guest column
Page: 3
In the music industry, I’ve realized how important it is to open doors for others. Being a Latin woman in this industry means running into quite a few locked doors. These barriers aren’t just about missing opportunities; they often come down to gender or where we come from, making it feel like we’re all scrambling for a key that’s hard to find.
After nearly 15 years in this field, we’ve been lucky enough to enter rooms we never dreamed possible. Having secured a seat at the table and pushed open doors that were once closed to us, we feel a deep responsibility to keep those doors ajar for others. This journey has highlighted the unique hurdles women face in the music industry and has motivated me to ensure these doors stay open, particularly for other women aiming to make their mark and overcome the challenges we once faced.
In the MIDIA Women in Music 2022 survey, when respondents were asked what would encourage women and other “non-male gender identities” to grow in the music industry, mentoring and coaching opportunities were overwhelmingly the top response. It’s a resource I wish I had when I was coming up through the business, as I often faced a lack of access to other women, and particularly fellow Latinas, who could help guide me throughout my career. I was fortunate to have lots of great colleagues who inspired me but I was always craving that deeper connection and a safe space to have open conversations with women in this industry who have stood where I did or could offer fresh perspectives.
Trending on Billboard
As a foundational team member at Symphonic Distribution, I’ve navigated the challenges of expanding a business within a small music market. As a Latina, these experiences have equipped me with the insight to provide the mentorship opportunities I always wished were available to me, to others. With the launch of the Women Empowered+ Program at Symphonic, we’ve created a testament to the belief that mentorship can change careers and lives, particularly for women.
Since beginning the program in 2022, we have connected 165 mentors from companies across the music industry with 340 mentees spanning the U.S., Mexico, Latin America, South America, Europe and Africa. This initiative reflects our commitment to dismantling the barriers that disproportionately affect women in music, providing them with the guidance, support, and opportunities they have historically been denied.
As we prepared to launch our third year of the program this March during Women’s History Month, I began reflecting on what we have been doing well and what we could do better going forward — not just at Symphonic but in the industry in general. With this perspective, I’d like to share some suggestions and insights aimed at creating effective mentorship programs for women and diverse genders in the music industry, for companies committed to making an impact.
Structure Objectives and a Matching Protocol
Define the program’s objectives upfront, ensuring both parties have a mutual understanding of their roles, expectations, timeline and time commitment. Launch the program with a clear framework, pairing mentors and mentees based on complementary interests and career goals. We created a simple Airtable form with all the details we felt were needed to fully understand each of our mentors and mentees.
Resources, Support and Honesty
Provide training and/or resources to prepare participants for effective mentoring relationships. The cornerstone of an effective mentorship is confidentiality, fostering an environment where open and honest conversations can occur, grounded in trust and mutual respect. Maintain a support system for addressing challenges, while allowing flexibility to meet diverse needs and schedules. This ensures the program is both supportive and adaptable to individual circumstances.
Feedback and Community Building
Implement a continuous feedback loop to refine the program and recognize participants’ efforts and achievements through the program through surveys. Foster a community of past and present mentees and mentors to encourage networking, shared learning and ongoing support, enhancing the overall impact and sustainability of the mentorship initiative. This can be done via Facebook Groups, Slack, Whatsapp or any other community-building platforms. We discovered that some of the mentors and mentees can help by being the community manager for these.
By bringing the next generation of female music executives up through your mentoring program, we are in turn training the next generation of mentors who will be able to reach out and continue to help bring people in. Whether mentoring or being mentored, we are all contributing to the common goal of making things better for those who come after us.
As we gear up for another year of fostering connections and growth through the Women Empowered+ Program, I’m reminded of the transformative power when we choose to support and uplift one another. We encourage every company in the music industry to create similar programs to cultivate more diverse talent and hope our experience can be a guide for others to take action and inspire even more women to join our industry. In a world where the music industry’s doors seem heavy and unwelcoming, let us be the force that opens them wider, inviting in the voices of women who have waited for their chance to be heard. Together, we can ensure that the next generation of female talent finds a nurturing space where their goals are encouraged, supported by a community that understands the unique challenges they face and believes in the power of mentorship to change not just careers, but lives.
Janette Berrios is the vp of corporate marketing for Symphonic Distribution, a leading independent music distributor with a global presence. She was included on Billboard‘s prestigious Indie Power Players list in 2022 and 2021 and was honored with the “Wonder Women in Latin Music” award presented by the LAMC and Amazon Music.
In November, I quit my job in generative AI to campaign for creators’ right not to have their work used for AI training without permission. I started Fairly Trained, a non-profit that certifies generative AI companies that obtain a license before training models on copyrighted works.
Mostly, I’ve felt good about this decision — but there have been a few times when I’ve questioned it. Like when a big media company, though keen to defend its own rights, told me it couldn’t find a way to stop using unfairly-trained generative AI in other domains. Or whenever demos from the latest models receive unquestioning praise despite how they’re trained. Or, last week, with the publication of a series of articles about AI music company Suno that I think downplay serious questions about the training data it uses.
Suno is an AI music generation company with impressive text-to-song capabilities. I have nothing against Suno, with one exception: Piecing together various clues, it seems likely that its model is trained on copyrighted work without rights holders’ consent.
Trending on Billboard
What are these clues? Suno refuses to reveal its training data sources. In an interview with Rolling Stone, one of its investors disclosed that Suno didn’t have deals with the labels “when the company got started” (there is no indication this has changed), that they invested in the company “with the full knowledge that music labels and publishers could sue,” and that the founders’ lack of open hostility to the music industry “doesn’t mean we’re not going to get sued.” And, though I’ve approached the company through two channels about getting certified as Fairly Trained, they’ve so far not taken me up on the offer, in contrast to the 12 other AI music companies we’ve certified for training their platforms fairly.
There is, of course, a chance that Suno licenses its training data, and I genuinely hope I’m wrong. If they correct the record, I’ll be the first to loudly and regularly trumpet the company’s fair training credentials.
But I’d like to see media coverage of companies like Suno give more weight to the question of what training data is being used. This is an existential issue for creators.
Editor’s note: Suno’s founders did not respond to requests for comment from Billboard about their training practices. Sources confirm that the company does not have licensing agreements in place with some of the most prominent music rightsholders, including the three major label groups and the National Music Publishers’ Association.
Limiting discussion of Suno’s training data to the fact that it “decline[s] to reveal details” and not explicitly stating the possibility that Suno uses copyrighted music without permission means that readers may not be aware of the potential for unfair exploitation of musicians’ work by AI music companies. This should factor into our thoughts about which AI music companies to support.
If Suno is training on copyrighted music without permission, this is likely the technological factor that sets it apart from other AI music products. The Rolling Stone article mentions some of the tough technical problems that Suno is solving — having to do with tokens, the sampling rate of audio and more — but these are problems that other companies have solved. In fact, several competitors have models as capable as Suno’s. The reason you don’t see more models like Suno’s being released to the public is that most AI music companies want to ensure training data is licensed before they release their products.
The context here is important. Some of the biggest generative AI companies in the world are using untold numbers of creators’ work without permission in order to train AI models that compete with those creators. There is, understandably, a big public outcry at this large-scale scraping of copyrighted work from the creative community. This has led to a number of lawsuits, which Rolling Stone mentions.
The fact that generative AI competes with human creators is something AI companies prefer not to talk about. But it’s undeniable. People are already listening to music from companies like Suno in place of Spotify, and generative AI listening will inevitably eat into music industry revenues — and therefore human musicians’ income — if training data isn’t licensed.
Generative AI is a powerful technology that will likely bring a number of benefits. But if we support the exploitation of people’s work for training without permission, we implicitly support the unfair destruction of the creative industries. We must instead support companies that take a fairer approach to training data.
And those companies do exist. There are a number — generally startups — taking a fairer approach, refusing to use copyrighted work without consent. They are licensing, or using public domain data, or commissioning data, or all of the above. In short, they are working hard not to train unethically. At Fairly Trained, we have certified 12 of these companies in AI music. If you want to use AI music and you care about creators’ rights, you have options.
There is a chance Suno has licensed its data. I encourage the company to disclose what it’s training its AI model on. Until we know more, I hope anyone looking to use AI music will opt instead to work with companies that we know take a fair approach to using creators’ work.
To put it simply — and to use some details pulled from Suno’s Rolling Stone interview — it doesn’t matter whether you’re a team of musicians, what you profess to think about IP, or how many pictures of famous composers you have on the walls. If you train on copyrighted work without a license, you’re not on the side of musicians. You’re unfairly exploiting their work to build something that competes with them. You’re taking from them to your gain — and their cost.
Ed Newton-Rex is the CEO of Fairly Trained and a composer. He previously founded Jukedeck, one of the first AI music companies, ran product in Europe for TikTok, and was vp of audio at Stability AI.
For as long as there’s been a “music business,” creators have been fighting for their fair share, and modern history is replete with examples of corporations trying to shortchange music makers.
Case-in-point: AM/FM radio, where U.S. broadcasters have been getting away with paying artists $0 from their $15 billion-a-year revenue – despite the fact that music is their main input. Their argument? Because radio is supplying “free promotion” for the musicians, they don’t deserve a cut of the profits. Big broadcasters have been pushing this excuse since the 1930s.
Fast forward almost a century, and we’re now seeing this play out with new technology – most recently with the dispute betweenTikTok and Universal Music Group (UMG). Using the same argument as radio broadcasters, TikTok claims its platform provides “free promotion” to artists, and it’s therefore trying to undercut what they pay for the use of their music. But UMG refused to fall for this ploy and has now pulled all of its content from the platform until TikTok agrees to an appropriate licensing fee. As a result, about one-third of the most popular recordings on TikTok, including music from Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber and Billie Eilish, are now unavailable on the platform. (And this trend may grow if the dispute expands to the publishing side of the business, with indie publishers’ TikTok license due to expire in April.)
Trending on Billboard
UMG is doing the right thing by standing up for its artists. The label is making the case that creators should be paid fairly for the use of their tracks, in line with other platforms. (It also seeks to protect artists from the harmful effects of unregulated AI and encourages online safety protocols for users, two things all of us should support.) UMG recognizes that the lure of potentially viral promotion is in no way a substitute for fair compensation to hard-working creators.
Long before social media, companies using others’ musical property have sought to avoid paying fairly for that privilege because of this outdated argument around “promotion.” They tried it in the case of piano rolls, silent movie theaters, retail stores, music venues and even peer-to-peer file sharing platforms like Napster and Grokster. In each of those instances, companies tried to underpay (or not pay at all) for the music on the bogus theory that creators should “just accept the promotion, be thankful for whatever they get, and be on their merry way” – regardless of the immense profits they were making from the use of that music.
Thankfully, in the above cases, players in the music industry stood firm and refused to be blinded by the siren song of promotion. But that clearly hasn’t stopped others from trying the same trick.
TikTok is abusing its reputation as the place where new music is discovered. It’s true that many of today’s popular artists (like Lil Nas X, Doja Cat and Lizzo) first found fame on the platform. It’s also where catalog music is finding new life. There is no disputing the important role TikTok plays in the current music ecosystem. But that is an altogether different question than whether or not TikTok should compensate artists fairly.
Instead of using its power to pay artists less, TikTok should take the opposite approach. It should seek to be the digital home for musicians, the place not just where they can be heard, but where they want to be heard and where their value is recognized. This holds true for superstars, middle-class musicians and up-and-comers praying for their first breakout hit. And it starts with paying all of them fairly in recognition of the critical role they provide to the business, whether they’re receiving “promotion” or not.
Going forward, it’s important that key players, like UMG, take a stand against inequity on every platform that seeks to take advantage of creators.*
*SoundExchange is not involved in collecting sound recording royalties from TikTok.
Michael Huppe is president and CEO of SoundExchange.
Most songwriters understand the importance of affiliating with a performing rights organization (PRO), like ASCAP, BMI, GMR or SESAC in the United States — a critical step in making sure they can collect the royalties from public performances of songs they’ve written or cowritten. Even when signed to a publishing deal in which the publisher collects most revenue generated by songwriting, songwriters can still rely on collecting the writer’s share of public performance income from their PRO directly.
Is there an equivalent for artists who are signed to record labels? Enter neighboring rights!
“Neighboring rights” is simply the term used to refer to the public performance rights associated with a sound recording, which generates public performance royalties for artists and the sound recording copyright owner(s). The term comes from the concept that these rights are related to, or “neighbor,” the performance rights of songwriters. If you have performed on a sound recording (or are the owner or licensee of sound recording copyrights), you are likely eligible to receive “neighboring rights” royalties from the performance/broadcast of your recording around the world. This is where SoundExchange enters the conversation, but more on that below.
Here, we will detail what neighboring rights are and how artists can maximize their royalties collections both domestically and abroad to make sure they aren’t missing any money they are owed.
Music Copyright Primer
A short primer on music copyrights may be helpful before we dive into neighboring rights. Remember that any given musical work is comprised of two separate but equal components (each part receiving its own copyright): (i) the musical composition (i.e., the music and lyrics) and (ii) the sound recording of a musical composition. With neighboring rights, we are only looking at the recordings — more specifically, the contributions of the artists who performed, as well as the owners of the recordings.
Once a sound recording is created, the featured performers and the owner (or eventual licensee) of that sound recording are entitled, by laws in various countries around the world, to receive public performance royalties when the recording is publicly performed or broadcast. These are neighboring rights royalties.
While the U.S. does not recognize the full suite of neighboring rights in other countries (more on that below), there is a limited performance right in sound recordings that was established in the U.S. by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That limited neighboring right entitles performers and sound recording owners/licensors to neighboring rights royalties when their sound recordings are publicly performed via “noninteractive digital streams” (e.g., Pandora, SiriusXM and others where the listener doesn’t choose the order of recordings played).
What Are Neighboring Rights?
The term “neighboring rights” is one that confuses musicians and their representatives alike, but as stated above, it simply refers to the public performance rights that accompany a copyright for a sound recording. For the beneficiaries of neighboring rights (artists who perform on sound recordings and the owners of the sound recording copyrights), royalties are generated when a sound recording is publicly performed or broadcast (i.e., not sold) via terrestrial radio (e.g., an FM station), web radio (e.g., SiriusXM), television, digital streaming platforms, and public venues like restaurants and clubs.
Neighboring rights are derived from the 1961 Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, where various countries negotiated how to compensate performers for exploitation of their sound recordings that they did not directly agree to. The Rome Convention provided that signatory countries (excluding the U.S., which is not a party to the Rome Convention) must establish their own rules and regulations governing the performance of sound recordings, including royalty rates, the types of uses that qualify and the transferability of performance rights. As a result, the rules and regulations surrounding neighboring rights vary from country to country because they are determined by local statutes.
However, most countries that recognize neighboring rights (if not all of them) require a royalty to be paid to both the featured performer and the owner of the copyright each time that sound recording is publicly performed or broadcast. Similar to how public performance royalties for musical compositions are split into the separate “writer’s share” and “publisher’s share,” in practice, the total pot of neighboring royalties is split 50-50 between the featured performer (and the non-featured performers), on one hand, and the rightsholder, on the other hand, with these halves being the so-called “featured performer’s share” and “label’s share” of neighboring rights royalties. In this way, neighboring rights complement the performance right for songwriters.
Under U.S. law, only certain performances of a sound recording via what are called “non-interactive digital streaming services” generate these neighboring rights royalties. In other words, the performance of a sound recording in a bar or restaurant in the U.S. does not generate the same royalties that a performance of that sound recording in certain foreign countries would, but, featured performers on sound recordings or a sound recording rightsholders in the U.S. may still be entitled to collect neighboring rights royalties from performances abroad.
What About SoundExchange?
As mentioned above, the U.S. only provides an exclusive right to publicly perform sound recordings via noninteractive digital streams, meaning that not all digital streams are equal. The key difference is whether a stream is interactive or noninteractive. For example, a stream of a sound recording on a platform like Pandora is noninteractive because the user does not get to choose much beyond the radio station that they listen to. However, streaming a sound recording on a platform like Apple Music is interactive because the user can choose how, when and how long to listen to that given sound recording. Therefore, a sound recording streamed on Pandora can earn digital performance royalties in the U.S., whereas a sound recording streamed on Spotify cannot. (Note: Spotify pays all rightsholders a license fee. It just isn’t obligated to also obtain a digital performance license from SoundExchange.)
SoundExchange is the only entity authorized by U.S. Law to administer, collect and distribute sound recording performance royalties. This means that if a platform like Pandora wants to obtain the rights to digitally stream sound recordings in the states, which would require the payment by Pandora of neighboring rights royalties to the applicable artists and sound recording owners, it has to go to SoundExchange for a license. Those license fees will make up the neighboring rights royalties generated in the U.S. and are payable by SoundExchange to the featured (and non-featured) artists and sound recording owners.
How Do I Collect Neighboring Rights Royalties?
Now that you know what they are, how do you actually collect these monies?
There are a few ways that featured performers and/or rightsholder in the United States can collect neighboring rights royalties abroad.
SoundExchange International Mandate. SoundExchange has collection agreements with its counterpart organizations abroad that allow it to collect neighboring rights royalties outside of the U.S. All the artist or rightsholder needs to do is register as a member and opt into the international mandate. This is the easiest and quickest option, and an added benefit is that SoundExchange pays out monthly.
Neighboring Rights Administration Agreements. There are several companies that specialize in neighboring rights administration and collection (e.g., Premier, Downtown) with which an artist or rightsholder can enter into a neighboring rights administration agreement. The artist or rightsholder authorizes the administrator to collect royalties on their behalf, and then it affiliates the artist or rightsholder with each society worldwide and collects neighboring rights royalties directly from all societies in exchange for an administration fee that gets deducted before the administrator pays out. Typically, neighboring rights administrators account quarterly or semiannually.
Affiliating Directly Abroad. Another option is for the artist or rightsholder to affiliate directly with the various neighboring rights societies in each territory abroad and authorize those societies to collect on their behalf in the applicable territory. Alternatively, in a manner akin to the SoundExchange international mandate, an artist or rightsholder could affiliate with one society in one territory and have that society collect worldwide. With either of these options, there would be no (or a small) administration fee, but the process for the former option entails a lot of work.
W. Joseph Anderson is a partner and Suna Izgi and Alex Spring are associates in Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP’s Los Angeles office. Manatt is a multidisciplinary, integrated national professional services firm with more than 60 years of experience in the entertainment industry, representing a broad spectrum of creators and companies across music, film and TV, games, sports, and more.
Throughout history, music has embraced constructive change and innovation. And we will do so again as we confront the opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence.
Done right, AI should offer avenues for new growth and artistic accomplishment. When creators’ rights are respected, innovation thrives.
Already, music companies have unveiled compelling projects that use AI technologies in groundbreaking ways — with full consent and participation of the artists and rights holders involved. Working together with responsible AI companies, music companies are finding new ways to enhance production and marketing, gain new understandings from data and research, and improve wellness and health. They’ve used it to help identify new audiences for artists and pioneer new ways to celebrate iconic catalogs and performers. This is just the beginning of a new era of possibilities.
But many AI developers are resisting collaborative efforts by the creative sector to develop a responsible policy framework for AI, even though the elements of such a framework are straightforward and common-sense. In short, AI companies must honor:
Authorization: only use copyrighted music if it is authorized (for example, through a license)
Transparency: keep and disclose adequately detailed records of the content on which they train their systems
Authenticity: prevent deepfakes, voice clones, and similar violations of individuals’ rights in their own voice, image, name likeness and identity.
These foundational, consensus principles are detailed by the Human Artistry Campaign and supported by virtually the entire creative community. They set forth a baseline for responsible development and deployment of AI.
But as if on cue, some of the worst instincts of Big Technology have returned. Some AI developers claim it’s “fair use” to scrape up protected music so it can be copied and repackaged by their models. That’s just wrong.
Put bluntly, that’s digital theft.
In every legitimate market in the world, the use of others’ property requires the owner’s consent and agreed-upon compensation. Together, for example, music and technology have developed a burgeoning streaming market built on the common-sense principle that use of copyrighted creative works requires licensing and consent.
Indeed, the developers’ claim that they can use decades’ worth of iconic and extremely valuable recordings for AI without bothering to ask or pay the rightsholders is so far-fetched that former Stability AI developer Ed Newton-Rex quit his job in November rather than be party to an extreme effort to rip off artists and misappropriate their work, explaining via X:
“Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators’ works, which are then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original works. I don’t see how this can be acceptable[.]”
It’s not.
This is why transparency is essential. AI developers must keep accurate records of the copyrighted works used by their models and make them available to rights holders seeking to enforce their rights. We need rules requiring that developers maintain adequately detailed records and share this information — or bear the consequences if they fail to produce it. We were pleased to see that the European Union enshrined this as a core principle in its landmark AI Act.
AI policy must also establish clear rules protecting every performer’s right to their own voice, image, name and likeness — the most fundamental cornerstones of individual identity. AI fakes that mine an artist’s body of work to create artificial replicas and voice clones, fashion phony endorsements, or depict individuals in ways they haven’t consented to represent the worst kind of personal invasion. Congress needs to put an end to wrongful appropriation of the most central components of individual human identity.
These are the challenges of 2024.
We either work to continue a strong and sustainable foundation for music in the era of generative AI that moves both art and technology forward together, or generative AI devolves into just another “move fast and break things” novelty that fails to deliver anything of value while eroding our culture.
These are the choices policymakers will face this coming year. Let’s work to help them forge the right path.
Mitch Glazier is chairman/CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.
A songwriter recently posed a distressing question with me: Do the songs he writes for the church that are classified as “Christian Music” get treated differently by the performing rights societies (PROs)?
The inference that a song is penalized in some way by an organization collecting royalties is not correct, but the songwriter was onto something. Songwriters who write music categorized as Christian often do feel they earn less than their secular counterparts. There needs to be an explanation as to why the perception exists and what can be done to change it.
The explanation goes back to how performance royalties are collected. They flow from three key segments of the market:
Digital service providers (DSPs), such as Spotify and Apple Music
General licensing from bars, nightclubs, restaurants, and live venues
Broadcast media including terrestrial radio and television stations
All genres are treated equally on digital services, in terms of tracking, but Christian music is not your typical soundtrack at most bars, nightclubs and restaurants. And venues for Christian music concerts tend to be small community locations, such as churches. Promoters at these venues are unaware (either genuinely or deliberately) that licensing is required, even though they are holding a commercial concert with ticket sales.
That leaves television and terrestrial radio, and this is where I believe the system is fundamentally broken. The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) allows “educational” radio stations, typically small nonprofit community stations, to operate with a significantly lower rate structure that is not set on a percentage of revenue such as commercial stations, but rather a fixed fee structure based on the population of the community where the station is located.
For example, here in New York City the station WPLJ 95.5FM broadcasts Christian music to more than 8 million people, and in 2023 will pay a capped amount of performance licensing fees to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, a total of $15,029, combined. These fees will not vary, no matter how much revenue is generated by the station.
WPLJ is part of the Educational Media Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that runs a network of almost 500 terrestrial radio stations that broadcast Christian music. They claim the lower non-commercial rate under Section 118 of the Copyright Act and the related CRB rules because it is a nonprofit. When you look at the network’s publicly available information and the CRB rate sheet, you can see that they are paying an estimated combined total of around $1 million dollars in performance license fees.
It may seem reasonable for a non-profit to pay such limited amounts to perform music. But here is where the current regulatory regime is broken. The publicly available 2022 financials show the nonprofit collected $238 million in revenue, primarily through donations and sponsorships to the Christian content focused broadcast network. The network now has over $1 billion in assets, adding $50 million to those assets in 2022. Additionally, the salaries of the executive team for 2022 totaled $5.4 million. This is a far cry from the small volunteer-run community stations the CRB rates are meant to protect. How can it be that executives earn more than five times the total amount the network pays the entire song writer and music publisher community that create the songs upon which its network depends?
It must be said very clearly this network and others like it have done nothing wrong and they are a great resource to the wider community. However, just because it’s not wrong doesn’t make it right. I believe that it’s inherently unfair for these networks to exploit the CRB rate structure that’s available to educational radio stations given their financial profiles and the significant amount of money they raise using music to build a large audience. No matter how much money large non-commercial networks collect, and in this case primarily using Christian music to generate those revenues, the CRB license fee structure is capped. Commercial radio pays rates that are generally set as a percentage of revenue and not capped. Many high-earning Christian stations are paying as low as 10% of what commercial stations earning the same revenue would pay.
So back to the songwriter who felt his work was penalized. The answer is yes, he’s partially right; he is indeed paid less, but not due to prejudice on the part of PROs. The lower earnings are due to the lower royalty fees collected across the broader market that uses Christian music.
If we and the Christian songwriter and publisher communities believe that Christian songwriters should be paid on par with other writers, then the PROs as well as the Church Music Publishers Association (CMPA), should work together to create a dialogue with these high- earning broadcasters and ask that they opt out of the CRB rate structure and negotiate fair license fees for the Christian songwriter community. Or alternately, advocate for a revision of section 118 of the Copyright Act that would exclude wealthy “educational” broadcasters. This, along with financial transparency regarding the revenue collected and music licensing fees paid by anyone who gets a US Government-approved discount, should help level the playing field for all songwriters, regardless of what kind of songs they compose.
Malcolm Hawker serves as chief operating officer for SESAC Music Group, where he is charged with overseeing the operations of all the organization’s portfolio companies. Prior to joining SESAC, Hawker served as the president and CEO of CCLI (Christian Copyright Licensing International), a global rights licensing and resource company.
Most conversations around AI in music are focused on music creation, protecting artists and rightsholders, and differentiating human-made music from machine-made works. And there is still discourse to be had as AI has some hidden superpowers waiting to be explored. One use for the technology that has immense potential to positively impact artists is music marketing.
As generative and complementary AI is becoming a larger part of creative works in music, marketing will play a larger role than ever before. Music marketing isn’t just about reaching new and existing fans and promoting upcoming singles. Today, music marketing must establish an artist’s ownership of their work and ensure that the human creatives involved are known, recognized, and appreciated. We’re about to see the golden age of automation for artists who want to make these connections and gain this appreciation.
While marketing is a prerequisite to a creator’s success, it takes a lot of time, energy, and resources. Creating engaging content takes time. According to Linktree’s 2023 Creator Report, 48% of creators who make $100-500k per year spend more than 10 hours on content creation every week. On top of that, three out of four creators want to diversify what they create but feel pressure to keep making what is rewarded by the algorithm. Rather than fighting the impossible battle of constantly evolving and cranking out more content to match what the algorithm is boosting this week, creatives can have a much greater impact by focusing on their brand and making high-quality content for their audience.
For indie artists without support from labels and dedicated promotion teams, the constant pressure to push their new single on TikTok, post on Instagram, and engage with fans while finding the time to make new music is overwhelming. The pressure is only building, thanks to changes in streaming payouts. Indie artists need to reach escape velocity faster.
Megh Vakharia
AI-powered music marketing can lighten that lift–generating campaign templates and delivering to artists the data they need to reach their intended audience. AI can take the data that artists and creators generate and put it to work in a meaningful way, automatically extracting insights from the information and analytics to build marketing campaigns and map out tactics that get results.
AI-driven campaigns can give creators back the time they need to do what they do best: create. While artificial intelligence saves artists time and generates actionable solutions for music promotion, it is still highly dependent on the artist’s input and human touch. Just as a flight captain has to set route information and parameters before switching on autopilot, an artist enters their content, ideas, intended audience, and hopeful outcome of the marketing campaign. Then, using this information, the AI-powered marketing platform can provide all of the data and suggestions necessary to produce the targeted results.
Rather than taking over the creative process, AI should be used to assist and empower artists to be more creative. It can help put the joy back into what can be a truly fun process — finding, reaching, and engaging with fans.
A large portion of artists who have tapped into AI marketing have never spent money on marketing before, but with the help of these emerging tools, planning and executing effective campaigns is more approachable and intuitive. As the music industry learns more about artificial intelligence and debates its ethical implications in music creation, equal thought must be given to the opportunities that it unlocks for artists to grow their fanbases, fuel more sustainable careers, and promote their human-made work.
Megh Vakharia is the co-founder and CEO of SymphonyOS, the AI-powered marketing platform empowering creatives to build successful marketing campaigns that generate fan growth using its suite of smart, automated marketing tools.
By now, you’ve heard the news that BMI is selling its interests to a shareholder group assembled by the private equity firm, New Mountain Capital. The sale has come with questions and consternation from songwriter advocacy groups — including the Music Artist Coalition, where I am a board member — and U.S. music attorneys. These songwriter advocates asked for (1) transparency about the sale and (2) a window of time after the sale that would allow unhappy songwriters to leave.
Most questions remain unanswered, and BMI has not opened a window for songwriters to leave. But the sale seems to be proceeding anyway, subject to “regulatory approval.” Given that, here’s what you should watch out for as a songwriter, a songwriter representative or someone who benefits from administration or co-ownership of a songwriter’s songs.
1. What Does This Mean?
In short, it means that BMI, which has been a not-for-profit organization since its founding in 1939, has turned into a for-profit organization and sold to a private equity company. Private equity companies acquire companies that they believe are undervalued in hopes of realizing a significant return on their investment in a relatively short period of time. This is called a “holding period.” While some private equity periods fall outside the average, in 2023 the average “holding period” for a private equity fund with a company it buys is just over seven years, which is the longest it has been in over two decades (in 2022 it was just under 6 years).
According to press reports citing sources, BMI in its first year as a for-profit entity has generated about $130 million in earnings before interest, taxes depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). In order for the shareholder group to be successful, it will need to continue to grow profits or EBITDA from where they are today. To do that, they have to increase revenue and/or decrease expenses. The concern underpinning the sale is that BMI has historically grown revenue in order to pass it on to songwriters and publishers. The only revenue BMI traditionally held back was to cover its overhead. Turning to a for-profit model with private equity owners means that BMI’s shareholders will expect to participate in the profits BMI generates (through distributions or leveraging BMI), which may mean that less of the revenue generated will be distributed to the writers and their publishers.
2. How Does This Compare With My Other Options?
That is one of the unanswered questions. BMI’s goal is that there will be no negative impact to writers and publishers. BMI says they have a “goal” (not a guarantee) not to withhold more than 15% of revenue for three years for profit and overhead, but this doesn’t apply to revenue from any new business lines the company now enters.
Without more specificity, it is hard to determine how this will be possible and whether songwriters will be negatively impacted. It would be great if BMI provided more details about how they will increase distributions and increase profits at the same time. Ideally, BMI would give their affiliates an audit right, so that songwriters and publishers can monitor whether BMI reaches its goal. Otherwise, it should continue to release its financials showing collections, distributions and EBITDA.
3. How Will I Know?
Unfortunately, transparency is an issue. BMI’s latest public filing contains very little information on the state of the company and its revenue. In fact, they provide far less financial information than they did just a few years ago. Larger market players (like music publishers) may be able to compare and contrast the revenue they receive from one PRO vs. another and compare it with general growth trends of the music business and growth in the particular market segments that pay for performance (radio, film/TV, streaming, bars/restaurants, etc.).
We hope that songwriter advocacy organizations, in conjunction with music publishers, will be able to create and provide some level of transparency in the future for all songwriters. As a board member of the Music Artists Coalition, we have determined to make this a priority. Information is power, and songwriters who signed up for BMI under the premise of it being a non-profit should work to get as much information as possible. Ultimately, what matters is what you make as a songwriter – so watch your statements.
4. Do BMI Writers Share in the Sale Proceeds?
A little. In response to pressure from advocacy groups, BMI said that $100 million will be shared with its affiliates. BMI, in its sole discretion, will determine who gets it and how much, but it has agreed to use prior payment principles to do so. Affiliates includes both songwriters and publishers, and how much of the $100 million will be distributed to each of those two groups has not been disclosed.
The rest of the estimated $1 billion goes to BMI’s shareholders, which are broadcasters. For some broadcasters, this is a rebate of the performance royalties they have paid over the last few decades. This may seem particularly gruesome to songwriters who are also recording artists in the United States, which is one of the only countries in the world where broadcasters do not pay performance revenue on recordings.
5. What Do I Do Next?
If you’re a BMI member, stay informed. Ask questions, read your statements, follow the news and watch for reports on distributions starting after the second half of 2024. Talk to your co-writers at other PROs and compare payments. It takes four and a half months from the end of a quarter until you receive your accounting.
Check your agreements to understand when you can terminate membership, and when you can withdraw your songs. If you are unhappy with the results of the sale, you have the right to leave, but it can be tricky. BMI (like ASCAP) has one window during which you can resign as a writer (often every two years), but a separate, often completely different window (often every five years) during which you can terminate your publishing entity. You have to watch your windows and send your notice in advance, adhering to the timeframes allowed for resignations and terminations. And don’t forget that your songs stay with BMI while they are subject to “licenses in effect,” meaning that even when a songwriter leaves, their catalog stays behind for the term of existing licenses.
6. What Does Google Have To Do With All This?
We aren’t really sure, other than the fact that CapitalG (Alphabet’s independent growth fund) is listed at the end of the press release announcing the sale. Google owns YouTube, which has a history of underpaying songwriters — at least for its ad-supported tier. We will be watching this one closely.
Jordan Bromley leads Manatt Entertainment, a legal and consulting firm providing services to the entertainment industry for over 45 years. He sits on the Board of Directors for the Music Artists Coalition, an artist first advocacy coalition established in 2019.
Lawyers often say that bad facts make bad law – meaning that unusual or unlikely details of a case can shape precedent in unpredictable ways. But bad facts can also make for bad contracts, to judge by the contractual restrictions on re-recording that major labels may be adopting in the wake of the success of Taylor Swift‘s “Taylor’s Version” of her albums.
Re-recording restrictions, a common contractual provision that has been part of record deals for decades, are intended as a kind of post-term noncompete. Their understandable economic purpose is to stop an artist from re-recording songs released under a contract that has run its course in order to benefit a subsequent label – and let the subsequent recording compete with the original without a comparable investment. Under that logic, the reasonable duration of a re-recording restriction would be a few years, as was the practice before the “Taylor’s Version” releases came out. It’s harder to justify locking up artists for a protracted period that might be longer than the duration of the original recording agreement.
That duration could be limited, too, by a potential legal challenge. Both the federal government and many states restrict the enforceability of noncompete clauses in employment agreements, particularly when they limit economic freedom. (Examples include California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, and the recently passed New York Senate Bill S3100A, which New York governor Kathy Hochul is expected to sign.) Next year, the Federal Trade Commission will vote on banning noncompete clauses in employment agreements altogether. Labels often say that recording artists aren’t employees, but that wouldn’t necessarily put these kinds of restrictions above the fray – especially if they last longer than seems reasonable.
Few artists re-record anything, and those who do usually only revisit one or a few hits, maybe their biggest album at most, and that’s more likely if there’s a contractual dispute. It’s unprecedented for a significant artist to re-record his or her entire catalog, repackage each album and promote their rerelease – particularly when the original hit releases are still readily available. That requires motivation. Or, in Swift’s case, perhaps, frustration. But in a “Taylor’s Version” world, who wants to be the one who let it happen again?
Chris Castle
Laura Lee Nall Photography
Without getting into the he-said-she-said of the sale of Big Machine, including Swift’s recording catalog, it’s important to note that it was an unusual case. So, it’s worth asking if there’s a lower-risk alternative.
If a label is going to sell a living artist’s entire catalog – or sell a company whose value is dominated by that catalog – the safe thing to do might be to offer the artist a chance to bid on it. Or, failing that, at least consult with the artist to create a comfortable situation, even if that requires additional assurances or an additional payment. If you think it’s only necessary to do the minimum, look at what can happen with an overly legalistic approach. To artists like Swift, these recordings are their life.
Changing the recording agreement template to try to guarantee an outcome may backfire. “Taylor’s Version” simply isn’t a normal situation – it’s one that involved the world’s most popular artist, who is as attached to her catalog as any performer, plus just as business-savvy as most executives. It’s a situation that was almost impossible to anticipate – so making contracts even more one-sided may not help. Instead, a change like this could draw the attention of President Biden’s FTC, which seems to have an abiding interest in noncompete clauses. Especially if a number of competitors just happen to push the same contractual change at the same time.
If labels must have extended re-recording restrictions, couldn’t they add a sweetener, such as offering living artists a right to match the highest bid if their recording catalogs are ever sold individually, or a blocking right over the buyer or something similar? Alternatively, they could also just leave things be.
An overreaching re-recording restriction could also provoke retaliation from artists’ lawyers. They could make leverage points like post-term marketing restrictions and audits more important deal points in order to fight restrictions. That means disfavored buyers might have to wonder how hard it could be to get the approvals they need, or how much they would like continual audits. And in cases where artists are also principal songwriters, buyers could also have trouble clearing song rights, especially for new purposes like AI.
Some labels may be less concerned with expanding this restriction than they are with winning a competitive negotiation to sign a new artist. And if a competing label agrees to a shorter restriction, it could be an easy compromise that would cost little or nothing.
There’s always a temptation to add restrictions to contracts, but in this case, the exercise could backfire. Labels might be advised to be careful what they wish for.
Chris Castle is an Austin-based lawyer. He represents artists, publishers, songwriters and startups on commercial and public policy matters.
One of the key themes to emerge from Billboard Latin Music Week in Miami earlier this month was the undeniable and unstoppable rise of Mexican music — a trend that’s being powered by the TikTok generation.
In an era marked by a global surge in music consumption, the revival of Latin music in the United States is nothing short of spectacular. Data from the RIAA paints a compelling picture, showing U.S.-based Latin music revenues have increased by 15% year on year to reach a record high of $627 million in the first half of 2023, accounting for 7.5% of market share. When we reflect on numbers from the first half of 2021, the leap of 52% over these two years is particularly striking. The primary impetus for this is the growing audience tuning in to Latin music on ad-supported on-demand music streaming services. This is remarkable growth in a genre characterized by non-English language songs.
The rise of reggaeton in particular has been nothing short of meteoric. The commercial success of the likes of Bad Bunny, J Balvin and Karol G has left an indelible mark on the Latin music landscape. However, it’s important to note that Latin music’s appeal isn’t confined to a single genre.
TikTok has evolved into a hub for music discovery for millions of fans worldwide, with many trending songs on the platform often ending up on the Billboard Hot 100 or Spotify Viral 50. According to Luminate, 67% of the app’s users are more likely to seek out songs on music streaming services after hearing them on TikTok.
So what trends are we now seeing in Latin music? The short answer: Mexican music is leading the charge.
Over the past 12 months alone, Mexican music has experienced more than 83 billion views on TikTok worldwide, with a third of these coming from the United States, according to hashtag research the team and I have conducted in-house at Round. In that time, Mexican music has emerged as the fastest-growing genre on the platform with an astounding 322% surge in popularity, compared to electronic music (122%), rock/indie (96%), reggaeton (90%) and rap/hip-hop (87%). Mexican music stands as the third-largest genre on TikTok in terms of viewership in the U.S., with more than 27 billion views over the past 12 months, behind only rap/hip-hop and K-pop.
Artist after artist has emerged from the Mexican music scene to take TikTok by storm — from Natanael Cano and Yng Lvcas to Fuerza Regida and Grupo Frontera. However, one in particular is paving the way: Peso Pluma.
Thanks to Eslabon Armado’s viral TikTok hit “Ella Baila Sola,” on which Pluma is featured, the rising star has emerged as one of Mexico’s most exciting breakthrough artists. The track not only hit No. 1 on the Billboard Global 200 chart, where it held for six weeks, but it also secured a No. 4 spot on the all-genre Hot 100 — an unprecedented feat for a regional Mexican song. Plus, it dominated Hot Latin Songs for 19 consecutive weeks, the longest run at No. 1 for a regional Mexican track since the tally’s inception in 1986. The song has generated 525.5 million on-demand official streams in the United States to date, according to Luminate. Moreover, “Ella Baila Sola” reached No. 1 on the overall Streaming Songs chart, becoming the first regional Mexican song to lead the list and the first No. 1 on the chart for both acts.
The undeniable catalyst in this success story has been TikTok, where Pluma has gained over 30 billion views in just 12 months and inspired over 5 million creations on the platform. In April, four of Pluma’s tracks dominated the list of top trending Latin songs on the platform in the United States.
The appeal of regional Mexican music is further broadening as tastemakers continue to upload educational videos about the genre to TikTok and Instagram Reels. That trend is helping to nurture a deeper connection to the genre, fostering long-term engagement and powering it to new heights.
So what lies on the horizon?
Round’s analysis of TikTok hashtags reveals a treasure trove of uncharted music cultures and sub-genres waiting to be discovered. For example, views of #sertanejo, a Brazilian sub-genre of traditional music, have doubled from 15 billion to 30 billion over the last 12 months globally. That nearly rivals #reggaeton, which received 33 billion views globally across TikTok over the same period.
As new trends arise, one thing remains certain: TikTok is a powerful force for promoting diversity in music and opening up international markets for local sounds. Its global reach has ushered in an era where artists can easily have their music heard by millions. Now, it’s no longer a question of if artists, record labels, brands and influencers are on the app — it’s about how they maximize its power to the fullest. The stage is set, and the world is listening.
Ray Uscata is managing director of Round, North and South America. Round is a tech-enabled digital agency using content, creators and communities to place the world’s leading brands and artists at the center of culture.