The Music Modernization Act: Copyright Law Tuned Up or Still Flat?

The Music Modernization Act: Copyright Law Tuned Up or Still Flat?

So why exactly was Kid Rock in the Oval Office last week? Mr. Rock and several other prominent musicians were invited to the White House to witness President Trump signing the Music Modernization Act (MMA) into law. The statute – a combination of three separate pieces of legislation tied together – aims to bring the mechanical licensing process into the digital age, theoretically benefiting songwriters, publishers and digital service providers (DSPs) like Spotify. The industry at large has been nearly unanimous in its support, but will the MMA benefit all the players involved?

The MMA makes several important changes to how songwriters get paid. Potentially the most significant is the mandated creation of a centralized, digital database (called the mechanical licensing collective or MLC) whereby songwriters can claim ownership of their compositions. Prior to the MMA, DSPs often distributed compositions on their platforms without knowledge of and attribution to the writer, subjecting DSPs to costly legal challenge. Now, using the MLC and following set procedures, DSPs have a clear due diligence path to follow and avoid legal pitfalls. The database will be funded by the DSPs and operated by music publishers.

Prior to the MMA, DSPs had to send a Notice of Intention (NOI) to the Copyright Office for each time the DSP wished to get a compulsory license to distribute a song that was not federally registered or had incomplete songwriter information. Often the Copyright Office would be inundated with NOIs, creating a serious backlog. The MMA ends this cumbersome process, replacing it with a streamlined digital service.

The MMA almost certainly benefits DSPs, at least the ones currently existing. The database allows for a process by which, if followed, DSPs can avoid being sued for copyright infringement en masse. However, it also requires that DSPs fund the database. If such costs are in the millions, such barrier to entry may prevent future DSPs from entering into the market, potentially stifling competition and innovation.

Whether it benefits the songwriters themselves seems more tenuous. There is concern that music publishers, as gatekeepers of the database, will create a “black box” scenario, giving songwriters a limited period of time to identify their works or else lose the royalties are essentially forfeited. Considering many independent songwriters are not with a publishing company which has the resources to advocate for their writers, there may be no one to go to bat for the struggling musician.

If you are a publisher, administrator, songwriter or start-up looking to get into music distribution, we at AltView are here to help navigate the MMA, as well as other copyright and/or licensing issues you may have. Please do not hesitate to give us a call at (310) 230-5580 for a free consultation or email

Amazon’s Delivery Service Partner Program: How To Get Started

Amazon’s Delivery Service Partner Program: How To Get Started

In July, Amazon announced the launch of its new Delivery Service Partners program.  The program is designed to empower entrepreneurs to start up and operate local delivery companies that exclusively work with Amazon’s package delivery service.  Think of it like a McDonalds franchise, except instead of exclusively selling McDonalds burgers, entrepreneurs within the program exclusively deliver Amazon packages.

For Amazon, the program is a brilliant move.  As Amazon’s online retail presence continues to explode, its reliance on delivery partners like FedEx and UPS becomes more unstable if any of those partners decide to renegotiate their shipping terms.  Amazon recognizes this, and hopes that its Delivery Service Partners program becomes the “crowdsourced” small business solution. 

For entrepreneurs, the program has the potential to be an amazing opportunity as well.  The program has few minimum requirements, and potential partners don’t necessarily need to have prior experience in the delivery industry.  Most attractive of all is Amazon’s claim that you can become a partner for as little as $10,000 in start-up capital.

According to the pamphlet Amazon has provided to the public, a large portion of startup costs go towards attending Amazon’s three-week training program in Seattle, Washington.  Other costs associated with recruiting and hiring initial employees are factored in as well.  But one of the main start-up costs are the legal fees associated with setting up and operating as a partner delivery company.

As with any small business, setting up an LLC or corporation (which Amazon requires you to do before you become a program partner) costs money.  You will also need an attorney to review the partnership agreement with Amazon to become a formal licensee.  And once you get the business going, having an attorney who can negotiate vendor agreements, prepare your employee handbook, and make sure that your business stays in compliance with all applicable local and state laws is essential.  

That’s where AltView Law Group can help.  Our flat fee business entity formation package lets you set up an LLC, customize an operating agreement, obtain a Tax ID number, and open your business bank account for a reasonable one-time fee.  Plus, we can assist with employee handbooks, vendor contracts, and other small business legal services at affordable hourly rates. 

If you have any questions about our small business legal services, or want to get started setting up your next business venture, call us at (310) 230-5580 for a free consultation.

The War on Data: What US-based companies need to know about the GDPR

The War on Data: What US-based companies need to know about the GDPR

In an effort to strengthen the protection of its citizens’ personal data and privacy rights in today’s ever-changing data-driven landscape, the General Data Protection Regulation, passed by the European Union in 2016, will finally go into effect on May 25, 2018, replacing the current EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. Once the GDPR goes into effect, non-compliant organizations are susceptible to heavy fines. 

So what is the GDPR, and more importantly, what does your US-based company need to know to avoid any penalties?

According to the GDPR website, the new regulation was “designed to harmonize data privacy laws across Europe, to protect and empower all EU citizens data privacy and to reshape the way organizations across the region approach data privacy.”  With an increased territorial scope, the GDPR will apply to all companies processing the personal data of “data subjects” (i.e. an identifiable or natural person) residing in the EU, regardless of the company’s location. This means that any company doing business in the EU or monitoring the behavior of an EU citizen, must comply with the GDPR, or face potential fines of up to 20 million euros or 4% of global annual turnover (i.e. similar to annual revenue), whichever is higher. While the actual amount of the fines will vary based on the nature, duration and location of the violation, it’s crucial to understand the new regulation and address the key challenges now, in order to ensure compliance and avoid this potentially steep penalty altogether.

Additionally, the GDPR has specific requirements regarding the transfer of personal data outside of the EU. Specifically, there is a prohibition on transferring such data to any country outside the EU unless either (1) the European Commission has determined that such country provides an adequate level of protection, or (2) other approved safeguards are in place, including standard contractual clauses or – in the case of transfers to the US, Privacy Shield certification.

Since data protection authorities have determined that the US lacks “adequate data protection laws,” the EU-US Privacy Shield is useful in helping US companies create the laws needed to meet the adequacy requirement. This is especially important to understand for companies that don’t specifically do business in the EU, but have a website, mobile app, or a form, for example, that collects data on a EU citizen (including citizens that don’t currently live in the EU). If that description sounds like your company, you are within the scope of GDPR mandate, and must comply.

While fulfilling all of the GDPR’s standards requires following several steps, a good first step is to self-certify your company for the Privacy Shield framework via this website. Certification will not guarantee total GDPR compliance, but it will give your company a head start on the process. In addition, certification provides greater legal clarity and direction on the EU’s data protection laws. Note also that joining the Privacy Shield is voluntary, but once an eligible organization makes the public commitment to comply with the framework’s requirements, the commitment will become enforceable under US law.

If you are a US-based company that collects personal data from EU citizens and need guidance on ensuring your GDPR compliance, or for additional questions regarding these requirements, contact AltView Law Group at (310) 230-5580 for a free consultation or email


Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on the Media & Entertainment Industry

Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on the Media & Entertainment Industry

This Tuesday, April 17, 2018 marks the last time you will file personal tax returns under the old tax code.  Beginning this taxable year, many of the itemized deductions offered to individuals have been eliminated in favor of a larger, standard deduction.  While the pros and cons of this change have been analyzed and debated on both sides of the aisle, an interesting remnant of the old deduction framework still remains, which applies to producers of television, film and live-theatrical productions (albeit in slightly different form) --

Section 13201(g) & (h) of the new Tax Cut & Jobs Act allows taxpayers to deduct 100% of qualified production costs for film, television, and live theatrical performances in the tax year in which the production is placed into service (i.e. the year in which distribution first occurs) after September 27, 2017 and before the year 2023.  In replacing the similar deduction offered under Internal Revenue Code Section 181, this new section possesses two key distinctions from the old code section:

  • The deduction may not be claimed until distribution of the program occurs (under Section 181, such costs were immediately deductible); but

  • There is no cap on the total deduction that can be taken (under Section 181, the deduction cap was $15 million, and qualification depended on the percentage of services performed in the United States by actors, directors, producers, and production personnel).

For qualified content producers, inclusion of Section 13201 within the new Tax Cut & Jobs Act is particularly meaningful then, because it allows for every qualified dollar spent on production to become an above-the-line reduction of an individual’s taxable income.  For this reason, Section 13201 can also play a critical role in a filmmaker’s pitch to potential investors to raise production capital.  Determining when the deduction can be realized may be tricky if distribution of the program won’t occur right away, so make sure to work with the right entertainment-focused legal and tax professionals to ensure accurate accounting.

If you would like further guidance regarding Section 13201, or any other production-related legal matters, please call AltView Law Group at (310) 230-5580 for a free consultation or email





Doing it for the 'Gram? Feds may want you to #ad-just your posts

Doing it for the 'Gram? Feds may want you to #ad-just your posts


[UPDATE as of 6/14/17: Instagram announced the addition of a "Paid partnership with" tag, to be initially rolled out to a select number of users. As of this update, the FTC has not yet commented on whether such a tag is sufficient to avoid using clear and conspicuous hashtags]

A few weeks ago, the federal government showed their dis-“like” over how social media influencers’ are endorsing brands and products. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sent letters to some of the most popular celebrity influencers on social media regarding the omission of certain key hashtags. Marketers got a letter, as well. Why is the FTC trying to regulate your morning Instagram scroll?

Increasingly, endorsements from a celebrity and/or social media influencer are an important tool used by advertisers to build a brand’s image and persuade consumers. Moreover, it’s understandable that any brand ambassador would like to preserve an “organic” feel when conveying their messages. But the law, governed and enforced by the FTC, states that “endorsements must be truthful and not misleading.” The FTC relies on its recently updated Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the “Guides”) to ensure that consumer products and services are described truthfully online, and that consumers understand what they are paying for.

The Guides themselves are not law, and so there are no fines or penalties associated with them. But if advertisers don’t follow the Guides, the FTC may decide to investigate whether the practices are unfair or deceptive under the FTC Act, and may take corrective action. We've laid out the legal requirements you must follow when making sponsored endorsements of any product, service or brand on any of your social media platforms.

Basically, in order to comply with the FTC, you must clearly and conspicuously disclose your material relationship with any brand which you are endorsing via your social media. As a general rule of thumb, "when in doubt, disclose". But the following will also provide some guidance as to how and when you should disclose.

What Is An Endorsement?

According to the FTC, an endorsement means “any advertising message that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser.” Thus, in order to be FTC compliant as the endorser of any brand’s product or service, you must ensure the following with respect to any of your endorsements:

  1. The endorsement must reflect your honest opinion, belief, finding, or experience with respect to the product or service you are endorsing; and

  2. You must have been a bona-fide user of the endorsed product or service at the time you made your endorsement.

Material Connections Must Be Disclosed

In addition to the foregoing requirements, when there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product or service that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement, that connection must be fully disclosed. In other words, your endorsement of any product or service is subject to enforcement if the brand/advertiser, or someone working for the brand/advertiser, pays you, gives you something else of value or provides some other incentive to mention their product on any of your social media.

Required Disclosures Must Be Clear and Conspicuous

Material relationships between brand and endorser on social media must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. The FTC has provided specific guidance as to how to address these disclosures on various social media platforms, as follows:

1.     On Twitter, Facebook and Instagram: While there are no specific rules as to how the disclosure needs to be stated, the FTC has taken a firm stance that the limited 140-character space available on Twitter does not change the need to disclose in an endorsement tweet. According to the FTC, “the words ‘Sponsored’ and ‘Promotion’ use only 9 characters; ‘Paid ad’ only uses 7 characters; and starting a tweet with ‘Ad:’ or ‘#ad’ takes only 3 characters” – each of these would likely be effective disclosures, per the Guides. Also note that the disclosure must be made on each and every tweet you make, even if you are tweeting the same message consecutively (i.e. minutes or even seconds apart) or if the tweet is broken up into several parts. The same rules apply to Facebook and Instagram posts, with the caveat that, because you are not limited in space on these alternative platforms, you should err on the side of making your disclosure longer and more obvious, rather than falling back on the same abbreviated text that would be appropriate for Twitter.

2.     Contests & Sweepstakes Rules Need Disclosure: If you are promoting/sponsoring a contest on behalf of a brand, a disclosure is also required. Moreover, the responsibility falls on you (e.g. the contest sponsor) to make sure people entering the contest also make the disclosure if the contest requires them to review or promote a product or service. Again, the key is whether the gift would affect the “weight or credibility” of an endorsement, but determining where to set the bar is difficult, so it’s always safer to disclose. For example, if you as a brand ambassador are calling upon your social media followers to tweet about or review the brand online in exchange for some type of gift or reward, then your call to action must also require that your followers disclose the contest/sweepstakes. Displaying a hashtag like “#contest” or “#sweepstakes” should be sufficient as a disclosure; however, using something like “#BrandXYZ_Rocks” or merely the abbreviated “#sweeps” is not sufficient because the relationship is not deemed obvious enough and people might not understand what the disclosure means.

3.     Video Disclosures Must Be Made Early And Often: For any YouTube or other sponsored online video (e.g. Snapchat, Vine, etc.), it’s not enough to have a disclaimer on the details page. The FTC has stressed that proximity and placement are two determinative factors as to the conspicuousness of the disclosure. Therefore, your disclosure must be made at the beginning of the video and preferably repeated multiple times for longer-form pieces. Similarly, streaming video, such as Periscope or when making a video/mobile game review as a sponsor/ambassador of a gaming company, also needs disclosure throughout the video (e.g. stating throughout your videos or live streams, “Sponsored by [name of the company]").

4.     Facebook “Likes” Might Require Disclosure: The FTC has not clearly addressed this specific issue yet, however, you should still stick to the same general rule of clearly disclosing if you are acting as a brand ambassador/sponsor to incentivize your followers to “Like” a brand on Facebook. 


Whenever you are acting as a Brand Ambassador or Sponsor of any product or service (in the US or elsewhere), you must ensure that people get the information they need to evaluate your sponsored statements. If you were given something for free or paid to promote a product or service, state as much using clear and unambiguous language. Consumers (i.e. your social media followers) should be able to notice the disclosure easily and should not have to look for it. And if your disclosures are hard to find, tough to understand, or buried in unrelated details, or if other elements in your ad or message obscure or distract from the disclosures, they don’t meet the “clear and conspicuous” standard and you could find yourself the subject of an action from the FTC.

If you are an influencer or a marketer, and you have questions about FTC compliance or any other issue affecting your digital marketing efforts, please contact AltView Law Group, LLP for a free consultation at (310) 230-5580 or

Know Your concert  Rights, Man: 4 Legal Issues to consider at a show

Know Your concert Rights, Man: 4 Legal Issues to consider at a show

Earlier this year, Guns N’ Roses singer Axl Rose issued a DMCA takedown notice over the notorious “Fat Axl” image, an unfortunate photo of the singer at a 2010 concert in Winnipeg, Canada that’s since been meme-ified. Rose claims the photographer in question had no permission to publish the copyrighted image because he signed a contract barring such publication. And this summer, Apple was granted a patent for technology that can prohibit your iPhone from taking pictures or video at, among other places, a concert.

These high profile stories shed light on some of the rights at play when you attend a concert. Would you or I be barred from posting a picture of Axl Rose assuming we didn’t sign a contract? Do we have rights to take pictures and video that Apple is taking a proverbial bite out of? The purpose of this article is to highlight a few legal implications facing the average concertgoer when he or she snaps a pic or vid.

 If you take a selfie, you have a copyright in that picture, and that copyright exists as soon as the picture is taken (Note: Registering a copyright gives you certain other rights, but does not establish copyright). There are certain added artistic elements of a photograph, such as the lighting, placement of the subjects and angle that gets protected. So while you can snap a picture of Beyonce and you own a copyright in that photo, using someone else’s identical photo of Beyonce infringes the author’s copyright.

Contracts: The Photographer and The Ticket
If the photog signed a contract barring him from publishing photos of an artist, such as Axl Rose, the photog is bound by that prohibition. Generally, the liberties and protections of copyright law can be superseded by the language of a contract.

In addition, when you purchase the ticket, you are bound by the fine print just like you would a signed contract. Often, tickets prohibit ticket holders from taking and publishing (i.e. posting) pictures of the venue, the bands, etc. The fact that you don’t get a cease-and-desist letter every time you post a concert photo of Drake on Instagram or a video on Snapchat doesn’t make it legal; it just means that venues don’t have the resources to send letters, don’t want to develop a negative reputation for strong policing or some other reason. It gets trickier once the publishing is for commercial gain…

Right of Publicity: Commercial Use
A major sword for celebrities to use against photographers is the right of publicity. This protects the unauthorized use of someone’s name, image or likeness (some states stretch to voice, signature and other identifiers) for the purpose of commercial gain. So while you can post a picture you took of Kanye West to your personal Facebook page with the caption “Kanye loves me”, you cannot use the photo in an ad for your business with the caption “Kanye loves us”. Whether there is actual commercial gain is an issue up for interpretation.

Right of Privacy: Public or Private Place?
When someone snaps a picture of you, they may or may not have freedom to publish that photo. Whether or not individual protections kick in depends on where you are when the photo is snapped.

If your image is shot in a public place, like a city street, generally you have no right to privacy, as you chose to put yourself in that public place. Concert venues are by definition private establishments because anyone can’t just walk, i.e. you need a ticket for entry. Thus, if a photo is taken of you at a concert, you have greater protections than you do walking a public city sidewalk.

But note that the ticket fine print again plays a role here. Many vendors include a provision in the fine print allowing the venue and/or affiliated third parties to use your image if a photo is snapped at the show.

In sum, the moment you walk into a concert hall, the law giveth and the law taketh away certain rights. Of those rights giveth, some are superseded by contract, whether you’re a professional, contracted photographer, or a ticketed-concertgoer catching 30 seconds of video on your iPhone. Just because a venue or musician doesn’t take action does not mean what you did was legal; it often comes down to feasibility and/or public relations. So go ahead and post that picture you snapped of Kanye at the Form, just be careful if you’re in any way generating money from your use of Ye’s image. And do it soon, before Apple cuts you off.

If you have questions about a concert experience, use of your image, or you are a musician concerned about your performance rights, please reach out to AltView Law Group, LLP for a free consultation at (310) 230-5580 or