing to stop the alleged abuse, calling them “conspirators, collaborators, facilitators and alter egos” that were “specifically designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims.”
In 2020, a trial court dismissed those claims, ruling that Jackson had “absolute legal control over the entities and everyone employed by them,” meaning those companies and their staffers had “no ability to control Jackson regarding his alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff.”
But in Friday’s decision reversing that ruling, the appeals court said Jackson’s companies were not as powerless as they had been made out to be.
“Any director, employee or other agent of defendants who knew of or suspected abuse could have done something to protect plaintiffs’ welfare: issued warnings, gone to police, confronted Jackson,” the court wrote. “Yes, the likely consequence of protecting plaintiffs would have been termination of employment or removal from the board of directors. But a director or employee’s risk of removal or termination if they acted to protect plaintiffs does not mean they could not act.”
Friday’s ruling revived Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawsuits, but it does not mean they have won the cases. The disputes will now return to a lower court for more litigation and an eventual trial, where the pair will need to prove their allegations against MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc.
Read the entire opinion here:
Tencent Music Entertainment topped all music stocks this week after second-quarter earnings on Tuesday helped the company’s share price gain 7.2% to $6.53. The Chinese music streaming company, traded on both the New York Stock Exchange and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, reported second quarter revenue of $1.01 billion (up 5.5% year over year) and net profit of $179 million (up 51.6%).
Investors tend to react positively when companies report strong subscriber numbers and TME had good news about the surging Chinese market. TME finished the quarter with 99.4 million subscribers, up 20% from the prior-year period, and for the first time its music services (QQ Music, Kuguo Music and Kuwo Music) generated more revenue than its social entertainment services (WeSing). Users’ willingness to pay for copyrighted music, whether to listen to songs or enjoy premium features, “marks a significant step along TME’s growth trajectory,” said CEO Cussion Pang during Tuesday’s earnings call.
Tencent Music Entertainment was the only music stock with a double-digit gain and one of only two stocks to finish the week in positive territory. With Round Hill Music Royalty Fund unchanged, the remaining 18 stocks in the 21-stock Billboard Global Music Index lost ground this week. The index fell 3% to 1,299.04, the fourth straight week the index declined, and has lost 10.2% of its value since peaking at 1,447.32 for the week ended July 21.
Streaming companies (Spotify, TME, Cloud Music, Anghami, Deezer) dropped by an average of 1%. Live music companies (Live Nation, MSG Entertainment, Sphere Entertainment Co., CTS Eventim) had an average decline of 3.1%. Record labels, publishers and distributors (Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, HYBE, SM, Believe, Round Hill, Hipgnosis Songs Fund) fell an average 4.6%. Radio and satellite broadcasters (SiriusXM, iHeartMedia, Cumulus Media) dropped by an average of 5.1%.
Music stocks’ decline reflected the losses seen by stocks around the world this week. Higher bond yields have helped dampen interest in equities and investors are increasingly looking for safer places to put cash. In the United States, the S&P 500 declined 2.1% and the Nasdaq composite fell 2.6%. In the United Kingdom, the FTSE 100 dropped 3.5%. South Korean’s KOSPI composite index fell 3.3%, the biggest one-week point and percentage decline since Sept. 2022, due to falling operating profits, concerns about the Chinese economy and high interest rates.
K-pop stocks were among this week’s biggest losers. Shares of YG Entertainment and JYP Entertainment, neither of which are in the index, fell 12.1% and 13.3%, respectively. HYBE shares dropped 7.3% and SM Entertainment fell 6.7%. All four K-pop companies’ share prices have made large gains this year, however. Even after this week’s declines, SM, YG and JYP have gained between 63% and 66% while HYBE shares are up 36.3%.
Artists have long complained that streaming pays poverty wages — fractions of a cent per stream — and increases the difficulty of sustaining a recording career through a slow trickle of royalties. Some conservative-leaning artists are proving to be an exception to the rule with fans who still buy downloads at a time when streaming dominates music consumption.
Oliver Anthony’s “Rich Men North of Richmond” became a surprise hit — and could reach No. 1 on the Hot 100 — thanks to a confluence of two factors: As we’ve seen with several other songs recently, when a song gets caught up in — or leans into — the American culture wars, conservatives often buy downloads. “Rich Men North of Richmond” was an instant success: From Aug. 10 — the day with the first sales and audio streaming activity — to Aug. 15, daily U.S. streams went from zero to nearly 700,000 in just two days, according to Luminate, while daily U.S. downloads went from zero to more than 20,000 in each of the next four days. To put that in context, in a typical week the top track on the Hot 100 might sell 15,000 downloads.
In the seven-day period ended Aug. 15, “Rich Men North of Richmond” had 11.2 million on-demand audio streams that earned him roughly $40,000, Billboard estimates. But the track amassed an impressive 117,000 track downloads that netted Anthony about $81,000 — or 65% of the royalties earned from U.S. sales and streams. And because the track is distributed by DistroKid, which charges a flat fee for distribution, and owned by Anthony, he pockets the entire amount. Although the YouTube video hosted by radiowv has 21.6 million views, Luminate shows no video streams for the recording and Billboard does not know if Anthony is earning royalties from YouTube.
[embedded content]
Such high download sales make “Rich Men North of Richmond” an outlier in popular music. More often than not, a No. 1 track on the Hot 100 gets most of its revenue from streaming. Download sales have fallen precipitously in recent years and accounted for just 1.1% of U.S. track equivalent albums year to date, according to Luminate. On the most recent Hot 100, for the week of Aug. 19, Morgan Wallen’s chart-topping “Last Night” generated about 80% of its revenue from 20.8 million on-demand audio streams compared to just 5% from 5,000 track downloads. When Olivia Rodrigo’s “Vampire” topped the chart for a week in July, 81% of its revenue came from 31.3 million on-demand audio streams compared to 6% from 9,000 track downloads.
Some people have speculated that the song’s instant success must be the result of astroturfing — the use of fake grass-roots campaigns to gain public awareness. The themes in “Rich Men North of Richmond” — it criticizes both tax-hungry politicians and poor welfare recipients — struck a chord amongst conservatives and almost overnight became a favorite of rightwing politicians, pundits and instigators such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Walsh and Kari Lake. While there’s no clear evidence of such a campaign at the moment, the track’s rise was quick even by the standards of today’s internet viral hits.
What’s clearer, though, is that “Rich Men North of Richmond” has a lot in common with K-pop tracks that soar to the top of the Hot 100 because fans buy downloads with the express purpose of getting the artist a good chart position. When Jimin’s “Like Crazy” topped the Hot 100 for a week in April, 241,000 track downloads accounted for 85% of its revenue. When his BTS bandmate Jung Kook hit No.1 with “Seven” in July, 59% of its revenue came from 138,000 downloads.
Conservative music fans act like K-pop fans when it comes to supporting a song. Track purchases helped Jason Aldean’s “Try That in a Small Town” reach No. 1 on the Hot 100. In the week of Aug. 5, when the track sat atop the chart, 175,000 downloads accounted for 56% of revenue generated from streams and sales, according to Billboard’s estimate. Two weeks ago, “American Flags,” a patriotic song by rapper Tom MacDonald, sold 18,000 track downloads in the week — second only to “Try That in a Small Town” that week. The following week, the No. 11 most downloaded song was “Go Woke Go Broke” by Jokes on Woke, a country song that attacks recent villains in conservative culture such as Bud Light, CMT, Disney, Ford, Adidas and Barbie.
It’s not necessarily just fans voting with their money, though. The shopping habits of conservative-leaning music fans can help explain why Oliver, Aldean and the others have sold so many downloads. Notably, the country music market — which tends to lean conservative — was slower to adopt streaming (however, it has recently been catching up) and sees a higher-than-average level of purchases. Country music accounted for 35% of the top 100 track downloads in the week ended Aug. 10 — and six of the top 10 — while Christian/gospel accounted for 3%. Both genres have less representation on the Hot 100, which also incorporates streaming and radio spins. Country accounted for just 21% of the tracks on the current Hot 100 chart, while Christian/gospel was absent from the chart.
Whether it’s K-pop or country, songs typically can’t count on download sales alone to provide longevity on the charts. “Try That in a Small Town” sales fell 85% in a week, dropping the track from No. 1 to No. 21 on the Hot 100 in the week dated Aug. 12. Similarly, “Like Crazy” fell from No. 1 to No. 45 the week after its peak. As the culture wars quickly move onto the next issue, the lasting endurance of “Rich Men North of Richmond” depends on how many real fans Anthony has made in this time.
Webster “Yenddi” Batista Fernandez, one of the leaders of the largest-known YouTube music royalty scam in history, was sentenced to nearly four years in prison on Tuesday (Aug. 15). The court documents were made publicly available on Friday.
According to court documents, Batista is ordered to serve 46 months in prison for one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. Upon his release from prison, he will be placed on supervised release for 36 months.
From about 2016-2021, Batista and his partner, Jose “Chenel” Teran, ran MediaMuv, a music company that claimed ownership of and collected YouTube royalties from over 50,000 songs, despite not having legal rights to nearly any of those works. The victims were primarily from Latin genres and ranged from hobbyist musicians to global superstars like Julio Iglesias, Don Omar, Anuel AA, Prince Royce and more.
Batista and Teran were ultimately indicted on 30 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and aggravated identity theft in November 2021. Six months later, Batista accepted a plea deal, admitting to one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. His partner, however, did not plead guilty and accept a plea deal until just before the start of his Jan. 17 trial date. Ultimately, Teran admitted guilt to single counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and transactional money laundering.
Teran was given a heftier sentence than his counterpart — in late June, he was sentenced to nearly six years in prison for his involvement in the scheme. According to the government’s sentencing memorandum, Teran’s sentence was “undoubtedly substantial” but reflects a desire to “deter future conduct” similar to the MediaMuv scam. The document adds that Teran is at high risk to re-offend, given his interest in returning to the music business after prison and the sheer scale and savviness of his scam.
“In particular, the government is alarmed that even news of his indictment did not stop Teran,” says the court document. After his indictment, the document revealed that Teran siphoned another $190,000 of stolen royalties and moved those funds to a bank account “out of the government’s reach.”
A court document filed on Aug. 7 claimed that Batista is working toward rehabilitation and should receive more leniency in his sentence as a result. “He wanted to rehabilitate his life” since his arrest in November 2021, says the sentencing memorandum. “[He] participated in Hustle 2.0, which is a self-directed learning program designed for incarcerated individuals to give them the tools for rehabilitation.” On May 3, 2023, Batista received a certificate for completing its “pre-season program.”
Many of the artists whose works were claimed and stolen from by MediaMuv are still unaware. To check and see if you are a victim, please click here and contact victim witness specialist Todd McKenney, todd.mckenney@usdoj.gov.
Performance Rights Organization BMI is engaging with outside parties over the possibility of a sale, as the organization seeks to continue its transition into a for-profit entity. But where those profits will come from is of concern to several groups that advocate on behalf of songwriters, who have sent an open letter to BMI CEO Mike O’Neill addressing the issue.
Chief among those concerns is whether any profits that BMI does accrue will come at the expense of royalties that would otherwise be paid out to songwriters for the exploitation of their works, which is the business in which BMI has operated for more than 80 years. In its most recent annual report, for the year ended June 30, 2022, BMI — which represents repertoire by songwriters like Kendrick Lamar, Taylor Swift and Rihanna, among some 1 million others — reported that its revenue reached $1.573 billion and that it distributed $1.471 billion to songwriters, its highest mark ever. (While BMI has always been a private company that could have operated to reap profits, it has up until last year chosen to operate as a not-for-profit entity. ASCAP, its main competitor, is a non-profit 501-C corporation.)
“Songwriters have a vested interest in changes at BMI and in any proposed transaction which is wholly dependent on songs they have written,” reads the letter, signed by the Black Music Action Coalition, the Music Artists Coalition, Songwriters of North America, the Artist Rights Alliance and SAG-AFTRA, and which was obtained by Billboard. “BMI does not own copyrights or other assets; it is a licensing entity for copyrights owned by songwriters and, by extension, publishers. Songwriters have a right to understand these decisions and how it impacts us.”
The letter outlines three areas of concern: BMI’s profits; the proceeds from any potential BMI sale; and what may happen operationally at BMI in the event that the organization is, in fact, sold.
Under the first heading, the groups ask to verify whether BMI generated $135 million in profit since the shift to the for-profit model; how those profits were generated; whether that increase in profits would benefit songwriters; and whether any future profits might come at the expense of distributions to songwriters.
The second heading questions whether songwriters, publishers or broadcasters would receive any proceeds from any potential BMI sale; and if it were the latter, if that would not be effectively a rebate on the licensing fees they pay to broadcast songs, essentially lowering the cost to their businesses.
And on the final point, the groups ask whether any writers or publishers would receive benefits that are not extended to others; ask for assurances that writers will not be driven away or discouraged from joining BMI; and whether, if BMI is sold to private equity investors, the new owners would seek profits at the expense of disbursements to songwriters.
A spokesperson for BMI did not provide a comment at time of publishing.
Last month, in a memo to staff, O’Neill sought to explain reports about BMI reopening talks for a sale, after initial conversations had stalled out last year. “Delivering for our affiliates is always our top priority, and we have a responsibility to engage in discussions with outside parties if they can help further that mission,” O’Neill wrote in the memo. “That is exactly what we are doing right now, and no final decisions have been made.”
Following that news, publishers quietly began grousing about BMI’s intention to switch to profitability, but only privately. The only major publisher who has responded to a request for comment on BMI’s move to convert to profitability was the Universal Music Publishing Group. “We don’t comment on rumor or speculation, but to be very clear, we will only support changes that increase value for songwriters and will not stand for any that result in our songwriters being paid less than what they deserve,” UMPG chairman and CEO Jody Gerson said in a statement to Billboard at the time. “We have a long history of successfully fighting for our songwriters and will continue to do so.”
Read the letter in full here:
August 17, 2023
Mr. Mike O’Neill Broadcast Music, Inc.
Re: BMI Proposed Transaction
Dear Mike:
As you know, there is no BMI without songwriters. Songwriters have a vested interest in changes at BMI and in any proposed transaction which is wholly dependent on songs they have written. BMI has been very active: BMI announced a shift to a “for-profit” model and engaged Goldman Sachs to explore a transaction where a private equity company would purchase BMI. BMI does not own copyrights or other assets; it is a licensing entity for copyrights owned by songwriters and, by extension, publishers. Songwriters have a right to understand these decisions and how it impacts us.
As advocacy organizations representing songwriters, we have questions about the impact of a proposed transaction on our songwriter members. In the spirit of transparency, we hope that you will answer the following questions:
BMI Profits
We heard that BMI has reported $135m in profits since it shifted to a “for profit” model. Is that accurate?
If so, how did BMI increase its profits so dramatically?
Will songwriters benefit from this increase in profits?
What does BMI project its future profits to be?
We all know that the way to become more profitable involves increasing revenue and/ordecreasing expenses. If revenue increases, shouldn’t that money go to songwriters? Will BMI need to reduce its distributions in order to drive future profits?
Proceeds from a BMI Sale
If BMI sells, will writers or composers receive part of the sale proceeds?
If BMI sells, will the broadcasters on BMI’s Board receive the sale proceeds?9420 Wilshire BlvdBeverly Hills, CA 90212
If so, why should broadcasters be the biggest beneficiary from a sale of a company whose only asset is songs that belong to songwriters?
If broadcasters benefit from the sale of BMI, aren’t they essentially receiving a rebate on the licensing fees they’ve paid? In other words, they got to play songs for free?
If BMI sells, will publishers receive part of the sale proceeds?
If BMI were to sell who else would receive a share of the sale proceeds?
Proceeds from a BMI Sale
If BMI sells, will writers or composers receive part of the sale proceeds?
If BMI sells, will the broadcasters on BMI’s Board receive the sale proceeds?
If so, why should broadcasters be the biggest beneficiary from a sale of a company whose only asset is songs that belong to songwriters?
If broadcasters benefit from the sale of BMI, aren’t they essentially receiving a rebate on the licensing fees they’ve paid? In other words, they got to play songs for free?
If BMI sells, will publishers receive part of the sale proceeds?
If BMI were to sell who else would receive a share of the sale proceeds?
BMI Operations after a Sale
If BMI is sold, will any writers receive a benefit that is not extended to all writers (e.g., equity or profit participation)?
If BMI is sold, will any publisher receive a benefit that is not extended to all publishers and writers?
Private equity companies have aggressive return on investment goals. Since BMI is for profit, private equity owners will demand increased profits to meet their expectations. How can writers and composers be assured that private equity owners of BMI won’t drive more profits for themselves at the expense of songwriters?
Can BMI assure writers and composers that BMI’s profit margin will not exceed what BMI currently charges writers and composers as overhead?
We have concerns that increased profits for a private equity owner could come from lowering distribution rates or decreasing distributions by driving writers away from BMI. Can you assure songwriters that neither of these things will happen?
BMI is required to provide a home to any writer who wants to join. Can BMI confirm that they will not seek to drive writers away from BMI or discourage writers from joining BMI?We appreciate your attention. We will make ourselves available so that we can better understand this process and explain it to our members. We look forward to hearing from you prior to the completion of any proposed transaction.
Sincerely,
Black Music Action CoalitionMusic Artists CoalitionSongwriters of North AmericaSAG-AFTRAArtist Rights Alliance
Additional reporting by Ed Christman.
A federal judge ruled Friday (Aug. 18) that U.S. copyright law does not cover creative works created by artificial intelligence, weighing in on an issue that’s being closely watched by the music industry.
In a 15-page written opinion, Judge Beryl Howell upheld a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office to deny a copyright registration to computer scientist Stephen Thaler for an image created solely by an AI model. The judge cited decades of legal precedent that such protection is only afforded to works created by humans.
“The act of human creation — and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts — was … central to American copyright from its very inception,” the judge wrote. “Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them.”
In a statement Friday, Thaler’s attorney Ryan Abbot said he and his client “disagree with the district court’s judgment” and vowed to appeal: “In our view, copyright law is clear that the public is the main beneficiary of the law and this is best achieved by promoting the generation and dissemination of new works, regardless of how they are created.”
Though novel, the decision was not entirely surprising. Federal courts have long strictly limited to content created by humans, rejecting it for works created by animals, by forces of nature, and even those claimed to have been authored by divine spirits, like religious texts.
But the ruling was nonetheless important because it came amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music and other content by so-called generative AI tools, similar to the much-discussed ChatGPT. The question of copyright protection is crucial to the future role of AI since works that are not protected would be difficult to monetize.
“Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works,” the judge wrote. “The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions.”
The current case, however — dealing with a work that was admittedly created solely by a computer — “is not nearly so complex,” the judge wrote. Given the lack of any human input at all, she said, Thaler’s case presented a “clear and straightforward answer.”
Though Friday’s ruling came with a clear answer, more challenging legal dilemmas will come in the future from more subtle uses of AI. What if an AI-powered tool is used in the studio to create parts of a song, but human artists add other elements to the final product? How much human direction on the use of those tools is needed for the output to count as “human authorship”?
Earlier this year, a report by the U.S. Copyright Office said that AI-assisted works could still be copyrighted, so long as the ultimate author remains a human being. The report avoided offering easy answers, saying that protection for AI works would be “necessarily a case-by-case inquiry,” and that the final outcome would always depend on individual circumstances.
Read the full opinion here: