SAG-AFTRA
Selena Gomez shared a photo this week, in which she tagged her Hulu series Only Murders in the Building, but seemed to have taken it down after she was accused by her followers of breaking SAG-AFRTA strike rules, according to Variety. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news […]
The ongoing dual Hollywood strikes, by the American actors’ union SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America, have brought the movie and TV businesses to a grinding halt as the historic work stoppage appears headed into the fall — and perhaps beyond. The impact has already been felt on the red carpet, as actors have had to skip new interviews or promotional appearances for some of the summer’s biggest blockbusters, as well as their upcoming projects.
When Troye Sivan spoke with Billboard recently, the singer was happy to talk about his summer single, “Rush,” but was unable to discuss his work on the HBO drama The Idol, which had wrapped its run weeks earlier. “I am in total support of the strike and am holding strong with everyone in waiting it out and making sure that everyone gets treated fairly,” Sivan said, adding that he also could not discuss his upcoming starring role in the coming-of-age drama Three Months.
Sivan’s statement was pitch-perfect, according to SAG-AFTRA chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, who says that artists are expected to avoid promoting music created for film, TV and streaming under the old contract during the strike. They also cannot enter into any new music licensing agreements or approve any new tracks for film or TV projects and must cease promoting songs already licensed.
The work stoppage over issues including streaming residuals and stricter safeguards against the use of artificial intelligence has shuttered all late-night talk shows for the longest stretch in modern history. It has also raised questions about Saturday Night Live’s 49th season — expected to start in September, though a representative said there wasn’t an update on a return to air — cutting off crucial promotional avenues for rising and established musical acts.
A number of major awards shows that typically feature music performances and presenters have been put in limbo by the action that began May 2, when Hollywood writers walked out, followed by members of SAG-AFTRA (which represents actors, announcers, broadcast journalists, singers and others), who joined them on July 14 to create the first dual strikes by the two unions since 1960.
The just announced 16th annual Academy of Country Music Honors will air Aug. 23 on Fox with returning host Carly Pearce, while the 2023 MTV Video Music Awards had announced a Sept. 12 airdate just as the first strike began. A representative said the latter is still planned for the Prudential Center in New Jersey, but could not comment on whether that date might change or if the broadcast could go ahead with an unscripted show, as the Tony Awards did in June. The 2023 Billboard Music Awards are scheduled for Nov. 19.
“They are not supposed to facilitate any promotion of work done under this contract, which includes going to an awards show and accepting an award,” Crabtree-Ireland says of musicians who are also SAG-AFTRA members. He noted that it’s “virtually impossible” to find a workaround, as the rules require artists to skip red carpets, interviews and accepting their trophies onstage.
A representative for the 96th annual Academy Awards, slated to take place March 10, 2024, had no comment on the strike’s impact. Similarly, a representative for the 2024 Grammys said the show slated for Feb. 4, 2024, at Los Angeles’ Crypto.com Arena is expected to go forward, but additional information isn’t available.
In the meantime, streaming services and networks are judiciously doling out already completed movies and series, like the slate at Paramount+. It includes an Elvis Presley documentary and a Biz Markie biopic; a new CBS game show, Superfan, in which die-hard supporters of artists including LL COOL J, Shania Twain and Pitbull compete for the title of ultimate fan; and the third season of Fox’s celebrity edition of Name That Tune, featuring JoJo Siwa, the Spice Girls’ Mel C, Darren Criss and Debbie Gibson.
The trickiest tightrope for musicians who also act might be social media, according to Crabtree-Ireland: “They can tweet about anything else they want, so long as they are not promoting work done under the [current] contract.”
This story will appear in the Aug. 26, 2023, issue of Billboard.
Performance Rights Organization BMI is engaging with outside parties over the possibility of a sale, as the organization seeks to continue its transition into a for-profit entity. But where those profits will come from is of concern to several groups that advocate on behalf of songwriters, who have sent an open letter to BMI CEO Mike O’Neill addressing the issue.
Chief among those concerns is whether any profits that BMI does accrue will come at the expense of royalties that would otherwise be paid out to songwriters for the exploitation of their works, which is the business in which BMI has operated for more than 80 years. In its most recent annual report, for the year ended June 30, 2022, BMI — which represents repertoire by songwriters like Kendrick Lamar, Taylor Swift and Rihanna, among some 1 million others — reported that its revenue reached $1.573 billion and that it distributed $1.471 billion to songwriters, its highest mark ever. (While BMI has always been a private company that could have operated to reap profits, it has up until last year chosen to operate as a not-for-profit entity. ASCAP, its main competitor, is a non-profit 501-C corporation.)
“Songwriters have a vested interest in changes at BMI and in any proposed transaction which is wholly dependent on songs they have written,” reads the letter, signed by the Black Music Action Coalition, the Music Artists Coalition, Songwriters of North America, the Artist Rights Alliance and SAG-AFTRA, and which was obtained by Billboard. “BMI does not own copyrights or other assets; it is a licensing entity for copyrights owned by songwriters and, by extension, publishers. Songwriters have a right to understand these decisions and how it impacts us.”
The letter outlines three areas of concern: BMI’s profits; the proceeds from any potential BMI sale; and what may happen operationally at BMI in the event that the organization is, in fact, sold.
Under the first heading, the groups ask to verify whether BMI generated $135 million in profit since the shift to the for-profit model; how those profits were generated; whether that increase in profits would benefit songwriters; and whether any future profits might come at the expense of distributions to songwriters.
The second heading questions whether songwriters, publishers or broadcasters would receive any proceeds from any potential BMI sale; and if it were the latter, if that would not be effectively a rebate on the licensing fees they pay to broadcast songs, essentially lowering the cost to their businesses.
And on the final point, the groups ask whether any writers or publishers would receive benefits that are not extended to others; ask for assurances that writers will not be driven away or discouraged from joining BMI; and whether, if BMI is sold to private equity investors, the new owners would seek profits at the expense of disbursements to songwriters.
A spokesperson for BMI did not provide a comment at time of publishing.
Last month, in a memo to staff, O’Neill sought to explain reports about BMI reopening talks for a sale, after initial conversations had stalled out last year. “Delivering for our affiliates is always our top priority, and we have a responsibility to engage in discussions with outside parties if they can help further that mission,” O’Neill wrote in the memo. “That is exactly what we are doing right now, and no final decisions have been made.”
Following that news, publishers quietly began grousing about BMI’s intention to switch to profitability, but only privately. The only major publisher who has responded to a request for comment on BMI’s move to convert to profitability was the Universal Music Publishing Group. “We don’t comment on rumor or speculation, but to be very clear, we will only support changes that increase value for songwriters and will not stand for any that result in our songwriters being paid less than what they deserve,” UMPG chairman and CEO Jody Gerson said in a statement to Billboard at the time. “We have a long history of successfully fighting for our songwriters and will continue to do so.”
Read the letter in full here:
August 17, 2023
Mr. Mike O’Neill Broadcast Music, Inc.
Re: BMI Proposed Transaction
Dear Mike:
As you know, there is no BMI without songwriters. Songwriters have a vested interest in changes at BMI and in any proposed transaction which is wholly dependent on songs they have written. BMI has been very active: BMI announced a shift to a “for-profit” model and engaged Goldman Sachs to explore a transaction where a private equity company would purchase BMI. BMI does not own copyrights or other assets; it is a licensing entity for copyrights owned by songwriters and, by extension, publishers. Songwriters have a right to understand these decisions and how it impacts us.
As advocacy organizations representing songwriters, we have questions about the impact of a proposed transaction on our songwriter members. In the spirit of transparency, we hope that you will answer the following questions:
BMI Profits
We heard that BMI has reported $135m in profits since it shifted to a “for profit” model. Is that accurate?
If so, how did BMI increase its profits so dramatically?
Will songwriters benefit from this increase in profits?
What does BMI project its future profits to be?
We all know that the way to become more profitable involves increasing revenue and/ordecreasing expenses. If revenue increases, shouldn’t that money go to songwriters? Will BMI need to reduce its distributions in order to drive future profits?
Proceeds from a BMI Sale
If BMI sells, will writers or composers receive part of the sale proceeds?
If BMI sells, will the broadcasters on BMI’s Board receive the sale proceeds?9420 Wilshire BlvdBeverly Hills, CA 90212
If so, why should broadcasters be the biggest beneficiary from a sale of a company whose only asset is songs that belong to songwriters?
If broadcasters benefit from the sale of BMI, aren’t they essentially receiving a rebate on the licensing fees they’ve paid? In other words, they got to play songs for free?
If BMI sells, will publishers receive part of the sale proceeds?
If BMI were to sell who else would receive a share of the sale proceeds?
Proceeds from a BMI Sale
If BMI sells, will writers or composers receive part of the sale proceeds?
If BMI sells, will the broadcasters on BMI’s Board receive the sale proceeds?
If so, why should broadcasters be the biggest beneficiary from a sale of a company whose only asset is songs that belong to songwriters?
If broadcasters benefit from the sale of BMI, aren’t they essentially receiving a rebate on the licensing fees they’ve paid? In other words, they got to play songs for free?
If BMI sells, will publishers receive part of the sale proceeds?
If BMI were to sell who else would receive a share of the sale proceeds?
BMI Operations after a Sale
If BMI is sold, will any writers receive a benefit that is not extended to all writers (e.g., equity or profit participation)?
If BMI is sold, will any publisher receive a benefit that is not extended to all publishers and writers?
Private equity companies have aggressive return on investment goals. Since BMI is for profit, private equity owners will demand increased profits to meet their expectations. How can writers and composers be assured that private equity owners of BMI won’t drive more profits for themselves at the expense of songwriters?
Can BMI assure writers and composers that BMI’s profit margin will not exceed what BMI currently charges writers and composers as overhead?
We have concerns that increased profits for a private equity owner could come from lowering distribution rates or decreasing distributions by driving writers away from BMI. Can you assure songwriters that neither of these things will happen?
BMI is required to provide a home to any writer who wants to join. Can BMI confirm that they will not seek to drive writers away from BMI or discourage writers from joining BMI?We appreciate your attention. We will make ourselves available so that we can better understand this process and explain it to our members. We look forward to hearing from you prior to the completion of any proposed transaction.
Sincerely,
Black Music Action CoalitionMusic Artists CoalitionSongwriters of North AmericaSAG-AFTRAArtist Rights Alliance
Additional reporting by Ed Christman.
Since the rise of digital music technology in the 1990s, royalties from online music have proved bountiful for star performers.
But back then, forward-thinking music industry executives and musicians helped make sure that non-featured performers on recordings, like session players and backup singers, could also share in digital music royalties. One of those income streams — the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution (IPRD) Fund, which marks its 25th anniversary this year — reports paying out $650 million to date to such artists.
For the 12-month period ending March 31, 2021 — the most recent full year for which its finances are available — the nonprofit fund has distributed $57.2 million to eligible performers.
Most of the fund’s revenue comes from SoundExchange, which collects royalties for every song played on digital radio like Pandora, webcasters like iHeartRadio and satellite radio services like SiriusXM. Those royalties are split: 50% to the record label, 45% to the featured artist and 5% to non-featured performers.
Fund participants span a spectrum of musical skills and styles. They include vocalists such as Carmen Carter (who has recorded with Beyoncé, Céline Dion, Whitney Houston and Luis Miguel), Wendy Moten (Carrie Underwood, Buddy Guy, Cece Winans) and Dan Navarro (Dolly Parton, Julio Iglesias, Neil Young), as well as musicians like guitarist Michael Landau (Enrique Iglesias, Diana Ross, LeAnn Rimes), keyboardist Greg Phillinganes (Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey, Elvis Costello, Stevie Wonder) and drummer Abraham Laboriel Jr. (Paul McCartney, Sheryl Crow, Miley Cyrus), among many others.
But while collecting royalties from Sound Exchange is easy and many musicians are easy to find, tracking down every performer who should get a cut can be a challenge. Though the fund paid out royalties to some 27,000 non-featured musicians last year, many are still unaware of its existence — or that they might have royalties to be claimed, says fund CEO Stefanie Taub.
“The big thing for us is we really want to make sure that the non-featured performers are aware that we’re here and there is this money source for them,” says Taub, a 25-year AFTRA and SAG-AFTRA veteran who prior to leading the fund sat on its board of directors.
The SoundExchange royalties paid to labels and performers are the result of the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recording Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which between them amended copyright law so that, among other things, digital and satellite radio services pay royalties for recorded music. (Terrestrial radio doesn’t make any payments to record labels and performers but pays royalties to songwriters and music publishers.)
As part of the revamped copyright law, AFM (American Federation of Musicians) was designated to be the agent to pay out half, or 2.5%, of the 5% due to non-featured musicians on songs played on digital and satellite radio, while AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) was designated to oversee the other half (2.5%) of the royalties for non-featured singers.
The two unions agreed to collaborate on a single administrator to collect and pay out the royalties. Thus, the AFM & SAG-AFTRA IPRD Fund was born.
“Back then, it made sense to create this fund so they didn’t waste money with duplicate efforts,” Taub says. “So it’s very unique that these two completely separate unions came together to create this fund.”
Stefanie Taub
Courtesy of AFM SAG-AFTRA Fund
How do you view this anniversary of the fund?
We’re very proud of the fact that we paid over a half-billion dollars to non-featured performers in our 25 years. We’re in a unique space because many people are aware of how featured artists — name artists on recordings — get paid for their music. But there’s not as much awareness that our fund exists and that it pays the non-featured performers. People really don’t know we exist, especially when we first started out. Back then, we were collecting a very small amount: under $100,000 a year. Nowadays, we collect more than $50 million a year. So that is something we really want to promote: This money is there for these performers, and we are here to pay it to them.
Does a musician need to be in the union to qualify for funds?
That’s a misconception. Even though the unions created this fund, their executives sit on the board, and our name includes the unions; the fund distributes to all performers without regard to union status. We’re required by law to distribute to everyone [regardless of] status.
Where does the Screen Actors Guild, which represents and pays actors, come into the picture? Are its funds blended into what you collect?
SAG represents mostly actors but also other performers in film and TV, [so] if a singer did a song in a film, that would be represented by SAG; if they do a record, they are represented by AFTRA. But the SAG funds are completely separate, and what we collect is completely separate from anything that the unions do on their own.
Your financial statement for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021, shows that the fund collected $63.1 million in royalties. How much came from SoundExchange?
It fluctuates, but it has been around $50 million or more for [each] of the past five or six years.
Foreign royalties also flow into the fund. What’s the source of those monies?
They are due to copyright treaties and to reciprocal agreements with collection organizations in other countries — and those royalties consist of many different things, including what they call “private copying”; in some foreign countries, they collect a royalty on devices like iPhones and iPads and things like that. Some countries do pay the U.S. [royalties] on broadcast terrestrial radio and even [on] what they call “communication to the public,” like songs played in nightclubs and restaurants. Every country is a little bit different in what royalties they pay to the U.S.
So, percentagewise, what would you say the breakout is from SoundExchange versus the other sources of income?
I would say SoundExchange is about 80% of what we collect. But we’re growing in the international space every year, and we’re hoping to increase that as time goes on. We had a very good year last year. Our financials are not showing yet for that, but we collected over $25 million internationally last year.
Are there other challenges your organization faces in paying out royalties?
When we reach out to people [eligible for payments], some don’t believe us because no one has ever gotten a secondary income stream from their recordings. Of course, we need to verify their identity and we ask for certain information. And these days, everybody’s concerned about their privacy, so they think it’s a scam sometimes. But the more we can get our message out, the more that creates awareness, so [that] people actually do sign up for us.
How do you reach musicians who might be due money?
We have a whole department called artist relations, and their only job is to either take incoming inquiries or to actively search for folks where we’ve seen their names on credits but need to find them. We use all types of resources, whether it’s the internet, social media or other publicly available information. We also try to get other participants who have been paid to let their friends know about our fund.
A big question for funds like yours is, how much of what you collect do you match with eligible recipients and pay out every year?
Our current percentage is about 82% payout, and we are reducing the unmatched number every year.
And your administrative costs are about 14% of your revenue.
We have an obligation to make sure we’re doing the right thing with other people’s money. It’s not my money, so I always look at the most efficient way to get the job done so that as much of what we collect as possible can go out the door to the performers.
What if the album credits don’t specify who played on what song?
When we get the money from SoundExchange, we do our research on a track-by-track basis and by individuals. It’s very difficult because, depending particularly on the age of the recording — or where it was done — sometimes there’s no information at all. That’s why we really encourage people to also look at the list on our website of all the recordings that we have money for. If they make a claim on a recording, then we always require proof that shows they are on the recording. That proof could be a union contract, liner notes or something printed somewhere on the internet. And we cross-check multiple sources to make sure that everything’s matching.
What if the featured artist says, “Yeah, he played on my track”?
We accept that, too. Or often there might be other side musicians on the track who vouch for the third, and we will accept that.
How many titles do you research and pay out on?
In April 2023, the fund distributed royalties on 50,000 titles. And we’re increasing that every day. But it’s very time-consuming to research non-featured artists, especially now when there is often no printed [credits] because there is no physical recording. But there’s a current drive to get more metadata to be included in a lot of [digital] tracks.
It’s the record labels that should make sure songwriters, publishers, side musicians and singers are listed.
Yes, and they’re not as driven to make sure that the non-featured artists are getting credit.
There have been some recent grievances with the fund, including a suit over $45 million in undistributed funds and another complaint about a data purchase and service fee paid to the unions. What has happened with those complaints?
The former was settled in November 2020, and the latter was resolved in March 2022. We welcome the resolution of these matters so we can focus our resources on what we do best, which is putting money into artists’ pockets.
Are there any other messages you would like to get out?
Just to let people know that they should take a look at our website and make sure that if they’ve done any non-featured work on songs, they should sign up and create an account so that we can find them and pay them. That’s the whole reason we exist — to pay performers. We want to make sure that we’re creating that awareness.
This story originally appeared in the July 15, 2023, issue of Billboard.
-
Pages