Unclaimed Royalties Study: Notice of Inquiry, 33735-33740 [2020-11893]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 2020 / Notices
duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
The Standard specifies two
paperwork requirements. The following
sections describe who uses the
information collected under each
requirement, as well as how they use it.
The purpose of the requirements is to
reduce workers’ risk of death or serious
injury by ensuring that manlifts are in
safe operating condition.
Periodic Inspections and Records
(paragraph (e)). This provision requires
that each manlift be inspected at least
once every 30 days and it also requires
that limit switches shall be checked
weekly. The manlift inspection is to
cover at least the following items: Steps;
step fastenings; rails; rail supports and
fastenings; rollers and slides; belt and
belt tension; handholds and fastenings;
floor landings; guardrails; lubrication;
limit switches; warning signs and lights;
illumination; drive pulley; bottom (boot)
pulley and clearance; pulley supports;
motor; driving mechanism; brake;
electrical switches; vibration and
misalignment; and any ‘‘skip’’ on the up
or down run when mounting a step
(indicating worn gears). A certification
record of the inspection must be
prepared upon completion of the
inspection. The record must contain the
date of the inspection, the signature of
the person who performed the
inspection, and the serial number or
other identifier of the inspected manlift.
Disclosure of Inspection Certification
Records. The agency has no annualized
cost associated with enforcing the
Standard. OSHA would only review
records in the context of an
investigation of a particular employer to
determine compliance with the
Standard. These activities are outside
the scope of the PRA. See 5 CFR
1320.4(a)(2).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
II. Special Issues for Comment
OSHA has a particular interest in
comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information
collection requirements are necessary
for the proper performance of the
agency’s functions, including whether
the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of
the burden (time and costs) of the
information collection requirements,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on
employers who must comply; for
example, by using automated or other
technological information collection
and transmission techniques.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Jun 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
33735
III. Proposed Actions
The agency is requesting no change to
the burden hours associated with this
Information Collection Request.
Therefore, the agency would like to
retain the previous estimate of 37,800
hours.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Title: Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68).
OMB Control Number: 1218–0226.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofits.
Number of Respondents: 3,000.
Number of Responses: 36,000.
Frequency of Responses: On
Occasion.
Average Time per Response: Varies.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
37,800.
Estimated Cost (Operation and
Maintenance): $0.
All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA
Docket Office. Information on using the
https://www.regulations.gov website to
submit comments and access the docket
is available at the website’s ‘‘User Tips’’
link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office
for information about materials not
available through the website, and for
assistance in using the internet to locate
docket submissions.
IV. Public Participation—Submission of
Comments on This Notice and Internet
Access to Comments and Submissions
You may submit comments in
response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by
facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other
material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the
ICR (Docket No. OSHA–2010–0051).
You may supplement electronic
submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If you wish to mail
additional materials in reference to an
electronic or facsimile submission, you
must submit them to the OSHA Docket
Office (see the section of this notice
titled ADDRESSES). The additional
materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name,
date, and the docket number so the
agency can attach them to your
comments.
Due to security procedures, the use of
regular mail may cause a significant
delay in the receipt of comments. For
information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of materials by
hand, express delivery, messenger, or
courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–2350,
(TTY (877) 889–5627).
Comments and submissions are
posted without change at https://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA
cautions commenters about submitting
personal information such as social
security numbers and dates of birth.
Although all submissions are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through this website.
Signed at Washington, DC.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Occupational Safety and Health.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
V. Authority and Signature
Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health,
directed the preparation of this notice.
The authority for this notice is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912).
[FR Doc. 2020–11805 Filed 6–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
[Docket No. 2019–6]
Unclaimed Royalties Study: Notice of
Inquiry
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Copyright Office is
undertaking a study as directed by the
Music Modernization Act to evaluate
best practices that the newly-established
mechanical licensing collective
(‘‘MLC’’) may implement to: Identify
and locate musical work copyright
owners and unclaimed accrued royalties
held by the collective; encourage
musical work copyright owners to claim
their royalties; and reduce the incidence
of unclaimed royalties. The MLC is
expected to carefully consider, and give
substantial weight to, the Office’s
recommendations when establishing
procedures for the identification and
location of musical work copyright
owners and the distribution of
unclaimed royalties. The Office is
soliciting input from music industry
participants and other interested
members of the public on these issues
to aid its study.
DATES: Written comments must be
received no later than August 3, 2020 at
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Written reply
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM
02JNN1
33736
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 2020 / Notices
comments must be received no later
than August 31, 2020 at 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time. The Office will be
announcing one or more public
meetings, potentially virtually, by
separate notice in the future.
ADDRESSES: For reasons of government
efficiency, the Copyright Office is using
the regulations.gov system for the
submission and posting of public
comments in this proceeding. All
comments are therefore to be submitted
electronically through regulations.gov.
Specific instructions for submitting
comments are available on the
Copyright Office website at https://
copyright.gov/policy/unclaimedroyalties. If electronic submission of
comments is not feasible due to lack of
access to a computer and/or the
internet, please contact the Office using
the contact information below for
special instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and
Associate Register of Copyrights, by
email at regans@copyright.gov or John
R. Riley, Assistant General Counsel, by
email at jril@copyright.gov. They can be
reached by telephone at 202–707–8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
I. Background
The Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act 1 significantly
changed the section 115 compulsory
license to make and distribute
phonorecords of nondramatic musical
works (the ‘‘mechanical license’’). Prior
to the MMA, those who wished to
obtain a section 115 compulsory license
were able to do so by serving a notice
of intention to obtain a compulsory
license (‘‘NOI’’) on the copyright owner
and then paying applicable royalties
accompanied by accounting statements
or, if the Copyright Office’s records did
not identify the copyright owner, by
filing the notice with the Office.2 Where
the musical work copyright owner was
not identified in the Office’s records,
royalties were not due.3
Frustrations with the former song-bysong licensing system’s inefficiencies
are well-documented, both in the
legislative history and the Copyright
Office’s 2015 comprehensive study on
the music licensing marketplace.4
1 Public Law 115–264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(‘‘MMA’’).
2 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1) (2017).
3 Id. at 115(c)(1) (2017).
4 Report and Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R.
1551 by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of
Senate and House Judiciary Committees, at 3
(2018), https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/mma_
conference_report.pdf (‘‘Conf. Rep.’’) (‘‘Song-bysong licensing negotiations increase the transaction
costs to the extent that only a limited amount of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Jun 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
Digital services ‘‘complain[ed] about the
lack of readily available data concerning
musical work ownership’’ and ‘‘asserted
that the inaccessibility of ownership
information leads to costly and
burdensome efforts to identify the
rightsholders and potentially
incomplete or incorrect licenses,
exposing them to the risk of statutory
infringement damages despite diligent
efforts.’’ 5 Publishers, songwriters, and
licensing administrators were also
frustrated with noncompliant statutory
licensees, noting that NOIs were
‘‘frequently deficient, and licensees
regularly fail[ed] to timely and
accurately pay and report usage.’’ 6
Some copyright owners sued digital
music services for missing mechanical
licenses,7 in some instances resulting in
settlements whose terms included the
establishment of online portals allowing
copyright owners to claim their
settlement shares.8
A. Identifying and Paying Copyright
Owners Under the New Blanket License
The MMA largely eliminated the
song-by-song mechanical compulsory
licensing regime by establishing a new
blanket compulsory license that digital
music providers may obtain to make
digital phonorecord deliveries (‘‘DPDs’’)
of musical works, including in the form
of permanent downloads, limited
downloads, or interactive streams.9
Instead of licensing one song at a time
by serving NOIs on individual copyright
owners, the blanket license will cover
all musical works available for
compulsory licensing and will be
centrally administered by a new entity
called the mechanical licensing
collective (‘‘MLC’’), which was
designated last summer by the
Copyright Office.10 Following a present
transition period, the MLC will begin
music would be worth engaging in such licensing
discussions, depriving artists of revenue for less
popular works and encouraging piracy of such
works by customers looking for such music’’); U.S.
Copyright Office, Copyright and the Music
Marketplace 107 (2015), https://www.copyright.gov/
docs/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-musicmarketplace.pdf.
5 U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and the Music
Marketplace 107 (2015).
6 Id. at 110.
7 See, e.g., Dan Rys, Tidal Hit With Lawsuit Over
Royalty Payments (Feb. 29, 2016), https://
www.billboard.com/articles/business/6890854/
tidal-lawsuit-royalty-payments (noting lawsuits
against Spotify, Tidal, Slacker, Deezer, Rdio,
Rhapsody, and Beats Music).
8 See, e.g., Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc. (last
updated Mar. 30, 2020), https://spotifypublishing
settlement.com.
9 The mechanical compulsory license for nonDPDs (e.g., CDs, vinyl) continues to follow the
preexisting song-by-song NOI system.
10 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1), (c)(5) (2017); 84 FR 32274
(July 8, 2019).
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
administering the blanket license on
what the statute terms the ‘‘license
availability date,’’ or January 1, 2021.11
The MMA’s legislative history explains
that the blanket licensing structure is
designed to improve efficiency by
allowing digital music services to offer
‘‘as much music as possible,’’ while
‘‘ensuring fair and timely payment to all
creators’’ of the musical works used on
these digital services.12
By consolidating musical work usage
and ownership data and royalty
distributions with the MLC, the MMA
aims to improve the preexisting
problems of missing data and
incomplete royalty payments. Digital
music providers using the blanket
license are required to pay royalties and
provide reports of usage for all covered
activities to the MLC on a monthly
basis.13 The MLC will collect those
royalties and distribute them to musical
work copyright owners in accordance
with the digital service providers’ usage
reports and the ownership and other
information contained in the MLC’s
records, including its public database.14
1. The MLC’s Public Musical Works
Database
The MLC’s musical works database
will contain information relating to
musical works (and shares of such
works), including, to the extent known,
the identity and location of the
copyright owners of such works and the
sound recordings in which the musical
works are embodied.15 Accurately
identifying musical works and their
associated sound recordings and owners
requires reliable data throughout the
statutory licensing ecosystem. To this
end, as explained in more detail in
separate notices published by the
Office,16 the MMA outlines roles for
digital music providers, musical work
owners, and the MLC in providing,
reporting, and curating accurate music
data.
Digital music providers operating
under the blanket license will ‘‘engage
in good-faith, commercially reasonable
efforts to obtain’’ various sound
recording and musical work information
from sound recording copyright owners
and other licensors of sound recordings
made available through the digital
music providers’ services.17 These
digital music providers will deliver
11 17
U.S.C. 115(d)(2)(B), (e)(15).
Rep. No. 115–339, at 4, 8 (2018).
13 17 U.S.C. 115(e)(7), (d)(4).
14 Id. at 115(d)(3)(G)(i)(II).
15 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(i).
16 85 FR 22549 (Apr. 22, 2020); 85 FR 22518 (Apr.
22, 2020).
17 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(B); see also 85 FR at 22521–
25.
12 S.
E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM
02JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 2020 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
reports of usage to the MLC containing
usage data for musical works used in
covered activities under the blanket
license, voluntary licenses, and
individual download licenses.18 Certain
entities engaging in covered activities
pursuant to voluntary licenses or
individual download licenses, but that
do not operate under a blanket license
(called significant nonblanket
licensees), will also submit reports of
usage to the MLC.19 And musical work
copyright owners with works listed in
the MLC’s database will ‘‘engage in
commercially reasonable efforts to
deliver’’ to the MLC if not already listed
in the database, ‘‘information regarding
the names of the sound recordings in
which that copyright owner’s musical
works (or shares thereof) are embodied,
to the extent practicable.’’ 20 On April
22, 2020, the Office issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking discussing these
matters in more detail and seeking
public comment on proposed regulatory
language to govern these obligations.21
Once these inputs are provided to the
MLC, it will engage in efforts ‘‘to
identify the musical works embodied in
particular sound recordings, as well as
to identify and locate the copyright
owners of such works (and shares
thereof), and update such data as
appropriate.’’ 22 The MMA’s legislative
history describes this duty to locate and
identify musical work owners as the
MLC’s ‘‘highest responsibility,’’ next to
the MLC’s ‘‘efficient and accurate
collection and distribution of
royalties.’’ 23 The Senate Judiciary
Chairman subsequently reaffirmed this
sentiment, writing to the Office that
‘‘[a]ll artists deserve to be fully paid for
the uses of their works [and] . . .
[r]educing unmatched funds is the
measure by which the success of this
important legislation should be
measured.’’ 24
Information for both matched and
unmatched works will be provided in
the MLC’s public musical works
database, and the statute lists a number
of fields that must be included with
18 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(A); see also 85 FR at 22526–
35. The statute prescribes categories of information
that must be included in reports of usage, including
a provision for the Copyright Office to prescribe
additional categories by regulation. 17 U.S.C.
115(d)(4)(A)(ii)(I).
19 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(6)(A)(ii), (e)(31); see also 85
FR at 22535–36.
20 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(iv); see also 85 FR at
22525–26.
21 85 FR 22518.
22 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(i).
23 Conf. Rep. at 7.
24 Letter from Lindsey Graham, Chairman, Senate
Judiciary Committee, to Karyn Temple, Register of
Copyrights 1 (Nov. 1, 2019) (on file with Copyright
Office).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Jun 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
respect to matched and unmatched
works.25 In addition, the Office may
promulgate regulations to require
additional information to be included in
the MLC’s database,26 and must also
‘‘establish requirements by regulations
to ensure the usability, interoperability,
and usage restrictions of the musical
works database.’’ 27 The Office has
recently published a notification of
inquiry soliciting information on these
topics.28
For those musical works (or shares
thereof) that are unmatched, copyright
owners will be able to come forward
and assert ownership claims by viewing
the MLC’s public database, including
through a public online portal.29 The
MLC has announced intentions that its
claiming portal, expected to premiere in
the third quarter of this year, will be
‘‘user-friendly, ADA-compliant, and can
be used by stakeholders of any
sophistication.’’ 30 For technologically
sophisticated entities, the MLC will also
use ‘‘APIs and data transfer processes
and formats to allow for bulk
submission and updating of rights
data.’’ 31
2. Education and Outreach
Congress has directed the MLC to
‘‘engage in diligent, good-faith efforts to
publicize, throughout the music
industry . . . the procedures by which
copyright owners may identify
themselves and provide contact,
ownership, and other relevant
information to the collective in order to
receive payments of accrued
royalties.’’ 32 The digital licensee
coordinator (‘‘DLC’’) (an entity that was
designated by the Copyright Office to
represent the interests of digital services
pursuant to the statute), and Copyright
Office also have roles in educating
copyright owners and songwriters about
the existence of the MLC and its role in
the new blanket license system.33 For
the DLC, this includes encouraging
digital music providers to post the
MLC’s contact information on services’
websites and applications and conduct
in-person songwriter outreach.34 The
25 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii), id. at
115(d)(3)(E)(iii)(I).
26 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(V), (iii)(II).
27 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(vi).
28 85 FR 22568 (Apr. 22, 2020).
29 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(J)(iii)(I).
30 Mechanical Licensing Collective, Designation
Proposal at 37, U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2018–
11 (Mar. 22, 2019), https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=COLC-2018-0011-0012 (‘‘MLC
Designation Proposal’’).
31 Id.
32 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(J)(iii)(II)(bb).
33 Id. at 115(d)(5)(C)(i)(VII); MMA at sec. 102(e),
132 Stat. at 3722.
34 117 U.S.C. 115(d)(5)(C)(iii).
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33737
Copyright Office has engaged in several
activities to fulfill its educational duties
thus far, including by establishing a
MMA-related web page with FAQs,
informational handouts, seven MMArelated videos, three new circulars, and
information related to the statute’s
legislative history, as well as hosting an
all-day symposium and speaking at
approximately 40 in-person or virtual
events.35
3. Unclaimed, Accrued Royalties
For those works for which royalties
have accrued but the copyright owner is
unknown or not located, the MLC will
hold such royalties for a designated
minimum time period. This holding
period will provide the MLC with an
additional period of time 36 (compared
to the pre-MMA system) to engage in
efforts to identify the musical works
embodied in particular sound
recordings, and locate their associated
copyright owners, and for copyright
owners and other songwriters to identify
their works in the MLC database and
come forward to claim their ownership
interests.37 In general, the MLC must
hold accrued royalties for ‘‘a period of
not less than 3 years after the date on
which the funds were received by the
[MLC], or not less than 3 years after the
date on which the funds were accrued
by a digital music provider that
subsequently transferred such funds to
the [MLC] . . . whichever period
expires sooner.’’ 38 The MMA also states
that the first such distribution ‘‘shall
occur on or after January 1 of the second
full calendar year to commence after the
license availability date, with not less
than 1 such distribution to take place
35 See U.S. Copyright Office, MMA Educational
Materials, https://www.copyright.gov/musicmodernization/educational-materials/ (last visited,
May 19, 2020).
36 For works that were initially accrued by a
digital music provider prior to the license
availability date and then transferred to the MLC,
the MLC may have as few as two years to locate the
copyright owner, but the minimum total holding
period for these funds will be three years. See 17
U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(H)(i), (3)(J)(i)(I), (10)(B)(iv)(III)(aa).
37 Conf. Rep. at 11 (‘‘For unmatched works, the
collective must wait for the prescribed holding
period of three years before making such
distribution. This is intended to give the collective
time to actively search for the copyright owner.’’);
see also U.S. Copyright Office, Unclaimed Royalties
Study: Kickoff Symposium, Tr. at 194:18–195:01,
213:03–05 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Sarah Rosenbaum,
Google) (noting that the MMA allows the music
industry to address data issues in a ‘‘less timepressured environment’’). Transcripts of the Office’s
symposium are cited with the abbreviation ‘‘Tr.’’
along with the page and line numbers, and date, of
the cited material. These citations also include the
name of the speaker and organization (if any) with
which the speaker is affiliated. Transcripts of the
symposium is available at https://
www.copyright.gov/policy/royalties/transcript.pdf.
38 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(H)(i).
E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM
02JNN1
33738
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 2020 / Notices
during each calendar year thereafter.’’ 39
Reading these provisions together, in no
case can these unclaimed royalties be
distributed before 2023.40
After the holding period, the MLC
‘‘shall distribute [unmatched works’]
accrued royalties, along with a
proportionate share of accrued interest,
to copyright owners identified in the
records of the collective.’’ 41 It must also
‘‘engag[e] in diligent, good-faith efforts
to publicize . . . any pending
distribution of unclaimed accrued
royalties and accrued interest, not less
than 90 days before the date on which
the distribution is made.’’ 42 Once the
MLC makes an initial distribution of
unclaimed, accrued royalties, ‘‘not less
than 1 such distribution [shall] take
place during each calendar year
thereafter.’’ 43 Copyright owners’ shares
of distributions of unclaimed accrued
royalties will be determined by the MLC
in accordance with unclaimed accrued
royalties for particular payment periods,
and ‘‘determined in a transparent and
equitable manner based on data
indicating the relative market shares of
such copyright owners as reflected in
reports of usage provided by digital
music providers for covered activities
for the periods in question’’ as well as
available ‘‘usage data provided to
copyright owners under voluntary
licenses and individual download
licenses for covered activities.’’ 44
By statute, the MLC has established
an Unclaimed Royalties Oversight
Committee, which will establish
policies and procedures ‘‘for the
distribution of unclaimed accrued
royalties and accrued interest . . .
including the provision of usage data to
copyright owners to allocate payments
and credits to songwriters,’’ subject to
the MLC board’s approval.45 During the
public process of designating the
collective, the MLC noted that it ‘‘does
not intend to ever distribute the entirety
of unclaimed royalties simultaneously,’’
and that it interprets section 115(d)(3)(J)
‘‘to grant discretion to MLC to retain
unclaimed accrued royalties beyond the
year that they become eligible for
39 Id.
at 115(d)(3)(J)(i)(I).
see also 84 FR at 32291 (July 8, 2019)
(noting ‘‘the statute does not permit the first such
distribution to occur before January 1, 2023’’); MLC
Designation Proposal at 52 (same).
41 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(J)(i).
42 Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(iii)(II)(dd).
43 Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(i)(I).
44 Id. at 115 (d)(3)(J)(i)(II). Songwriters’ unclaimed
accrued royalty shares will be paid ‘‘in accordance
with applicable contractual terms,’’ but ‘‘in no case
shall the payment or credit to an individual
songwriter be less than 50 percent of the payment
received by the copyright owner.’’ Id. at
115(d)(3)(J)(iv)(II).
45 Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(ii).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40 Id.;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Jun 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
distribution, to allow diligent attempts
to match all uses and works, no matter
the vintage, to continue. MLC intends to
implement policies allowing use of that
discretion to retain unclaimed accrued
royalties and continue matching efforts
in situations where there is reasonable
evidence that this will result in material
increases in matching success.’’ 46 In
designating the MLC, the Office noted
its agreement with this interpretation.47
B. Copyright Office Study on Best
Practices Study, and Related
Foundational Work
To further Congress’s intent to reduce
the instance of unmatched works and
unclaimed royalties, the MMA directs
the Copyright Office to conduct a policy
study, in consultation with the
Government Accountability Office,
recommending best practices that the
MLC may implement to:
(A) Identify and locate musical work
copyright owners with unclaimed accrued
royalties held by the collective;
(B) encourage musical work copyright
owners to claim the royalties of those
owners; and
(C) reduce the incidence of unclaimed
royalties.48
The MLC must carefully consider and
give substantial weight to the Office’s
recommendations when establishing
procedures to identify and locate
musical work copyright owners and to
distribute unclaimed royalties.49
1. Educational Symposium
To initiate the study, the Office held
an all-day educational symposium to
facilitate public understanding and
discussion on issues relevant to the
study. The Office invited industry
participants, including songwriters and
other interested members of the public,
to discuss topics including: (i) Past and
current initiatives to facilitate
authoritative and comprehensive music
ownership databases; (ii) challenges of
matching musical works to sound
recordings, including current matching
methods and challenges, the role of
technology, and how success can be
measured; and (iii) the most effective
ways to educate creators on the changes
effected by the MMA. The symposium
featured an update from the MLC and
DLC, and a discussion among creators
concerning the challenges and benefits
associated with accurately capturing
metadata during the creative process as
well as the role of creators in taking
ownership of their song data. The event
46 MLCI
Designation Proposal at 52–53.
FR at 32291.
48 MMA at sec. 102(f)(1), 132 Stat. at 3722.
49 Id. at sec. 102(f)(2), 132 Stat. at 3722–23.
47 84
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
concluded with an opportunity for
audience participation. The Office has
posted videos and a transcript of the
symposium on its website, as well as a
glossary of acronyms and other
frequently used terms that arose during
discussions.50
While observing that the MLC’s
mission shares some similarities with
past music ownership database
development efforts, panelists noted
that the MLC lacks the funding
challenges of earlier European efforts,
and that it may benefit from being
narrower in scope.51 There was
discussion on the role of standards
setting, including the common works
registration (‘‘CWR’’) standard format
used by publishers and DDEX
messaging standards; the MLC has
confirmed it intends to ingest data
through multiple formats, including
CWR as well as through its claiming
portal.52 The symposium addressed
other industry efforts to facilitate
improved data quality, including a best
practices working group established
between record labels and music
publishers that generated a platform
called the Music Data Exchange and the
Open Music Initiative, an effort to build
consensus towards establishing open
data protocols and promote increased
education and monetization
opportunities for artists.53 Other
panelists discussed ways to determine
whether the ownership data for a work
is authoritative, which may involve
algorithmic matching, different levels of
manual review, inspecting the
50 U.S. Copyright Office, Unclaimed Royalties
Study, https://www.copyright.gov/policy/
unclaimed-royalties/ (last visited May 19, 2020).
51 Tr. at 79:04–07 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Michel Allain,
WIPO); Tr. at 83:15–85:11 (Dec. 6, 2019) (David
Hughes, Recording Industry Association of America
(‘‘RIAA’’)).
52 Tr. at 76:10–20 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Michel Allain,
WIPO) (discussing utility of CWR format as used by
‘‘main publishers’’ while noting that its complexity
is not always accessible for smaller publishers); Tr.
at 61:12–62:08, 62:16–63:14, 130:13–131:10 (Dec. 6,
2019) (Mark Isherwood, DDEX) (noting that DDEX
‘‘standardiz[es] . . . the communication of data
between all the different business partners that exist
within the music industry value chain’’ and
‘‘create[s] standard choreographies around those
messages,’’ but ‘‘to implement DDEX standards,
you’ve got to have a half-decent IT facility . . .
[a]nd that immediately cuts lots of people out’’);
Mechanical Licensing Collective Initial Comments
at 25–26, U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2019–5
(Nov. 9, 2019), https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=COLC-2019-0002-0011 (‘‘the MLC has
joined and is working with DDEX, and continues
to explore the proper formats and standards for
efficient and accurate data sharing’’); MLCI
Designation Proposal at 37–38 (discussing the CWR
format’s utility).
53 Tr. at 111:15–112:05 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Nicole
d’Avis, Open Music Initiative) (discussing the Open
Music Initiative’s efforts); Tr. at 90:10–91:07 (Dec.
6, 2019) (David Hughes, RIAA) (discussing creation
of the MDX best practice working group).
E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM
02JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 2020 / Notices
Copyright Office’s records, or reaching
directly out to rightsholders to address
ownership conflicts.54 Specific practices
that frustrate accurate royalty payments
were addressed, including instances
where digital music providers may alter
song titles or artist names supplied by
a record label.55
Artists and others who work with
creators noted the lack of a one-size-fitsall solution to educating selfadministered songwriters about how the
MMA may affect their interests. Singersongwriter Rosanne Cash emphasized
that increased transparency ‘‘would take
so much pressure off of musicians and
songwriters’’ and help ensure they are
paid fairly.56 There was agreement that
talking to creators ‘‘in ways that really
resonate . . . looks different in LA than
it does in Miami.’’ 57 In some cases,
reaching creators may involve making
free educational information available
in the form of blog posts, webinars, ebooks, or podcasts 58 or it may require
‘‘peers talking to peers from their local
community that have credibility.’’ 59 It
was suggested that ‘‘the more
information that songwriters have and
the easier we make it for them to act on
that information, the more successful
[educating them] is going to be.’’ 60
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
2. Practices of Other Collective
Management Organizations
The Copyright Office also
commissioned a report by Susan Butler,
publisher of Music Confidential, to
provide a factual report detailing
54 Tr. at 198:16–21, 247:01–08 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Bill
Colitre, Music Reports) (noting that Music Reports
uses syntax matching and unique identifiers to
match works, but also ‘‘50 copyright professionals’’
to check the Copyright Office’s records ‘‘on a
regular basis’’ and contact rightsowners); Tr. at
222:22–224:21 (Dec. 6, 2019) (John Raso, Harry Fox
Agency) (discussing how the Harry Fox Agency
approaches automated matching and the ‘‘push and
pull of which way that algorithm should move’’ to
pay royalties and avoid ‘‘bad matches’’); Tr. at
231:12–232:07 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Sarah Rosenbaum,
Google) (discussing using Google’s ‘‘proposer tool,’’
used to reach out to rightsholders when there
conflicting ownership assertions).
55 Tr. at 119:03–120:06 (Dec. 6, 2019) (David
Hughes, RIAA); see also 85 FR at 22522–23.
56 Tr. at 163:09–11 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Rosanne Cash).
57 Tr. at 346:01– 22 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Kimberly
Tignor, Institute for Intellectual Property & Social
Justice); see also Tr. at 296:13–20, 297:02–12 (Dec.
6, 2019) (Jennifer Turnbow, Nashville Songwriters
Association International) (noting that ‘‘Nashville is
kind of a unicorn in the music industry because
really, most of the commerce of music . . . happens
on about three streets’’ and there is opportunity and
encouragement for songwriters to talk about issues
like the MMA).
58 Tr. at 311:05–09 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Dae Bogan,
TuneRegistry) (discussing these engagement
methods).
59 Tr. at 318:13–16 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Todd Dupler,
Recording Academy).
60 Tr. at 291:05–08 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Todd Dupler,
Recording Academy).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Jun 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
matching and royalty distribution
practices of global collective
management organizations (‘‘CMOs’’). In
preparing her report, Ms. Butler
surveyed CMOs around the world that
represent musical works (whether
performing rights, mechanical rights, or
both) or public performance rights in
recordings (neighboring rights).61 Along
with the Office’s symposium, Ms.
Butler’s report is designed to give
commenting parties an understanding of
some of the activities and practical
solutions that the MLC may potentially
consider, based on experiences of CMOs
around the world. It also highlights
some of the structural distinctions
between the MLC on the one hand and
the many membership-based collectives
throughout the world. Ms. Butler’s
report outlines several reasons why
CMOs may encounter difficulty linking
a recording title reported by a digital
music provider to a specific musical
work or specific rights holders to be able
to distribute money to those rights
holders, and methods that CMOs may
employ in an attempt to identify and
match works to recordings and rights
holders, even after automated and
manual methods have been employed.62
The Butler report is available on the
Copyright Office’s website at https://
www.copyright.gov/policy/unclaimedroyalties/CMO-report.
II. Subjects of Inquiry
The Office is seeking public comment
on the following topics. While the focus
of the study remains on best practices
that may be recommended to the MLC,
the Office has previously noted that
‘‘the problems in the music marketplace
need to be evaluated as a whole, rather
than as isolated or individual concerns
of particular stakeholders.’’ 63 Therefore,
the Office is also soliciting limited input
related to policies or actions that digital
music providers and others may
implement to reduce the instance of
unclaimed royalties as well as ways to
empower and educate songwriters and
copyright owners to address ownership
data issues themselves.
In responding to the questions below,
the Office encourages commenters to
provide evidentiary support for their
views, including by providing empirical
data if possible. A party choosing to
respond to this notice of inquiry need
61 Susan Butler, Collective Rights Management
Practices Around the World: A Survey of CMO
Practices to Reduce the Occurrence of Unclaimed
Royalties in Musical Works 3 (2020), https://
www.copyright.gov/policy/unclaimed-royalties/
CMO-full-report.pdf.
62 Id. at 11–13.
63 U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and the Music
Marketplace at Preface (2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33739
not address every topic, but the Office
requests that responding parties clearly
identify and separately address each
topic for which a response is submitted.
A. Identifying and Locating Musical
Work Copyright Owners
1. Please describe best practices that
the MLC may employ in matching
musical works to sound recordings and
otherwise identifying and locating
musical work copyright owners
associated with works embodied in
sound recordings pursuant to
administering the blanket license. As
applicable, please identify specific
technological or manual approaches, as
well as considerations relevant to the
MLC’s prioritization of resources.
2. Please identify any special issues
with respect to the MLC’s matching and
distribution policies for musical works
with identified, but unlocated copyright
owners, or works for which only a
partial amount of ownership
information is available.
3. If you believe that practices of
similar CMOs, here or abroad, are
relevant or helpful, please identify those
practices.
4. If you believe that past practices of
individual digital music providers or
vendors facilitating voluntary or
statutory licensing are relevant or
helpful, including any under the prior
song-by-song licensing system, please
identify those practices.
5. Are past efforts to build music
ownership databases, such as the Global
Repertoire Database, International
Music Rights Registry, and International
Music Joint Venture, helpful to consider
in identifying best practices for the
MLC? If so, how?
B. Encouraging Musical Work Copyright
Owners To Claim Royalties
6. How can the MLC facilitate
claiming of accrued royalties through its
public database? If there are specific
fields, search capabilities, or tools that
would be beneficial, or not, to the
MLC’s core project, please identify
them.
7. Please identify particular data
formats or file types that would be
helpful for the MLC to use in
connection with encouraging copyright
owners to have their works identified in
the MLC’s database.
8. What lessons can be learned from
prior music dispute settlements and
claiming systems, including the Ferrick
v. Spotify, Football Association Premier
League v. YouTube, and National Music
Publishers’ Association/Spotify
settlements? What about the claiming
portals or opt-in procedures for these
agreements were beneficial or
E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM
02JNN1
33740
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 2020 / Notices
detrimental in encouraging copyright
owners to claim accrued royalties?
9. Please identify education and
outreach practices that the MLC should
consider adopting in encouraging
copyright owners to claim royalties.
10. Please identify activities or
policies that the MLC may take or adopt
to encourage groups of musical work
copyright owners who may be
underrepresented in the MLC’s database
to come forward and claim accrued
royalties. Your response may consider,
for example, the unique experiences of
self-administered songwriters; genres
expected to generate a more diffuse
record of musical work ownership; 64
non-English language works or genres;
non-U.S. based musical work copyright
owners, including the role of
international collection societies; and
particular challenges associated with
classical music metadata.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
C. Reducing Incidence of Unclaimed,
Accrued Royalties and Distribution of
Royalties
11. Please identify issues for the MLC
to consider in establishing policies
related to its duty to distribute
unclaimed accrued royalties after a
prescribed holding period in a manner
that incentivizes reduction in the
overall incidence of unclaimed accrued
royalties. In particular, identify
considerations related to the timing of
the initial distribution of unclaimed,
accrued royalties, as well as the
retention of a portion of accrued
royalties in the hope that they may later
be matched.
12. Please identify preferred methods
for the MLC to publicize the existence
of unclaimed accrued royalties before
they are distributed, in light of the
minimum 90-day period required by the
statute.
13. Please describe how success in
lowering the incidence of unclaimed
royalties may best be measured.
D. Others in the Music Marketplace
14. What actions can others, including
those engaged in digital platform, sound
recording, music publishing, and music
creation activities, voluntarily take to
contribute to a more accurate musical
work data supply chain?
15. What actions can better ensure the
accurate assignment of unique
identifiers like the International
Standard Recording Code (‘‘ISRC’’) and
International Standard Musical Work
64 See Tr. at 263:17–22 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Ed Arrow,
Universal Music Publishing Group) (noting
collaborative nature of rap, hip-hop, and pop
music); Tr. at 264:09–11 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Bill Colitre,
Music Reports) (noting that the rap song ‘‘Grillz’’ by
Nelly has ‘‘17 writers and 23 music publishers’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Jun 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
Code (‘‘ISWC’’) identifiers early in the
digital supply chain?
16. Please identify education and
outreach practices that digital music
providers and others may consider
adopting in encouraging copyright
owners to claim royalties.
17. Please recommend existing guides
or other resources regarding music data
that can be used by copyright owners
and songwriters, and/or information to
be included in such educational
materials.
E. Other Issues
18. Please identify any pertinent
issues not referenced above that the
Copyright Office should consider in
conducting its study, including any
further legislative changes that you
believe are needed to reduce the
instance of unclaimed royalties.
Dated: May 28, 2020.
Regan A. Smith,
General Counsel and Associate Register of
Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2020–11893 Filed 6–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
[NARA–2020–043]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed extension
request.
AGENCY:
We are planning to request
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) renew its approval for us
to engage in the following information
collection and invite you to comment on
it. We use this collection to obtain
information from private foundations or
other entities involved in designing,
constructing, and equipping
Presidential libraries.
DATES: We must receive in writing on or
before August 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Send comments by email to
tamee.fechhelm@nara.gov. Because our
buildings are temporarily closed during
the COVID–19 restrictions, we are not
able to receive comments by mail during
this time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact Tamee Fechhelm, Paperwork
Reduction Act Officer, by email at
tamee.fechhelm@nara.gov or by
telephone at 301.837.1694 with requests
for additional information or copies of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the proposed information collection and
supporting statement.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13), we invite the public
and other Federal agencies to comment
on proposed information collections.
The comments and suggestions should
address one or more of the following
points: (a) Whether the proposed
information collections are necessary for
NARA to properly perform its functions;
(b) our estimates of the burden of the
proposed information collections and
their accuracy; (c) ways we could
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information we collect; (d) ways
we could minimize the burden on
respondents of collecting the
information, including through
information technology; and (e) whether
these collections affect small businesses.
We will summarize any comments you
submit and include the summary in our
request for OMB approval. All
comments will become a matter of
public record. In this notice, we solicit
comments concerning the following
information collection:
Title: Presidential Library Facilities.
OMB number: 3095–0036.
Agency form number: None.
Type of review: Regular.
Affected public: Presidential library
foundations or other entities proposing
to transfer a Presidential library facility
to NARA.
Estimated number of respondents: 1.
Estimated time per response: 40
hours.
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Estimated total annual burden hours:
40 hours.
Abstract: The information collection
is required for NARA to meet its
obligations under 44 U.S.C. 2112(a)(3) to
submit a report to Congress before
accepting a new Presidential library
facility. The report contains information
that can be furnished only by the
foundation or other entity responsible
for building the facility and establishing
the library endowment.
Swarnali Haldar,
Executive for Information Services/CIO.
[FR Doc. 2020–11829 Filed 6–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
[NARA–2020–042]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM
02JNN1
]]>Agencies
- Library of Congress
- U.S. Copyright Office
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33735-33740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11893]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
[Docket No. 2019-6]
Unclaimed Royalties Study: Notice of Inquiry
AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is undertaking a study as directed
by the Music Modernization Act to evaluate best practices that the
newly-established mechanical licensing collective (``MLC'') may
implement to: Identify and locate musical work copyright owners and
unclaimed accrued royalties held by the collective; encourage musical
work copyright owners to claim their royalties; and reduce the
incidence of unclaimed royalties. The MLC is expected to carefully
consider, and give substantial weight to, the Office's recommendations
when establishing procedures for the identification and location of
musical work copyright owners and the distribution of unclaimed
royalties. The Office is soliciting input from music industry
participants and other interested members of the public on these issues
to aid its study.
DATES: Written comments must be received no later than August 3, 2020
at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Written reply
[[Page 33736]]
comments must be received no later than August 31, 2020 at 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time. The Office will be announcing one or more public
meetings, potentially virtually, by separate notice in the future.
ADDRESSES: For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office
is using the regulations.gov system for the submission and posting of
public comments in this proceeding. All comments are therefore to be
submitted electronically through regulations.gov. Specific instructions
for submitting comments are available on the Copyright Office website
at https://copyright.gov/policy/unclaimed-royalties. If electronic
submission of comments is not feasible due to lack of access to a
computer and/or the internet, please contact the Office using the
contact information below for special instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and
Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at [email protected] or
John R. Riley, Assistant General Counsel, by email at
[email protected]. They can be reached by telephone at 202-707-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act \1\
significantly changed the section 115 compulsory license to make and
distribute phonorecords of nondramatic musical works (the ``mechanical
license''). Prior to the MMA, those who wished to obtain a section 115
compulsory license were able to do so by serving a notice of intention
to obtain a compulsory license (``NOI'') on the copyright owner and
then paying applicable royalties accompanied by accounting statements
or, if the Copyright Office's records did not identify the copyright
owner, by filing the notice with the Office.\2\ Where the musical work
copyright owner was not identified in the Office's records, royalties
were not due.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (``MMA'').
\2\ 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1) (2017).
\3\ Id. at 115(c)(1) (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frustrations with the former song-by-song licensing system's
inefficiencies are well-documented, both in the legislative history and
the Copyright Office's 2015 comprehensive study on the music licensing
marketplace.\4\ Digital services ``complain[ed] about the lack of
readily available data concerning musical work ownership'' and
``asserted that the inaccessibility of ownership information leads to
costly and burdensome efforts to identify the rightsholders and
potentially incomplete or incorrect licenses, exposing them to the risk
of statutory infringement damages despite diligent efforts.'' \5\
Publishers, songwriters, and licensing administrators were also
frustrated with noncompliant statutory licensees, noting that NOIs were
``frequently deficient, and licensees regularly fail[ed] to timely and
accurately pay and report usage.'' \6\ Some copyright owners sued
digital music services for missing mechanical licenses,\7\ in some
instances resulting in settlements whose terms included the
establishment of online portals allowing copyright owners to claim
their settlement shares.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Report and Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1551 by the
Chairmen and Ranking Members of Senate and House Judiciary
Committees, at 3 (2018), https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/mma_conference_report.pdf (``Conf. Rep.'') (``Song-by-song licensing
negotiations increase the transaction costs to the extent that only
a limited amount of music would be worth engaging in such licensing
discussions, depriving artists of revenue for less popular works and
encouraging piracy of such works by customers looking for such
music''); U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and the Music Marketplace
107 (2015), https://www.copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf.
\5\ U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and the Music Marketplace
107 (2015).
\6\ Id. at 110.
\7\ See, e.g., Dan Rys, Tidal Hit With Lawsuit Over Royalty
Payments (Feb. 29, 2016), https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6890854/tidal-lawsuit-royalty-payments (noting lawsuits
against Spotify, Tidal, Slacker, Deezer, Rdio, Rhapsody, and Beats
Music).
\8\ See, e.g., Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc. (last updated Mar.
30, 2020), https://spotifypublishingsettlement.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Identifying and Paying Copyright Owners Under the New Blanket
License
The MMA largely eliminated the song-by-song mechanical compulsory
licensing regime by establishing a new blanket compulsory license that
digital music providers may obtain to make digital phonorecord
deliveries (``DPDs'') of musical works, including in the form of
permanent downloads, limited downloads, or interactive streams.\9\
Instead of licensing one song at a time by serving NOIs on individual
copyright owners, the blanket license will cover all musical works
available for compulsory licensing and will be centrally administered
by a new entity called the mechanical licensing collective (``MLC''),
which was designated last summer by the Copyright Office.\10\ Following
a present transition period, the MLC will begin administering the
blanket license on what the statute terms the ``license availability
date,'' or January 1, 2021.\11\ The MMA's legislative history explains
that the blanket licensing structure is designed to improve efficiency
by allowing digital music services to offer ``as much music as
possible,'' while ``ensuring fair and timely payment to all creators''
of the musical works used on these digital services.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The mechanical compulsory license for non-DPDs (e.g., CDs,
vinyl) continues to follow the preexisting song-by-song NOI system.
\10\ 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1), (c)(5) (2017); 84 FR 32274 (July 8,
2019).
\11\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(2)(B), (e)(15).
\12\ S. Rep. No. 115-339, at 4, 8 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By consolidating musical work usage and ownership data and royalty
distributions with the MLC, the MMA aims to improve the preexisting
problems of missing data and incomplete royalty payments. Digital music
providers using the blanket license are required to pay royalties and
provide reports of usage for all covered activities to the MLC on a
monthly basis.\13\ The MLC will collect those royalties and distribute
them to musical work copyright owners in accordance with the digital
service providers' usage reports and the ownership and other
information contained in the MLC's records, including its public
database.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 17 U.S.C. 115(e)(7), (d)(4).
\14\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(G)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The MLC's Public Musical Works Database
The MLC's musical works database will contain information relating
to musical works (and shares of such works), including, to the extent
known, the identity and location of the copyright owners of such works
and the sound recordings in which the musical works are embodied.\15\
Accurately identifying musical works and their associated sound
recordings and owners requires reliable data throughout the statutory
licensing ecosystem. To this end, as explained in more detail in
separate notices published by the Office,\16\ the MMA outlines roles
for digital music providers, musical work owners, and the MLC in
providing, reporting, and curating accurate music data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(i).
\16\ 85 FR 22549 (Apr. 22, 2020); 85 FR 22518 (Apr. 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital music providers operating under the blanket license will
``engage in good-faith, commercially reasonable efforts to obtain''
various sound recording and musical work information from sound
recording copyright owners and other licensors of sound recordings made
available through the digital music providers' services.\17\ These
digital music providers will deliver
[[Page 33737]]
reports of usage to the MLC containing usage data for musical works
used in covered activities under the blanket license, voluntary
licenses, and individual download licenses.\18\ Certain entities
engaging in covered activities pursuant to voluntary licenses or
individual download licenses, but that do not operate under a blanket
license (called significant nonblanket licensees), will also submit
reports of usage to the MLC.\19\ And musical work copyright owners with
works listed in the MLC's database will ``engage in commercially
reasonable efforts to deliver'' to the MLC if not already listed in the
database, ``information regarding the names of the sound recordings in
which that copyright owner's musical works (or shares thereof) are
embodied, to the extent practicable.'' \20\ On April 22, 2020, the
Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking discussing these matters
in more detail and seeking public comment on proposed regulatory
language to govern these obligations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(B); see also 85 FR at 22521-25.
\18\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(4)(A); see also 85 FR at 22526-35. The
statute prescribes categories of information that must be included
in reports of usage, including a provision for the Copyright Office
to prescribe additional categories by regulation. 17 U.S.C.
115(d)(4)(A)(ii)(I).
\19\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(6)(A)(ii), (e)(31); see also 85 FR at
22535-36.
\20\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(iv); see also 85 FR at 22525-26.
\21\ 85 FR 22518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once these inputs are provided to the MLC, it will engage in
efforts ``to identify the musical works embodied in particular sound
recordings, as well as to identify and locate the copyright owners of
such works (and shares thereof), and update such data as appropriate.''
\22\ The MMA's legislative history describes this duty to locate and
identify musical work owners as the MLC's ``highest responsibility,''
next to the MLC's ``efficient and accurate collection and distribution
of royalties.'' \23\ The Senate Judiciary Chairman subsequently
reaffirmed this sentiment, writing to the Office that ``[a]ll artists
deserve to be fully paid for the uses of their works [and] . . .
[r]educing unmatched funds is the measure by which the success of this
important legislation should be measured.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(i).
\23\ Conf. Rep. at 7.
\24\ Letter from Lindsey Graham, Chairman, Senate Judiciary
Committee, to Karyn Temple, Register of Copyrights 1 (Nov. 1, 2019)
(on file with Copyright Office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information for both matched and unmatched works will be provided
in the MLC's public musical works database, and the statute lists a
number of fields that must be included with respect to matched and
unmatched works.\25\ In addition, the Office may promulgate regulations
to require additional information to be included in the MLC's
database,\26\ and must also ``establish requirements by regulations to
ensure the usability, interoperability, and usage restrictions of the
musical works database.'' \27\ The Office has recently published a
notification of inquiry soliciting information on these topics.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(ii), id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(iii)(I).
\26\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)(V), (iii)(II).
\27\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(vi).
\28\ 85 FR 22568 (Apr. 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those musical works (or shares thereof) that are unmatched,
copyright owners will be able to come forward and assert ownership
claims by viewing the MLC's public database, including through a public
online portal.\29\ The MLC has announced intentions that its claiming
portal, expected to premiere in the third quarter of this year, will be
``user-friendly, ADA-compliant, and can be used by stakeholders of any
sophistication.'' \30\ For technologically sophisticated entities, the
MLC will also use ``APIs and data transfer processes and formats to
allow for bulk submission and updating of rights data.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(J)(iii)(I).
\30\ Mechanical Licensing Collective, Designation Proposal at
37, U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2018-11 (Mar. 22, 2019), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=COLC-2018-0011-0012 (``MLC
Designation Proposal'').
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Education and Outreach
Congress has directed the MLC to ``engage in diligent, good-faith
efforts to publicize, throughout the music industry . . . the
procedures by which copyright owners may identify themselves and
provide contact, ownership, and other relevant information to the
collective in order to receive payments of accrued royalties.'' \32\
The digital licensee coordinator (``DLC'') (an entity that was
designated by the Copyright Office to represent the interests of
digital services pursuant to the statute), and Copyright Office also
have roles in educating copyright owners and songwriters about the
existence of the MLC and its role in the new blanket license
system.\33\ For the DLC, this includes encouraging digital music
providers to post the MLC's contact information on services' websites
and applications and conduct in-person songwriter outreach.\34\ The
Copyright Office has engaged in several activities to fulfill its
educational duties thus far, including by establishing a MMA-related
web page with FAQs, informational handouts, seven MMA-related videos,
three new circulars, and information related to the statute's
legislative history, as well as hosting an all-day symposium and
speaking at approximately 40 in-person or virtual events.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(J)(iii)(II)(bb).
\33\ Id. at 115(d)(5)(C)(i)(VII); MMA at sec. 102(e), 132 Stat.
at 3722.
\34\ 117 U.S.C. 115(d)(5)(C)(iii).
\35\ See U.S. Copyright Office, MMA Educational Materials,
https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/educational-materials/
(last visited, May 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Unclaimed, Accrued Royalties
For those works for which royalties have accrued but the copyright
owner is unknown or not located, the MLC will hold such royalties for a
designated minimum time period. This holding period will provide the
MLC with an additional period of time \36\ (compared to the pre-MMA
system) to engage in efforts to identify the musical works embodied in
particular sound recordings, and locate their associated copyright
owners, and for copyright owners and other songwriters to identify
their works in the MLC database and come forward to claim their
ownership interests.\37\ In general, the MLC must hold accrued
royalties for ``a period of not less than 3 years after the date on
which the funds were received by the [MLC], or not less than 3 years
after the date on which the funds were accrued by a digital music
provider that subsequently transferred such funds to the [MLC] . . .
whichever period expires sooner.'' \38\ The MMA also states that the
first such distribution ``shall occur on or after January 1 of the
second full calendar year to commence after the license availability
date, with not less than 1 such distribution to take place
[[Page 33738]]
during each calendar year thereafter.'' \39\ Reading these provisions
together, in no case can these unclaimed royalties be distributed
before 2023.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ For works that were initially accrued by a digital music
provider prior to the license availability date and then transferred
to the MLC, the MLC may have as few as two years to locate the
copyright owner, but the minimum total holding period for these
funds will be three years. See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(H)(i),
(3)(J)(i)(I), (10)(B)(iv)(III)(aa).
\37\ Conf. Rep. at 11 (``For unmatched works, the collective
must wait for the prescribed holding period of three years before
making such distribution. This is intended to give the collective
time to actively search for the copyright owner.''); see also U.S.
Copyright Office, Unclaimed Royalties Study: Kickoff Symposium, Tr.
at 194:18-195:01, 213:03-05 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Sarah Rosenbaum, Google)
(noting that the MMA allows the music industry to address data
issues in a ``less time-pressured environment''). Transcripts of the
Office's symposium are cited with the abbreviation ``Tr.'' along
with the page and line numbers, and date, of the cited material.
These citations also include the name of the speaker and
organization (if any) with which the speaker is affiliated.
Transcripts of the symposium is available at https://www.copyright.gov/policy/royalties/transcript.pdf.
\38\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(H)(i).
\39\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(i)(I).
\40\ Id.; see also 84 FR at 32291 (July 8, 2019) (noting ``the
statute does not permit the first such distribution to occur before
January 1, 2023''); MLC Designation Proposal at 52 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the holding period, the MLC ``shall distribute [unmatched
works'] accrued royalties, along with a proportionate share of accrued
interest, to copyright owners identified in the records of the
collective.'' \41\ It must also ``engag[e] in diligent, good-faith
efforts to publicize . . . any pending distribution of unclaimed
accrued royalties and accrued interest, not less than 90 days before
the date on which the distribution is made.'' \42\ Once the MLC makes
an initial distribution of unclaimed, accrued royalties, ``not less
than 1 such distribution [shall] take place during each calendar year
thereafter.'' \43\ Copyright owners' shares of distributions of
unclaimed accrued royalties will be determined by the MLC in accordance
with unclaimed accrued royalties for particular payment periods, and
``determined in a transparent and equitable manner based on data
indicating the relative market shares of such copyright owners as
reflected in reports of usage provided by digital music providers for
covered activities for the periods in question'' as well as available
``usage data provided to copyright owners under voluntary licenses and
individual download licenses for covered activities.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(J)(i).
\42\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(iii)(II)(dd).
\43\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(i)(I).
\44\ Id. at 115 (d)(3)(J)(i)(II). Songwriters' unclaimed accrued
royalty shares will be paid ``in accordance with applicable
contractual terms,'' but ``in no case shall the payment or credit to
an individual songwriter be less than 50 percent of the payment
received by the copyright owner.'' Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(iv)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By statute, the MLC has established an Unclaimed Royalties
Oversight Committee, which will establish policies and procedures ``for
the distribution of unclaimed accrued royalties and accrued interest .
. . including the provision of usage data to copyright owners to
allocate payments and credits to songwriters,'' subject to the MLC
board's approval.\45\ During the public process of designating the
collective, the MLC noted that it ``does not intend to ever distribute
the entirety of unclaimed royalties simultaneously,'' and that it
interprets section 115(d)(3)(J) ``to grant discretion to MLC to retain
unclaimed accrued royalties beyond the year that they become eligible
for distribution, to allow diligent attempts to match all uses and
works, no matter the vintage, to continue. MLC intends to implement
policies allowing use of that discretion to retain unclaimed accrued
royalties and continue matching efforts in situations where there is
reasonable evidence that this will result in material increases in
matching success.'' \46\ In designating the MLC, the Office noted its
agreement with this interpretation.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(ii).
\46\ MLCI Designation Proposal at 52-53.
\47\ 84 FR at 32291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Copyright Office Study on Best Practices Study, and Related
Foundational Work
To further Congress's intent to reduce the instance of unmatched
works and unclaimed royalties, the MMA directs the Copyright Office to
conduct a policy study, in consultation with the Government
Accountability Office, recommending best practices that the MLC may
implement to:
(A) Identify and locate musical work copyright owners with
unclaimed accrued royalties held by the collective;
(B) encourage musical work copyright owners to claim the
royalties of those owners; and
(C) reduce the incidence of unclaimed royalties.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ MMA at sec. 102(f)(1), 132 Stat. at 3722.
The MLC must carefully consider and give substantial weight to the
Office's recommendations when establishing procedures to identify and
locate musical work copyright owners and to distribute unclaimed
royalties.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id. at sec. 102(f)(2), 132 Stat. at 3722-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Educational Symposium
To initiate the study, the Office held an all-day educational
symposium to facilitate public understanding and discussion on issues
relevant to the study. The Office invited industry participants,
including songwriters and other interested members of the public, to
discuss topics including: (i) Past and current initiatives to
facilitate authoritative and comprehensive music ownership databases;
(ii) challenges of matching musical works to sound recordings,
including current matching methods and challenges, the role of
technology, and how success can be measured; and (iii) the most
effective ways to educate creators on the changes effected by the MMA.
The symposium featured an update from the MLC and DLC, and a discussion
among creators concerning the challenges and benefits associated with
accurately capturing metadata during the creative process as well as
the role of creators in taking ownership of their song data. The event
concluded with an opportunity for audience participation. The Office
has posted videos and a transcript of the symposium on its website, as
well as a glossary of acronyms and other frequently used terms that
arose during discussions.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ U.S. Copyright Office, Unclaimed Royalties Study, https://www.copyright.gov/policy/unclaimed-royalties/ (last visited May 19,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While observing that the MLC's mission shares some similarities
with past music ownership database development efforts, panelists noted
that the MLC lacks the funding challenges of earlier European efforts,
and that it may benefit from being narrower in scope.\51\ There was
discussion on the role of standards setting, including the common works
registration (``CWR'') standard format used by publishers and DDEX
messaging standards; the MLC has confirmed it intends to ingest data
through multiple formats, including CWR as well as through its claiming
portal.\52\ The symposium addressed other industry efforts to
facilitate improved data quality, including a best practices working
group established between record labels and music publishers that
generated a platform called the Music Data Exchange and the Open Music
Initiative, an effort to build consensus towards establishing open data
protocols and promote increased education and monetization
opportunities for artists.\53\ Other panelists discussed ways to
determine whether the ownership data for a work is authoritative, which
may involve algorithmic matching, different levels of manual review,
inspecting the
[[Page 33739]]
Copyright Office's records, or reaching directly out to rightsholders
to address ownership conflicts.\54\ Specific practices that frustrate
accurate royalty payments were addressed, including instances where
digital music providers may alter song titles or artist names supplied
by a record label.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Tr. at 79:04-07 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Michel Allain, WIPO); Tr.
at 83:15-85:11 (Dec. 6, 2019) (David Hughes, Recording Industry
Association of America (``RIAA'')).
\52\ Tr. at 76:10-20 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Michel Allain, WIPO)
(discussing utility of CWR format as used by ``main publishers''
while noting that its complexity is not always accessible for
smaller publishers); Tr. at 61:12-62:08, 62:16-63:14, 130:13-131:10
(Dec. 6, 2019) (Mark Isherwood, DDEX) (noting that DDEX
``standardiz[es] . . . the communication of data between all the
different business partners that exist within the music industry
value chain'' and ``create[s] standard choreographies around those
messages,'' but ``to implement DDEX standards, you've got to have a
half-decent IT facility . . . [a]nd that immediately cuts lots of
people out''); Mechanical Licensing Collective Initial Comments at
25-26, U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2019-5 (Nov. 9, 2019), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=COLC-2019-0002-0011 (``the MLC has
joined and is working with DDEX, and continues to explore the proper
formats and standards for efficient and accurate data sharing'');
MLCI Designation Proposal at 37-38 (discussing the CWR format's
utility).
\53\ Tr. at 111:15-112:05 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Nicole d'Avis, Open
Music Initiative) (discussing the Open Music Initiative's efforts);
Tr. at 90:10-91:07 (Dec. 6, 2019) (David Hughes, RIAA) (discussing
creation of the MDX best practice working group).
\54\ Tr. at 198:16-21, 247:01-08 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Bill Colitre,
Music Reports) (noting that Music Reports uses syntax matching and
unique identifiers to match works, but also ``50 copyright
professionals'' to check the Copyright Office's records ``on a
regular basis'' and contact rightsowners); Tr. at 222:22-224:21
(Dec. 6, 2019) (John Raso, Harry Fox Agency) (discussing how the
Harry Fox Agency approaches automated matching and the ``push and
pull of which way that algorithm should move'' to pay royalties and
avoid ``bad matches''); Tr. at 231:12-232:07 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Sarah
Rosenbaum, Google) (discussing using Google's ``proposer tool,''
used to reach out to rightsholders when there conflicting ownership
assertions).
\55\ Tr. at 119:03-120:06 (Dec. 6, 2019) (David Hughes, RIAA);
see also 85 FR at 22522-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artists and others who work with creators noted the lack of a one-
size-fits-all solution to educating self-administered songwriters about
how the MMA may affect their interests. Singer-songwriter Rosanne Cash
emphasized that increased transparency ``would take so much pressure
off of musicians and songwriters'' and help ensure they are paid
fairly.\56\ There was agreement that talking to creators ``in ways that
really resonate . . . looks different in LA than it does in Miami.''
\57\ In some cases, reaching creators may involve making free
educational information available in the form of blog posts, webinars,
e-books, or podcasts \58\ or it may require ``peers talking to peers
from their local community that have credibility.'' \59\ It was
suggested that ``the more information that songwriters have and the
easier we make it for them to act on that information, the more
successful [educating them] is going to be.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Tr. at 163:09-11 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Rosanne Cash).
\57\ Tr. at 346:01- 22 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Kimberly Tignor,
Institute for Intellectual Property & Social Justice); see also Tr.
at 296:13-20, 297:02-12 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Jennifer Turnbow, Nashville
Songwriters Association International) (noting that ``Nashville is
kind of a unicorn in the music industry because really, most of the
commerce of music . . . happens on about three streets'' and there
is opportunity and encouragement for songwriters to talk about
issues like the MMA).
\58\ Tr. at 311:05-09 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Dae Bogan, TuneRegistry)
(discussing these engagement methods).
\59\ Tr. at 318:13-16 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Todd Dupler, Recording
Academy).
\60\ Tr. at 291:05-08 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Todd Dupler, Recording
Academy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Practices of Other Collective Management Organizations
The Copyright Office also commissioned a report by Susan Butler,
publisher of Music Confidential, to provide a factual report detailing
matching and royalty distribution practices of global collective
management organizations (``CMOs''). In preparing her report, Ms.
Butler surveyed CMOs around the world that represent musical works
(whether performing rights, mechanical rights, or both) or public
performance rights in recordings (neighboring rights).\61\ Along with
the Office's symposium, Ms. Butler's report is designed to give
commenting parties an understanding of some of the activities and
practical solutions that the MLC may potentially consider, based on
experiences of CMOs around the world. It also highlights some of the
structural distinctions between the MLC on the one hand and the many
membership-based collectives throughout the world. Ms. Butler's report
outlines several reasons why CMOs may encounter difficulty linking a
recording title reported by a digital music provider to a specific
musical work or specific rights holders to be able to distribute money
to those rights holders, and methods that CMOs may employ in an attempt
to identify and match works to recordings and rights holders, even
after automated and manual methods have been employed.\62\ The Butler
report is available on the Copyright Office's website at https://www.copyright.gov/policy/unclaimed-royalties/CMO-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Susan Butler, Collective Rights Management Practices Around
the World: A Survey of CMO Practices to Reduce the Occurrence of
Unclaimed Royalties in Musical Works 3 (2020), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/unclaimed-royalties/CMO-full-report.pdf.
\62\ Id. at 11-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Subjects of Inquiry
The Office is seeking public comment on the following topics. While
the focus of the study remains on best practices that may be
recommended to the MLC, the Office has previously noted that ``the
problems in the music marketplace need to be evaluated as a whole,
rather than as isolated or individual concerns of particular
stakeholders.'' \63\ Therefore, the Office is also soliciting limited
input related to policies or actions that digital music providers and
others may implement to reduce the instance of unclaimed royalties as
well as ways to empower and educate songwriters and copyright owners to
address ownership data issues themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and the Music Marketplace
at Preface (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In responding to the questions below, the Office encourages
commenters to provide evidentiary support for their views, including by
providing empirical data if possible. A party choosing to respond to
this notice of inquiry need not address every topic, but the Office
requests that responding parties clearly identify and separately
address each topic for which a response is submitted.
A. Identifying and Locating Musical Work Copyright Owners
1. Please describe best practices that the MLC may employ in
matching musical works to sound recordings and otherwise identifying
and locating musical work copyright owners associated with works
embodied in sound recordings pursuant to administering the blanket
license. As applicable, please identify specific technological or
manual approaches, as well as considerations relevant to the MLC's
prioritization of resources.
2. Please identify any special issues with respect to the MLC's
matching and distribution policies for musical works with identified,
but unlocated copyright owners, or works for which only a partial
amount of ownership information is available.
3. If you believe that practices of similar CMOs, here or abroad,
are relevant or helpful, please identify those practices.
4. If you believe that past practices of individual digital music
providers or vendors facilitating voluntary or statutory licensing are
relevant or helpful, including any under the prior song-by-song
licensing system, please identify those practices.
5. Are past efforts to build music ownership databases, such as the
Global Repertoire Database, International Music Rights Registry, and
International Music Joint Venture, helpful to consider in identifying
best practices for the MLC? If so, how?
B. Encouraging Musical Work Copyright Owners To Claim Royalties
6. How can the MLC facilitate claiming of accrued royalties through
its public database? If there are specific fields, search capabilities,
or tools that would be beneficial, or not, to the MLC's core project,
please identify them.
7. Please identify particular data formats or file types that would
be helpful for the MLC to use in connection with encouraging copyright
owners to have their works identified in the MLC's database.
8. What lessons can be learned from prior music dispute settlements
and claiming systems, including the Ferrick v. Spotify, Football
Association Premier League v. YouTube, and National Music Publishers'
Association/Spotify settlements? What about the claiming portals or
opt-in procedures for these agreements were beneficial or
[[Page 33740]]
detrimental in encouraging copyright owners to claim accrued royalties?
9. Please identify education and outreach practices that the MLC
should consider adopting in encouraging copyright owners to claim
royalties.
10. Please identify activities or policies that the MLC may take or
adopt to encourage groups of musical work copyright owners who may be
underrepresented in the MLC's database to come forward and claim
accrued royalties. Your response may consider, for example, the unique
experiences of self-administered songwriters; genres expected to
generate a more diffuse record of musical work ownership; \64\ non-
English language works or genres; non-U.S. based musical work copyright
owners, including the role of international collection societies; and
particular challenges associated with classical music metadata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Tr. at 263:17-22 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Ed Arrow, Universal
Music Publishing Group) (noting collaborative nature of rap, hip-
hop, and pop music); Tr. at 264:09-11 (Dec. 6, 2019) (Bill Colitre,
Music Reports) (noting that the rap song ``Grillz'' by Nelly has
``17 writers and 23 music publishers'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reducing Incidence of Unclaimed, Accrued Royalties and Distribution
of Royalties
11. Please identify issues for the MLC to consider in establishing
policies related to its duty to distribute unclaimed accrued royalties
after a prescribed holding period in a manner that incentivizes
reduction in the overall incidence of unclaimed accrued royalties. In
particular, identify considerations related to the timing of the
initial distribution of unclaimed, accrued royalties, as well as the
retention of a portion of accrued royalties in the hope that they may
later be matched.
12. Please identify preferred methods for the MLC to publicize the
existence of unclaimed accrued royalties before they are distributed,
in light of the minimum 90-day period required by the statute.
13. Please describe how success in lowering the incidence of
unclaimed royalties may best be measured.
D. Others in the Music Marketplace
14. What actions can others, including those engaged in digital
platform, sound recording, music publishing, and music creation
activities, voluntarily take to contribute to a more accurate musical
work data supply chain?
15. What actions can better ensure the accurate assignment of
unique identifiers like the International Standard Recording Code
(``ISRC'') and International Standard Musical Work Code (``ISWC'')
identifiers early in the digital supply chain?
16. Please identify education and outreach practices that digital
music providers and others may consider adopting in encouraging
copyright owners to claim royalties.
17. Please recommend existing guides or other resources regarding
music data that can be used by copyright owners and songwriters, and/or
information to be included in such educational materials.
E. Other Issues
18. Please identify any pertinent issues not referenced above that
the Copyright Office should consider in conducting its study, including
any further legislative changes that you believe are needed to reduce
the instance of unclaimed royalties.
Dated: May 28, 2020.
Regan A. Smith,
General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2020-11893 Filed 6-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
