sound recordings until 1972. Even then, they had no federal public performance rights until 1995, and those rights are limited to digital audio transmissions, which effectively protects traditional broadcasters like radio stations from paying licensing fees for broadcasting sound recordings. In contrast, sound recording copyrights generally enjoy the same protection against reproduction and adaptation as musical compositions. So, if someone wants to a sound “sample” recording, that act implicates the reproduction and adaptation rights of both the musical composition and the sound recording copyright. If the sampling reaches a certain level, copyright law might allow a copyright owner to sue the sampler for infringing those rights. Music Licensing Scheme Now that we understand the different works and the different exclusive rights involved in copyright in music, we can consider the licenses that one would need to legally use such works. For each exclusive right that a copyright owner has, a corresponding license exists that she can grant to someone else. There are many licenses for each copyright because each copyright has multiple exclusive rights. Since there are two copyrights in recorded music, there are potentially twice as many licenses needed when attempting to use a song in an infringing way. The licensing scheme can be very complex, and it is helpful to use examples to describe it. For musical compositions, suppose a traditional radio station wants to broadcast a song created in 1961. The radio station’s broadcasting of that song constitutes a public performance of the musical composition. Because copyright law grants exclusive rights over the public performance of that song, the radio station should seek a license from the copyright owner. In practice, these public performance licenses are administered as licenses because most “blanket” composers belong to one of three collective rights organizations, ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, that
sound recordings until 1972. Even then, they had no federal public performance rights until 1995, and those rights are limited to digital audio transmissions, which effectively protects traditional broadcasters like radio stations from paying licensing fees for broadcasting sound recordings. In contrast, sound recording copyrights generally enjoy the same protection against reproduction and adaptation as musical compositions. So, if someone wants to “sample” a sound recording, that act implicates the reproduction and adaptation rights of both the musical composition and the sound recording copyright. If the sampling reaches a certain level, copyright law might allow a copyright owner to sue the sampler for infringing those rights. Music Licensing Scheme Now that we understand the different works and the different exclusive rights involved in copyright in music, we can consider the licenses that one would need to legally use such works. For each exclusive right that a copyright owner has, a corresponding license exists that she can grant to someone else. There are many licenses for each copyright because each copyright has multiple exclusive rights. Since there are two copyrights in recorded music, there are potentially twice as many licenses needed when attempting to use a song in an infringing way. The licensing scheme can be very complex, and it is helpful to use examples to describe it. For musical compositions, suppose a traditional radio station wants to broadcast a song created in 1961. The radio station’s broadcasting of that song constitutes a public performance of the musical composition. Because copyright law grants exclusive rights over the public performance of that song, the radio station should seek a license from the copyright owner. In practice, these public performance licenses are administered as “blanket” licenses because most composers belong to one of three collective rights organizations, ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, that
2017_Winning_Entry_Intellectual_Property_Law_Student_Writing_Competition.docx