• Copyright Coordinator (LA) • Manager, Film & TV (LA) • Copyright Manager (NY) • Creative Licensing Account Executive (LA)
View All Jobs
US Copyright Office U.S. Copyright Office, NewsNet Issue 624
Digital Music News Kesha Replaces Mark Geragos After Unsuccessful Legal Battles
• Billboard Latin Music Awards 2016 • Latin Artists Who Are Helping Kids Get A Better Education • Latin Artists Cover Morrissey for 'Mexrrissey' Album • Maestro Cares Foundation’s 2016 Changing Lives, Building Dreams Gala • A Look Back at Natalie Cole's Final Album, 'Natalie Cole En Español'
View All Entries
• Led Zeppelin Copyright Trial Scheduled For May 10 • McCartney Takes Battle For Beatles Songs To Copyright Office • Copyright Alliance Statement on USCO IT Modernization Plan • US Copyright Office Announces Review Of Safe Harbours • The $5 million 'Blurred Lines' legal fight over the song's 'vibe' could permanently change the music industry
View All Entries
AIMP shares with our members and our members share with us... This is YOUR area to post your thoughts on subjects of interest to our members.View All Blog Posts
by J. Cate
This is true, and retroactive to 2011. If you have "incidental" vocal placements collected by ASCAP, your rate is now at the instrumental rate, or half of what it was. I was surprised to learn that many of you were not aware of this, and we need to get this issue out in the open. This "reapportionment", which I heard about in February and was announced earlier this month, was allegedly done in the interest of "fairness" to composers and purportedly would "bring up" instrumental rates while "bringing down" vocal rates. Another publisher told me on Monday that, in fact, their statement showed instrumental rates had gone DOWN. ASCAP has not been transparent about this issue, and it would seem that this drastic and untimely reduction is now "top loaded" to feature performances, unless the money has been allocated to "operating costs". AIMP needs to bring some clarity to this issue and PRO's must become more transparent. I also heard SESAC is having similar discussions. In a very hard economic environment, "the rich getting richer" is the LAST thing any of us need. Or, as a screen writer friend said on Monday, "Our Guild is always about how much our annual rate will INCREASE; there is NEVER a discussion about a DECREASE." Our PRO's exist to represent us-- all of us. Or do they? I am also aware through another organization I participate in that because new & conventional media are increasingly being delivered "over the top" (via the internet), ISP's and others are beginning to look at the notion of replacing PRO's, as they can do so more efficiently and transparently, just as TuneCore and others have with distribution. Please help me to encourange AIMP to get this issue out in the open so we can have a voice with the PRO's, who have unilaterally taken 1/2 our income away. I can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or by telephone at 617-312-3335. Thank you.
LAWIM Spring Music Business Happy Hour
Production Music In Advertising: Trends and Opportunities
National Conference of Personal Managers Inc.
Section 512 Study Public Roundtable (CA)
Mountain Recording Retreat
Music Licensing Regime Is Out Of Tune View More
How much should writers and publishers get paid? with Rich Stumpf of Atlas Music Publishing View More
See all Articles
YouTube Basic for Rights Holders - FREE Webinar
by A. Davis
View Full Post
SISTA JEANS BLUES MACHINE WINS HMMA AWARD FOR BEST BLUES BAND
by J. McClain(MaShay)
View Full Post
See all Posts
The CA report on "The Making Available Right in the US"
The Copyright Office has just released is report on "The Making Available Right in the United States.” A …
AIMP Signs On To A2IM Webcasting IV Brief Currently in Washington, DC there are rate deliberations going on in the Section 114 webcasting rate proceeding. The record …