Copyright
The U.S. Copyright Office posted a notice of inquiry on Monday (Feb. 10) in the Federal Registrar, requesting more information about issues related to American-based performance rights organizations (PROs).
More specifically, the Copyright Office is requesting public comment on “factors that may be contributing to the formation of new PROs”; whether there have been “increased financial and administrative costs imposed on licensees associated with paying royalties to additional PROs”; and “how to improve clarity and certainty for entities seeking to obtain licenses from PROs.”
The inquiry is a response to the House Judiciary Committee’s letter to the Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, six months ago, which requested an examination of “concerns” and “emerging” issues in the PRO sector. The letter was signed by the committee’s chairmen, Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Darrell Issa, and member Rep. Scott Fitzgerald.
Trending on Billboard
“It is difficult to assess how efficiently PROs are distributing general licensing revenue based on publicly available data,” the letter read. “For example, it is difficult to determine how accurately lesser known and independent artists as well as smaller publishers are being compensated compared to widely popular artists and major publishers.”
The letter added: “Licensees [like bars, venues, restaurants and small businesses] have reported receiving demands for royalties from new entities claiming to represent songwriters… Licensees are concerned that the proliferation of PROs represents an ever-present danger of infringement allegations and potential litigation risk from new and unknown sources.”
The Copyright Office’s notice of inquiry addressed this so-called “proliferation” of PROs as well, noting that for decades, ASCAP, BMI and the smaller SESAC were the only PROs in the U.S. However, in the last dozen years, this market has doubled in size with the introduction of Global Music Rights (or “GMR”) in 2013, PRO Music Rights in 2018 and AllTrack in 2019.
Around the world, most other countries only have one PRO representing all local rights holders’ interests — many also handle mechanical (or reproduction) rights as well — making the U.S. an especially unique and complex market for licensees.
Written comments concerning these matters must be turned in to the Copyright Office by April 11. After that, there will be a “reply comment” period that has a submission deadline of May 7.
Ozzy Osbourne is facing a copyright lawsuit over alleged social media posts featuring unlicensed photos of a famous rock star: Ozzy Osbourne.
The case, filed Monday in Los Angeles federal court, claims the Black Sabbath frontman illegally posted multiple images — of himself – that were snapped by prolific rock photographer Neil Zlozower.
The photographer’s attorneys say Ozzy posted the images to his massive followings on Facebook, Instagram and X (formerly Twitter) without seeking permission or paying Zlozower a licensing fee.
“The accounts are key components of defendant’s popular and lucrative commercial enterprise,” the lawsuit says. “Defendant has over 12 million followers on [Facebook], and over 6 million followers on [Instagram], and over 5 million followers on [X] — all of which are monetized and provide significant financial benefits to defendant.”
A rep for Ozzy did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations.
Trending on Billboard
While it might sound unfair to a celebrity, the copyrights to a photo are almost always retained by the person who took it. Simply appearing in an image does not give a celebrity co-ownership of it, nor does it give them a right to repost it for free. To understand why, read Billboard‘s explainer here.
Ozzy is hardly the first celebrity to get sued over that legal reality. Over the last few years, Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Emily Ratajkowski, LeBron James, Katy Perry and others have faced copyright cases after they re-used photos of themselves snapped by someone else.
And in allegedly using photographs snapped by Zlozower, Ozzy picked the wrong guy to test. Since 2016, court records show the litigious photographer has filed nearly 60 copyright cases against a range of defendants over images of Elvis Costello, Guns N’ Roses, Mötley Crüe and more.
In Monday’s lawsuit, Zlozower’s attorneys say Ozzy used several different photos. Five are staged portraits of the rocker standing alongside Zakk Wylde, the lead guitarist for Osbourne’s backing band since 1987; another features Osbourne onstage embracing Randy Rhoads, who served as guitarist on Osbourne’s first two solo albums before dying suddenly in a 1982 plane crash.
Zlozower says his team reached out to Ozzy about the allegedly infringing social posts in June – and then again in August and September. But he says the star “failed to respond,” meaning he was “forced to seek judicial intervention for defendant’s infringing activity.”
A new federal report on artificial intelligence says that merely prompting a computer to write a song isn’t enough to secure a copyright on the resulting track — but that using AI as a “brainstorming tool” or to assist in a recording studio would be fair game.
In a long-awaited report issued Wednesday (Jan. 29), the U.S. Copyright Office reiterated the agency’s basic stance on legal protections for AI-generated works: That only human authors are eligible for copyrights, but that material created with the assistance of AI can qualify on a case-by-case basis.
Amid the surging growth of AI technology over the past two years, the question of copyright coverage for outputs has loomed large for the nascent industry, since works that aren’t protected by copyrights would be far harder for their creators to monetize.
Trending on Billboard
“Where that [human] creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights, in the report. “Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”
Simply using a written prompt to order an AI model to spit out an entire song or other work would fail that test, the Copyright Office said. The report directly quoted from a comment submitted by Universal Music Group, which likened that scenario to “someone who tells a musician friend to ‘write me a pretty love song in a major key’ and then falsely claims co-ownership.”
“Prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output,” the agency wrote. “Prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectible ideas.”
But the agency also made clear that using AI to help create new works would not automatically void copyright protection — and that when AI “functions as an assistive tool” that helps a person express themselves, the final output would “in many circumstances” still be protected.
“There is an important distinction between using AI as a tool to assist in the creation of works and using AI as a stand-in for human creativity,” the Office wrote.
To make that point, the report cited specific examples that would likely be fair game, including Hollywood studios using AI-powered tech to “de-age” actors in movies. The report also said AI could be used as a “brainstorming tool,” quoting from a Recording Academy submission that said artists are currently using AI to “assist them in creating new music.”
“In these cases, the user appears to be prompting a generative AI system and referencing, but not incorporating, the output in the development of her own work of authorship,” the agency wrote. “Using AI in this way should not affect the copyrightability of the resulting human-authored work.”
Wednesday’s report, like previous statements from the Copyright Office on AI, offered broad guidance but avoided hard-and-fast rules. Songs and other works that use AI will require “case-by-case determinations,” the agency said, as to whether they “reflect sufficient human contribution” to merit copyright protection. The exact legal framework for deciding such cases was not laid out in the report.
The new study on copyrightability is the second of three studies the agency is conducting on AI. The first report, issued last year, recommended federal legislation banning the use of AI to create fake replicas of real people; bills that would do so are pending before Congress.
The final report, set for release at some point in the future, deals with the biggest AI legal question of all: whether AI companies break the law when they “train” their models on vast quantities of copyrighted works. That question — which could implicate trillions of dollars in damages and exert a profound effect on future AI development — is already the subject of widespread litigation.
The company that owns the copyrights to Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” is suing a Ford dealership near the rapper’s native Detroit for using the iconic track in TikTok videos that warned viewers they “only get one shot” to buy a special edition truck.
In a lawsuit filed on Monday (Jan. 27) in Michigan federal court, Eight Mile Style accuses LaFontaine Ford St. Clair — which owns several dealerships near Eminem’s hometown — of blasting the song in the social media videos even though “at no time” did it get a license to do so.
“This is an action for willful copyright infringement … against LaFontaine for its unauthorized use of the composition in online advertisements for one or more car dealerships in blatant disregard of the exclusive rights vested in Eight Mile,” the company’s attorneys write.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit says the videos, which allegedly appeared on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook in September and October, used “Lose Yourself” to boost a special Detroit Lions-themed Ford truck, telling viewers: “With only 800 produced, you only get one shot to own a Special Edition Detroit Lions 2024 PowerBoost Hybrid F-150.”
Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to easily add to their videos. But there’s a key exception: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on TV.
That crucial distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years. The restaurant chain Chili’s has been sued twice for using copyrighted songs in social videos, including once by the Beastie Boys over “Sabotage” and again by Universal Music Group for allegedly using more than 60 songs from Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and many others. The hotel chain Marriott and more than a dozen NBA teams have also recently faced copyright lawsuits over the same thing.
In the current case, Eight Mile Style pointedly noted that it had previously approved car commercials involving “Lose Yourself” — something of a natural fit, given the song’s connections to the Motor City.
“The composition was licensed and featured in a two-minute Chrysler television commercial that aired during the 2011 Super Bowl,” Eight Mile’s lawyers write. “Chrysler generated millions of dollars of new and used automobile sales across the world from this use of the composition.”
But LaFontaine’s decision to use the song without approval “usurped Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to determine when and under what terms the composition may be used for commercial endorsements and advertising,” the company’s lawyers write.
Paul McCartney is speaking out against proposed changes to copyright laws, warning that artificial intelligence could harm artists.
The British government is currently considering a policy that would allow tech companies to use creators’ works to train AI models unless creators specifically opt out. In an interview with the BBC, set to air on Sunday (Jan. 26), the 82-year-old former Beatle cautioned that the proposal could “rip off” artists and lead to a “loss of creativity.”
“You get young guys, girls, coming up, and they write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, and they don’t have anything to do with it. And anyone who wants can just rip it off,” McCartney said. “The truth is, the money’s going somewhere… Somebody’s getting paid, so why shouldn’t it be the guy who sat down and wrote ‘Yesterday’?”
The U.K. Labour Party government has expressed its ambition to make Britain a global leader in AI. In December 2024, the government launched a consultation to explore how copyright law can “enable creators and right holders to exercise control over, and seek remuneration for, the use of their works for AI training” while also ensuring “AI developers have easy access to a broad range of high-quality creative content,” according to the Associated Press.
Trending on Billboard
“We’re the people, you’re the government. You’re supposed to protect us. That’s your job,” McCartney told the BBC. “So you know, if you’re putting through a bill, make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you’re not going to have them.”
The Beatles’ final song, “Now and Then,” released in 2023, utilized a form of AI called “stem separation” to help surviving members McCartney and Ringo Starr clean up a 60-year-old, low-fidelity demo recorded by John Lennon, making it suitable for a finished master recording.
As AI becomes more prevalent in entertainment, music and daily life, the debate around its impact continues to grow. In April 2024, Billie Eilish, Pearl Jam and Nicki Minaj were among 200 signatories of an open letter directed at tech companies, digital service providers and AI developers. The letter criticized irresponsible AI practices, calling it an “assault on human creativity” that “must be stopped.”
The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame wants a federal judge to toss out a copyright lawsuit over an image of Eddie Van Halen, arguing that it made legal fair use of the image by using it as part of a museum exhibit designed to “educate the public about the history of rock and roll music.”
The lawsuit, filed last year, claims the Rock Hall never paid to license Neil Zlozower’s image — a black-and-white photo of late-’70s Van Halen in the recording studio — before blowing it up into an eight-foot-tall display in the Cleveland museum.
But in a motion to dismiss the case filed Tuesday (Jan. 21), the Rock Hall says it didn’t need to. Attorneys for the museum say the offending exhibit was protected by “fair use”, a rule that allows copyrighted works to be reused legally in many contexts, including education and commentary.
Trending on Billboard
“RRHOF transformed plaintiff’s original band photograph by using it as a historical artifact to underscore the importance of Eddie Van Halen’s musical instruments,” the Hall’s attorneys write. “RRHOF operates a museum, and it displayed the image in service of its charitable mission to educate the public about the history of rock and roll music.”
Zlozower filed his case in October, claiming the Hall made an “exact copy of a critical portion of plaintiff’s original image” for the exhibit, which he claimed “did not include any photo credit or mentions as to the source of the image.”
The Rock Hall is just the latest company to face such a lawsuit from Zlozower, who also snapped images of Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen over a decades-long career. Since 2016, court records show he’s filed nearly 60 copyright cases against a range of defendants over images of Elvis Costello, Guns N’ Roses, Mötley Crüe and more.
In the current dispute, the Van Halen image was used in two exhibits: “Play It Loud: Instruments of Rock & Roll” and “Legends.” Focused on musical instruments used by famed rockers, the exhibits featured sections showing Van Halen’s guitars, amplifiers and other gear. In the display, the original photo of the band was cropped to show just Eddie holding one of the guitars, which was placed amid the exhibit’s objects and informational placards.
In their motion to dismiss the case, the Rock Hall’s attorneys say the museum made a “transformative use” of Zlozower’s original image — a key question when courts decide fair use. They say the Hall used it not simply as an image of the band, but “to contextualize Eddie Van Halen’s instruments on display in the museum as historical artifacts.”
“RRHOF incorporated a portion of plaintiff’s photograph displayed next to the exhibition object, as one piece of source material to document and represent the use of the guitar,” the museum’s lawyers write. “This proximal association between source material and exhibition object helps visitors connect information and delve more deeply into the exhibition objects.”
In making that argument, the Hall’s attorneys had a handy piece of legal precedent to cite: A 2021 ruling by a federal appeals court tossed out a copyright lawsuit against New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art over the use of another image of Van Halen in a different exhibit on the same famous set of guitars.
In making that ruling, the appeals court said the Met had clearly made “transformative” fair use of the image by displaying it alongside the exhibit: “Whereas [the photographer]’s stated purpose in creating the photo was to show ‘what Van Halen looks like in performance,’ the Met exhibition highlights the unique design of the Frankenstein guitar and its significance in the development of rock n’ roll instruments,” the appeals court wrote at the time.
That earlier ruling is not technically binding on the case against the Rock Hall, which takes place in another region of the federal court system. But such an uncannily on-point ruling could certainly be influential on the judge overseeing the current case.
An attorney for Zlozower did not immediately return a request for comment.
Travis Scott, SZA and Future are facing a copyright lawsuit over allegations that they stole key elements of their 2023 hit “Telekinesis” from an earlier track.
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court, Victory Boyd (a singer signed to Jay-Z‘s Roc Nation record label) says the stars copied lyrics and other elements from her 2019 song “Like The Way It Sounds” and used them in “Telekinesis,” which spent 11 weeks on the Hot 100.
“Scott, Sza, Future and all defendants intentionally and willfully copied plaintiffs’ original work, specifically plaintiff’s lyrics, when they commercially released the infringing work,” write Boyd’s lawyers.
Trending on Billboard
Boyd claims that she initially shared “Like The Way” with Kanye West, who then recorded it as a track called “Ultrasounds.” West (who is not named in the lawsuit) then allegedly shared the song with Scott, who then shared it with SZA and Future.
“Scott gained access to the studio plaintiff left the original work in and began creating the infringing work,” Boyd’s lawyers write. “In May of 2023, Scott, SZA and Future agreed to create the infringing work by copying plaintiff’s original work.”
Notably, the lawsuit say the stars have essentially admitted to using her song. When “Telekinesis” was first uploaded to streaming platforms, Boyd’s lawyers say she was credited as a co-writer in the metadata. More recently, they say she’s been offered an 8 percent songwriting credit to resolve the dispute.
But Boyd appears focused on the fact that she “never granted permission” for her song to be used in the first place – saying the track had been taken without her “authorization, knowledge or consent.”
Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Audemars Piguet, a Swiss watchmaker that has partnered with Scott’s Cactus Jack brand for a collaborative line of watches. Boyd says the company used “Telekinesis” in advertising videos even after she and her publisher expressly refused their request for a license.
“The defendants and AP partnered to publish and commercially release an advertising campaign broadcasting the infringing work over the plaintiff’s objection,” her lawyers write.
The connection between “Telekinesis” and Boyd is hardly a secret. On the crowd-sourced lyrics database Genius, fans have noted that the song was “originally written by Victory Boyd as a gospel song” for West, then was “passed around many artists” before it “eventually ended up being a Travis song.”
Reps for Scott, SZA and Future did not immediately return requests for comment.
LONDON — Proposed changes to U.K. copyright law that would allow tech companies to freely use songs for AI training without permission threaten to place the country’s status as a “world music power” at risk, record labels trade body BPI has warned.
In 2024, hit records by Charli XCX, Sabrina Carpenter, Coldplay and Taylor Swift helped lift the United Kingdom’s streaming market to a record high with just under 200 billion music tracks streamed across the 12 months, up 11% year-on-year, according to year-end figures released Tuesday (Dec. 31) by BPI.
Overall recorded music consumption across streaming and physical album sales rose by a tenth (9.7%) on 2023’s total to 201 million equivalent albums, marking a decade of uninterrupted growth, reports the organization, which represents over 500 independent record labels, as well as the U.K. arms of the three majors: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group.
Trending on Billboard
However, the success of the U.K. music business is being challenged on multiple fronts, including intensifying competition from other global markets and proposed regulations around the use of artificial intelligence (AI), says BPI.
The proposed AI guidelines were announced by the British government two weeks ago (Dec. 17) as part of a 10-week consultation on how copyright-protected content, such as music, can lawfully be used by tech companies to train generative AI models. Among them is a controversial new data mining exception that would allow developers to use copyrighted songs for AI training, including commercial purposes, but only in instances where rights holders have not reserved their rights.
BPI chief executive Jo Twist said the proposed opt out mechanism was the “wrong way to realise the exciting potential of AI” and places the U.K.’s music and creative industries at risk by allowing “international tech giants to train AI models on artists’ work without payment or permission.”
“The U.K. remains a world music power, but this status cannot be taken for granted,” said Twist in a statement accompanying Tuesday’s year-end figures. She said that in order to continue to thrive, the U.K. music business needs “a supportive policy environment that puts the focus on human artistry and enables continued investment in the next generation of British talent.”
Of the current generation, more than 20 British groups and solo acts topped the U.K. albums chart in 2024, although Charli XCX and Coldplay were the only homegrown artists in the year’s top 10 best-selling artist albums list, occupying the eighth and ninth positions with Brat and Moon Music, respectively. Veteran British American rock band Fleetwood Mac had the year’s seventh most popular album with their compilation 50 Years – Don’t Stop.
Topping the year-end albums list was Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department, which has sold over 783,000 equivalent units since its release in April – the most for any artist release in a calendar year since 2017, reports BPI. The Tortured Poets Department was one of four albums by Swift to feature among the year’s 20 biggest titles alongside 1989 (Taylor’s Version), Lover and Folklore.
In total, female artists accounted for six of the top 10 and half of the 20 biggest selling artist albums in the U.K. last year with hit releases by Sabrina Carpenter, Billie Eilish, Chappell Roan and Olivia Rodrigo helping make it a landmark year for women.
Female artists also spent an unprecedented 34 weeks at No. 1 on the United Kingdom’s official singles chart, largely driven by Carpenter, who spent 21 weeks at the top with her three hit singles: “Espresso, “Please Please Please” and “Taste.” The best-selling single in the U.K. last year was Noah Kahan‘s “Stick Season,” which topped the U.K. charts for seven weeks, followed by Benson Boone‘s “Beautiful Things.”
Vinyl helps physical album sales return to growth
In terms of formats, streaming now makes up 88.8% of music sales in the United Kingdom, a marginal 1.1% rise on 2023’s figure and more than double streaming’s share of the U.K. market six years ago, reports BPI.
Meanwhile, physical sales experienced year-on-year growth for the first time since 1994 with vinyl and CD album purchases up 1.4% to 17.4 million units. Driving the resurgence in physical formats was a 17th consecutive annual rise in vinyl album sales which grew by just over 9% to 6.7 million units, marking a three-decade high.
The year’s most popular vinyl album was Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department, which sold more than 111,000 vinyl copies, followed by a 30th anniversary reissue of Oasis‘ debut Definitely Maybe. Other top-selling vinyl titles included Eilish’s Hit Me Hard And Soft, Fontaines D.C.‘ Romance, The Cure‘s Songs Of A Lost World and Charli XCX’s Brat.
CD sales fell 2.9% year-on-year to 10.5 million units, representing a significant slowdown on the 19% drop recorded in 2022 and the almost 7% slide in sales experienced in 2023. Digital album sales dropped almost 6% to 3.3 million units.
BPI’s preliminary year-end report doesn’t include financial sales data. Instead, it uses Official Charts Company data to measure U.K. music consumption in terms of volume. The London-based organization will publish its full year-end report, including recorded music revenues, later this year.
The U.K. is the world’s third-biggest recorded music market behind the U.S. and Japan with sales of $1.9 billion in 2023, according to IFPI. It is also the second-largest exporter of recorded music worldwide behind the U.S.
Tougher competition from other international markets, including Latin America and fast-growing countries like South Korea, has seen the U.K.’s share of the global recorded music market shrink over the past decade, however.
In 2015, artists from the United Kingdom cumulatively accounted for 17% of global music streams, according to BPI export figures. That figure now stands at 10% with U.K. artists accounting for just nine of the top 40 tracks streamed in the country last year – the highest being “Stargazing” by Myles Smith at number 12.
“From Coldplay, and Charli XCX, to The Last Dinner Party, and Myles Smith, there were plenty of examples of U.K. music success stories in 2024. But there are also rising challenges for domestic talent in a rapidly changing and hyper-competitive global music economy,” said BPI’s Jo Twist.
“By meeting the growing global challenge head-on, tackling challenges around AI, copyright and streaming fraud, and encouraging consumers towards viable models, like paid streaming subscriptions, we can help to ensure that the value of British music is protected and that our industry can continue to grow and flourish at home and around the world,” she said.
≈
Music Business Year In Review
Here we go again.
On Dec. 9, the technology activist group Fight for the Future announced that 300 musicians signed an open letter denouncing the lawsuit that labels filed against the Internet Archive for copying and offering free streams of old recordings under its “Great 78” project. The letter essentially says that labels need to focus less on profit and more on supporting creators, by raising streaming service royalty rates — and partnering with “valuable cultural stewards” like the Internet Archive.
This is exactly and entirely backward. Labels have to focus on making money — they’re companies, duh — and they are always trying to raise streaming royalties in a way that would help them, as well as artists. It would help if streaming services raised prices, which they would have an easier time doing if less unlicensed music was available for free on both for-profit pirate sites and services like the Internet Archive. And one of the worst possible groups to offer advice on such matters is Fight for the Future, which has consistently opposed the kind of copyright protection that lets creators control the availability of their work.
Most people think of the Internet Archive, if they think of it at all, as the nonprofit organization that runs the Wayback Machine, which maintains a searchable archive of past and present Internet sites. But it also preserves and makes available other media — sometimes in ways that push the boundaries of copyright. After the label lawsuit against the Internet Archive was shifted to alternative dispute resolution in late July, an appeals court affirmed book publishers’ victory in their lawsuit against the organization for making electronic copies of books available without a license under the self-styled concept of “controlled digital lending.” On Dec. 4, the deadline passed for the Internet Archive to file a cert petition with the Supreme Court, making that decision final.
Trending on Billboard
It sometimes seems that part of the purpose of the Internet Archive, which was founded in 1996 by technology activist Brewster Kahle, is to push the boundaries of copyright. In 2006, Kahle sued the government for changing the copyright system from opt-in to opt-out. (His side lost in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.) Later, the Internet Archive began buying and scanning books and distributing digital files of the contents on a temporary basis, according to how many copies of the volume the organization owned. (The digital copies became unusable after a certain amount of time.) During the pandemic, it launched a “National Emergency Library” and announced it would begin lending out more digital copies than the number of physical copies of books it owned. Two months later, three major publishers and one other sued, arguing that this controlled digital lending — a theoretical model that’s not recognized in U.S. law — infringed copyright.
The Internet Archive argued that it was a library and that its digital lending qualified as “transformative use,” an aspect of the fair use exception to copyright law that in some cases allows copyrighted works to be used for a different purpose. (The thumbnail images seen in search engine results qualify as a transformative use, for example, since they are used to help users find the images themselves.) The copyright exceptions for libraries and archives are very specific, though, and it’s hard to imagine how borrowed digital copies of books are so different from the digital books that have become an increasingly important part of the publishing business. The Second Circuit Appeals Court treated the dispute as a straight fair use case — it barely mentioned the National Emergency Library — and ruled for the publishers.
“Fair use is an important part of the law, and no one would disagree,” says Maria Pallante, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, the trade group that handled the lawsuit. “But this this was a gross distortion of fair use — they wanted to normalize that it’s OK to reproduce millions of works.”
The label lawsuit — Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Concord sued under the auspices of the RIAA — could end up being just as straightforward. (Kahle is also personally named in the lawsuit, along with other entities.) The Great 78 Project makes 400,000 recordings digitized from 78 rpm records available to stream online. The idea is to “make this less commonly available music accessible to researchers,” according to the project’s web site.
The reality, the labels’ lawsuit alleges, is that among the recordings available are Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas,” Chuck Berry’s “Roll Over Beethoven” and Duke Ellington’s “It Don’t Mean a Thing (If It Ain’t Got That Swing),” all of which have considerable commercial life on streaming services. “The Internet Archive’s ‘Great 78’ project is a smokescreen for industrial-scale copyright infringement of some of the most iconic recordings ever made,” RIAA chief legal officer Ken Doroshow said in a statement. The Internet Archive did not respond to a request for comment.
The Internet Archive seems to be appealing both of these cases to magazines, making the case that the $621 million RIAA lawsuit threatens “the web’s collective memory” (Wired) and the “soul of the Internet” (Rolling Stone). Maybe. But neither book publishers nor labels object to the Internet Archive’s actual archive of the actual Internet. In both pieces, Kahle positions himself as a librarian and a preservationist, never mind that “White Christmas” doesn’t need preserving and that the Music Modernization Act has a provision that allows libraries to offer certain unavailable pre-1972 recordings if they follow a process. (The labels’ complaint says the organization didn’t do this; Kahle told Rolling Stone that “we talked to people, it wasn’t a problem.”) The fact that some of the recordings are scratchy, which Kahle and his allies make much of, is legally beside the point.
It’s reasonable to hope that the labels don’t put the Internet Archive out of business, because the Wayback Machine is so valuable. But it’s also reasonable to wonder why Kahle let the Internet Archive take such big legal risks in the first place. If the Wayback Machine is so important, why distribute books and music in a way that could be found to infringe copyright, with the enormous statutory damages that come with that? Unless, of course, that’s actually part of the organization’s work in the first place.
Some of these issues can get pretty abstract, but the way they’re settled could have serious consequences in the years to come. If one wanted to assemble a collection of scanned books in order to train an artificial intelligence, one might go about it in exactly the way Kahle did. Same goes for old recordings. Indeed, artificial intelligence companies are already arguing that mass copying of media doesn’t infringe copyright because it qualifies as “transformative,” and thus as fair use. There is no evidence that the Internet Archive copied books and recordings for this reason, but it’s certainly possible that the organization might have wanted to set precedents to make it easier for AI companies to argue that they use copyrighted work for training purposes compensating rightsholders.
The letter from Fight for the Future points out that “the music industry cannot survive without musicians.” But there’s a chance that the kind of large-scale copying of music that it’s convincing musicians to defend could represent a first step toward the technology business doing exactly that.
The value of global music copyright reached $45.5 billion in 2023, up 11% from the prior year, according to the latest annual industry tally by economist Will Page. When Page first calculated the value of various music copyright-related revenue streams in 2014, the figure was $25 billion—meaning music copyright could double in value in ten years.
Record labels represented the largest share of global music copyright with $28.5 billion in 2023, up 21% from 2022. Streaming grew 10.4% and accounted for the majority of labels’ revenue. Physical revenues fared even better, rising 13.4%, while vinyl record sales improved 15.4%. Globally, vinyl is poised to overtake CD sales “soon,” Page says. CD sales are still high in Japan and across Asia, but Page points out that vinyl is selling more units at increasingly higher prices. “It’ll easily be a $3 billion business by the next [summer] Olympics” in 2028, he says.
Collective management organizations that collect royalties on behalf of songwriters and publishers had revenue of $12.9 billion, up 11% from the prior year. In a sign of shifting economic influence, live performances now pay more to CMOs than general licensing for public performances. Additionally, CMOs’ digital collections exceeded revenues from broadcast and radio, reflecting the extent to which streaming has usurped the power of legacy media. A decade ago, digital made up just 5% of collections while broadcast accounted for half.
Trending on Billboard
In another shift in the industry’s power dynamics, publishers collected more revenue from direct licensing than they received from CMOs. These royalties are a combination of “large and broadly stable income like sync and grand rights and fast-growing digital income,” says Page. “Publishers prefer direct licensing as it means they see more money faster,” he explains. A song that spikes in mid-March, for example, takes 201 days to pay the artist and 383 days to pay the songwriter. “What’s more,” he adds, “a third of that [songwriter] revenue can disappear in transaction costs” in the form of administration fees charged by various CMOs.
While some parts of music copyright suffered during the pandemic—namely public performance revenue—music has surged since 2020 to overtake the brick-and-mortar movie business. In 2023, music was 38% larger than cinema. That marked a massive shift since pre-pandemic 2019, when cinema was 33% bigger than music. Over the last four years, music grew 44% while cinema shrank 21%. The true difference between music and cinema is even greater: Page’s music copyright numbers account for trade revenue that goes to rights holders and creators. The cinema figures in his head-to-head comparison represent consumer spending. Of cinema’s $33.2 billion in box office revenues in 2023, only half goes to distribution, according to one analyst’s estimate.
Page’s report covers the totality of revenue generated by both master recordings and musical works. He removes double-counting — mechanical royalties that are counted as revenue by both record labels and music publishers, for example — and fills in the gaps in more focused industry tabulations by the IFPI, CISAC and the International Federation of Music Publishers.
“Anyone trying to capture the attention of policymakers who doesn’t grasp the threat posed by AI, for example, may find it handy to have a big number showing what’s at stake,” he wrote in the report.
For large, Western music companies, the globalization of music has opened new markets to their repertoire. Page’s report looks at the reverse effect: the value of developed streaming markets to artists in less wealthy countries. North America and Europe, regions dominated by subscription revenue, accounted for 80% of the value of streaming growth but just 48% of the increase in the volume of streaming. In contrast, Latin America and Asia (less Japan), where streaming platforms get far less revenue from each listener, accounted for 12% of streaming’s value growth compared to 46% of its streaming activity gains.
To artists from Latin America and Asia, fans in markets where streaming royalties are higher can be lucrative. For example, the nearly $100 million of streaming revenues generated by Colombian artists such as J. Balvin and Shakira inside the U.S. was six times greater than those streams would have been worth in their home country. This “trade-boost” of $78 million was worth more than the entire $74 million Colombian recorded music industry. Similarly, Mexican artists’ streams inside the U.S. were worth $350 million in 2023—$200 million more than had those streams come from Mexico.
“Let’s remember, Mexico and Colombia are just two examples exporting to just one market,” says Page, who co-authored a paper in 2023 that described the rise of “globalization,” a term for music created for local markets in native languages that tops local charts on global streaming platforms. “There’s so many more across South and Central America and the whole world is listening to these new ‘glocalisatas’.”