[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 http://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