MIDEM Music Marketing Competition - Will you be there?

MIDEM is Europe's key annual music conference, held every January in Cannes. Increasingly it's become a destination for brands and agencies, looking to gain a better understanding of the music industry.

This year MIDEM have kindly asked me to moderate the Music Marketing Competition on Sunday 27th January. The competition has two sections:

1. Best use of music/partnership with an artist in a marketing campaign - moderated by Cliff Fluet of Lewissilkin.

2. Best Placement of Music in an Ad - moderated by myself.

In the second section, 10 finalists present campaigns from brands such as Renault, Blackberry, HTC & Coke Zero - each entry is judged by international experts in music supervision & licensing from Nike, P&S, BMG Rights and Sony Music Entertainment.

You can read about the competition finalists here

If you're going to MIDEM, do come along. If you'd like to meet up at the event, please get in touch.

 See you there,

Richard 

Why is "Love Me Do" now out of copyright?

Here’s an interesting development in the murky world of music copyright .. It’s a watershed moment when one of the earliest Beatles studio recordings ("Love Me Do") falls out of copyright before the extended 70 year protection kicks in.

CMU's Article is both informative and impartial. Do read it all!

In contrast, Music Week (as one might expect) raises concerns on behalf of the record labels that have lost their exclusive right to control these recordings.


It’s worth noting that:

1.    The sound recording of "Love Me Do" has only become public domain in the UK though is certainly not public domain in the US. Therefore any on-line exploitation couldn’t take advantage of this opportunity to potentially avoid a licence from the relevant record label (EMI Records, now controlled by Universal Music Group).


2.    The underlying composition "Love Me Do" is of course still in copyright. Even though John Lennon has sadly been dead since 1980, Sir Paul McCartney is still very much alive. As a co-written song, the composition remains in copyright until 70 years after the death of the last writer (in this case McCartney).


The issue of public domain is complex and often misunderstood by brands and agencies that might look to by-pass traditional licensing structures. Any exploitation of 3rd party controlled copyright without an appropriate valid licence is likely to lead to a claim by the rightful owners. Wise brands and agencies engage the help of expert licensing and legal resource before making dangerous assumptions that potential public domain rights allow them to use any music assets for free.

Getting it wrong on the basis of ill-informed advice is no defence for infringement of copyright. As the saying goes:

"If you think hiring a professional is expensive, trying hiring an amateur!"

Do brands know the pitfalls of parodying songs?

Doritos "parodies" East 17's "Stay Another Day"

Many brands like to take existing well-known songs and adapt them to the needs of a particular campaign. This typically involves the creation of a new sound recording, thereby avoiding the need to secure clearance from the record label that controls the original artist recording.

However, any use of the underlying "composition" or song requires approval from the relevant music publisher. Where this usage involves a change of lyrics or any arrangement that could be considered as "sending up" the song, publishers deem this use to be a parody. In these instances, it's almost always the case that the original songwriter's consent is required, which may be denied if they don't feel comfortable with the use.

Doritos use of East 17's "Stay Another Day" in its latest campaign can safely be assumed to be a parody use. However, the brand was smart in inviting East 17 band member Tony Mortimer to have a cameo role in the TV spot. As Mortimer has the majority writing share of the song "Stay Another Day", he would effectively hold the casting vote on whether it could be parodied in the way that Doritos wished. A cameo role in the TV spot would encourage greater engagement with the campaign plus, one would hope, an additional appearance fee on top of the synchronisation licence fee paid to Mortimer's music publisher (of which he would expect to receive the majority share).


So, what can brands learn from this example:

1. Clearing songs for parody use always takes longer than non-parody use. Allow plenty of time, say at least 2 - 3 weeks if possible.

2. Be precise and up-front about the exact proposed use of the song.

3. Avoid building the script around a specific song, which allows the brand to have back-up song choices. Also, never mention a specific song title in the script, which just demonstrates to the music publisher the extent to which the song is essential to the creative idea.

4. Without back-ups, the music publisher has significantly more leverage in the fee negotiations and the brand has little. In any event, a parody use will always attract a premium fee compared with a non-parody use.

5. Offering the songwriter(s) greater involvement in the campaign (e.g. a cameo role) will encourage greater engagement with the campaign and hopefully improve the chance of securing clearance of the chosen song.

Creative Capital: Debate at The Hospital Club

The Hospital Club have kindly asked me to participate in a debate on the future of the music industry.

The session is entitled Creative Capital: State of the Art - The Music Industry and will be held at 7.30pm on Tuesday 16th October.

The venue is the Loft Lounge at The Hospital Club which can be found here.

On the panel, I'll be joined by Ed Weidman (an entertainment solicitor at Michael Simkins) and Gary Reid (who runs  the Bands & Brands agency).

It should be an interesting debate, so do join us!

For full details of the event and to book tickets, click here.

What price Parlophone? Should artists share in the sale proceeds?

There's been so much written about the UMG / EMI takeover but I spotted an interesting Independent article on the perspective of artists. In particular, Blur "leading the revolt" against being treated as 'assets' in the sale of Parlophone.

It's always struck me as a sad irony that, when catalogues change hands, none of the sale proceeds flow back through artist and writer royalty statements. I'd argue that, without the artists' copyrights, Parlophone would have no value to potential bidders. Yet, whatever UMG secures from the sale, it certainly won't be shared with the artists that made Parlophone the great label that it is. Equally, the artists involved appear to have no say in the sale, nor control over the final destination of their recordings.

You can see why Blur's Dave Rowntree feels aggrieved and it's an interesting development that those artists affected may withhold their future product and consent to regain some leverage.

All this points to the underlying problem of the traditional recording agreement. Artists pay (by way of advance recoupment) for their recording costs, yet the label owns the actual recording - which is then free to be sold elsewhere. The sale benefits the vendor of the catalogue but not the talent. Is this unfair? How might this be changed going forward?

Given that advances to new artists are considerably smaller than in the days when Blur were signed, many artists now choose to retain their IP in recordings & simply license it to labels. A further protection might be to include a reversion of such licence in the event of a sale of the licensee company.

A more traditional method was the inclusion of a key man clause in the recording agreement, typically for the A&R man (& it usually was a male executive) that originally signed the artist. In this way, where the clause was breached (as a result of the catalogue being sold to a new company), the key man clause was invoked in order to free the artist from the recording agreement.

So, while securing a record deal always way (and for some still is) the key objective for new artists, it comes at a big cost. You may eventually be helping to line the pockets of the label owner through a trade sale, but not share in the proceeds.

Let's hope that Dave Rowntree secures some concessions.

MIDEM Marketing Competition

MIDEM 2013 is still some way off, though the music marketing competition is already up & running.

This competition now features two different categories:

 

·         Best use of music/partnership with artist in a marketing campaign
·         Best music placement in an ad

The call for entries to the competition is now open and entries must be made before November 11, 2012.

 

Click here for more details. 

Consolidate and Rule

Here's an interesting story on possible further consolidation in the advertising holding group market. Is Interpublic about to be absorbed by a rival?

There's a strange parallel with the seismic changes occurring in the music industry as Universal seeks to finalise its acquisition of EMI's Recorded Music division by placating the EC with label disposals. 

The landscape in both marketing communications and music industries could look very different in the coming months. Whether this is good news for advertisers whose revenues finance the former (and have become increasingly important to the latter) remains to be seen.