Blog

Abstract kaleidoscope background. Beautiful multicolor kaleidoscope texture. Unique and inimitable design. Geometrical symmetrical ornament.


<h3 class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Introduction</h3><p id="ember542" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Artificial intelligence (AI) has taken center stage in the grand theater of human invention, ushering in an era of innovation and opportunity. But with AI approaching sentience and genuine creativity, the law of intellectual property (IP) may soon come face to face with profound questions. Such questions probe the very meaning of creativity and responsibility.</p><p id="ember543" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">When a machine creates, who should own the creation? Should works generated by algorithms be afforded the same rights as those penned by human hands? These are not mere philosophical musings. They are pressing issues of our time. Jurists and legislators need to craft forward-looking solutions--fast.</p><h3 id="ember544" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><strong>The Essence of Ownership</strong></h3><p id="ember545" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Ownership implies rights, responsibilities, and obligations that an AI cannot meaningfully exercise or comprehend. Ownership is a human construct woven into the fabric of society, commerce, ethics, and law. To grant ownership to an algorithm would be to misconstrue the essence of owning, creating, and being accountable for something. However, it's unclear how long this will remain a tenable argument.</p><p id="ember546" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">With developments in artificial intelligence reaching a fever pitch, it's not difficult to imagine a world in which AI&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>appreciate the meaning of responsibility and obligations. The line between human and artificial intellect may blur entirely in the near future. Nonetheless, intellectual property law should regard AIs as tools, no matter how well they eventually mimic human thought--or even surpass it.</p><h3 id="ember547" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><strong>A Human-like Tool</strong></h3><p id="ember548" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Traditional approaches to IP law start with the basic assumption that human intellect underlies every creation. But AI challenges this notion with its ability to learn, adapt, and even create without explicit human direction.</p><p id="ember549" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Some jurisdictions have tried to address the perceived problem of machine ownership. The United Kingdom, for example, extends copyright to computer-generated works where the programmer's contribution is recognizable.</p><p id="ember550" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">But this solution addresses only part of the problem. A central issue raised by prominent intellectual property scholars remains: What happens when AI begins to think and create beyond its initial programming? How should the law treat unique styles and insights that cannot be traced back to human input?</p><p id="ember551" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">This prospect, while captivating, does not necessarily require a reimagining of ownership principles.</p><p id="ember552" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Many human inventions provide outputs distinct from their inputs. Consider the kaleidoscope, a device that takes simple, colored objects and transforms them into intricate, unpredictable, ever-changing patterns. The creations of a kaleidoscope are novel and cannot be traced back to the specific intent of the person manipulating the device. Yet, the resulting visual display is still attributed to human agency.</p><p id="ember553" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Similarly, even as AI systems develop unique outputs, they do so within a framework constructed, initiated, and maintained by humans. An AI's ability to 'think' autonomously directly results from human intent, no matter how distant or indirect that connection becomes.</p><p id="ember554" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Thus, while the creations of AI may grow increasingly independent, they are never devoid of human influence. Humans set the parameters, provide the data, and establish the purpose for which any AI operates. These human actions breathe life into the machine, guiding its creative potential in ways that may be subtle, complex, and even unexpected.</p><h3 id="ember555" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><strong>Human Made, Human Owned</strong></h3><p id="ember556" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">The emergence of AI as a creative force invites reflection, adaptation, and foresight. It calls for laws that reflect the evolving nature of creativity in a world where machines play an ever-increasing role. By grounding ownership of AI-generated works within human agency, the legal system can navigate this frontier with wisdom and clarity, embracing the future without eschewing principles that guided the path thus far.</p><p id="ember557" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Our legal system must adapt, not by redefining ownership to accommodate machines but by recognizing the human creativity inherent in AI-driven innovation. Granting ownership based on oversight, programming, and input in the AI creative process provides a logical pathway for defining ownership in the coming decades.</p><h2 id="ember558" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">The law should never forget that AIs are a reflection of humans, not humans themselves.</h2>

The Kaleidoscopic Products of Artificial Intelligence

<p id="ember711" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Taylor Swift’s decision to rerecord her music has created waves in the music industry, bringing to light complex issues surrounding artists’ rights. Let’s break down the key elements of this fascinating situation.</p><h3 id="ember712" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><strong>Understanding Music Ownership Rights</strong></h3><p id="ember713" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">There are two main ownership types for any song: <em>songwriter </em>and&nbsp;<em>master&nbsp;</em>rights. These are distinct because they involve owning different aspects of a song. Songwriter rights cover musical elements that make the song unique, including its lyrics and melodies.<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftn1" data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;When you hum a tune by your favorite artist, you're reproducing the component that songwriter rights protect.</p><p id="ember714" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Master rights, on the other hand, cover a single, recorded song performance that can be commodified and distributed to the public.<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftn2" data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftn2">[2]</a>&nbsp;The holder of master rights is usually a record company, and record deals typically include a clause that prohibits rerecording for several years to protect the label's investment. This restriction in Swift’s contract expired in November 2020.<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftn3" data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftn3">[3]</a></p><p id="ember715" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">While our protagonist always maintained songwriter rights in her music, the master rights belonged to Big Machine Label Group, her former record label. Those master rights have changed hands a few times, too. Big Machine sold them to Ithaca Holdings (Scooter Braun), who turned around and sold them to Shamrock Investment Capital, an investment firm. So, although Swift wrote the songs, she had no control over the recordings streamed by millions of fans.</p><p id="ember716" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Since her re-recording restriction ended in November 2020, Swift has rerecorded three of her original albums, with plans to rerecord all of her original music. The rerecordings created new master rights, and she is the sole owner. So, while she hasn't regained ownership of her original recordings, she seriously harmed their economic value by providing her fans with alternative versions.</p><h3 id="ember717" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><strong>Leveraging A Third Ownership Right</strong></h3><p id="ember718" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Swift’s case introduces a lesser-known but critical music ownership right. In addition to songwriter rights, Swift exercises control over <em>synchronization</em>&nbsp;rights (“synch” for short). Synchronization refers to a song's use in visual media like movies, television shows, commercials, or video games. Synch rights apply whenever music is synchronized with on-screen action, hence the name. Here’s the catch: before a song can be synched with visuals, the owner of the master rights&nbsp;<em>and&nbsp;</em>the songwriter rights must approve.<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftn4" data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftn4">[4]</a>&nbsp;This is “clearance” in the music licensing world.</p><p id="ember719" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Because Swift maintained her songwriter rights, she can unilaterally deny any request to use her music in revenue-rich visual projects. Not only does this dramatically decrease the value of her original recordings, but it also gives her leverage to demand that the&nbsp;<em>rerecordings&nbsp;</em>be used instead. This is especially powerful because she plans to rerecord her entire discography.</p><h3 id="ember720" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><strong>Beyond the Legalese</strong></h3><p id="ember721" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Taylor Swift’s case shines a light on the tangled web of rights in the music industry and the constant struggle for power between artist and label. Her decision to rerecord her songs shows that understanding fine print in contracts can make all the difference. While she will probably never regain control of her original recordings, Swift has effectively devalued and replaced them in the marketplace. She now has control over her old and new music, with her new master rights and the power to deny licensing clearance for the original recordings.</p><p id="ember722" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">From a public relations standpoint, Swift’s struggle to regain ownership of her music unified her fans, many of whom vowed only to play the rerecorded versions. Not only has she won the legal battle, but Swift has managed to turn copyright and contract law into selling points for her music. This is a unique feat and deserves the consideration of managers, publicists, attorneys, label owners, and record producers everywhere.</p><hr><p id="ember723" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftnref1" data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)</p><p id="ember724" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftnref2" data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftnref2">[2]</a>&nbsp;Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(7)</p><p id="ember725" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftnref3" data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftnref3">[3]</a>&nbsp;Moghadam, Saaman,&nbsp;<em>Rerecord(R)ed: On Music Copyright and Taylor Swift’s Decision to Rerecord Her Songs</em>, Colum. J.L. &amp; Arts, (Nov. 22, 2021),&nbsp;<a href="https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/announcement/view/453" data-mce-href="https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/announcement/view/453">https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/announcement/view/453</a>&nbsp;</p><p id="ember726" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftnref4" data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/taylor-swift-rerecording-her-music-lawyer-explains-joseph-campo%3FtrackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%252Fw%253D%253D/?trackingId=lWnRieJMSbe9njhxZYUu%2Fw%3D%3D#_ftnref4">[4]</a>&nbsp;<em>Id.</em></p>

Taylor Swift Is Rerecording Her Music: A Legal Explanation

<h3><strong>Introduction</strong></h3><p>Trade dress acts as the visual DNA of a product or service. When we identify a popular soda by its unique bottle shape or immediately recognize a brand by the specific color on a shoe's sole, we are experiencing the power of trade dress. This visual language is more than mere aesthetics; it's a signature of origin. Given today's fiercely competitive market, safeguarding one's trade dress can't be understated. Our journey here unpacks the complexities and nuances of trade dress as delineated by U.S. federal law, illuminated by landmark court cases.</p><h3><strong>Distinctiveness</strong></h3><p>The essence of trade dress is its distinctiveness. Think of it as the memorable trait of a person in a crowded room. In the bustling marketplace, a product or service's trade dress should not only exist but also resonate.</p><p>For example, the Coca-Cola bottle stands as an epitome of inherent distinctiveness. Even devoid of labels, its recognition is instantaneous. Contrastingly, a design that might have commenced as generic but became indelibly linked with a particular brand over decades is a testament to acquired distinctiveness.</p><h3><strong>Functionality</strong></h3><p>Functionality in trade dress ensures a level playing field in the marketplace. While designs can be proprietary, essential functional elements remain universal.</p><p>Tire treads serve as a prime example. Their design, no matter how distinctive, is primarily to ensure grip and safety. However, when a design element straddles functionality and symbolism, the law discerns if competitors have alternative design options without compromising functionality.</p><h3><strong>Non-Functional Aesthetic Features</strong></h3><p>These visual elements serve no direct functional purpose but enhance a product's allure. The red soles of Christian Louboutin shoes or the Tiffany blue box stand out, not for utility but for sheer aesthetic pleasure. Such features, when sufficiently distinctive, find protection under trade dress law.</p><h3><strong>Trade Dress and Trademark Infringement</strong></h3><p>Identifying an imitation in the market often boils down to gauging the potential for consumer confusion. The closer two products resemble each other, the higher the chances of mistaken identity.</p><p>One of the landmark cases in this realm is <em>Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.</em>, where Taco Cabana, a Mexican restaurant chain, sued Two Pesos for adopting a strikingly similar trade dress. The case revolved around the restaurant's distinctive decor, deemed protectable despite not being inherently distinctive. The court highlighted the importance of secondary meaning and the potential for consumer confusion.</p><h3><strong>Trade Dress and Trade Secret Protection</strong></h3><p>Sometimes, companies might find it strategic to shield certain design elements. These proprietary aspects can be protected as trade secrets if they remain confidential and bestow a competitive advantage.</p><h3><strong>Trade Dress Registration</strong></h3><p>Registering trade dress with the USPTO is akin to fortifying one's brand identity. Though trade dress rights can exist without registration, doing so provides undeniable legal advantages and establishes a formidable defense line against potential infringers.</p><h3><strong>Defending Trade Dress Rights</strong></h3><p>When a trade dress faces imitation threats, decisive action becomes imperative. Initiating with a cease and desist letter can sometimes nip the issue in the bud. But if contention persists, legal battles ensue, seeking remedies ranging from injunctive relief to damages.</p><h3><strong>Conclusion</strong></h3><p>In the vast tapestry of commerce, trade dress acts as both a beacon and a shield. Its visual and aesthetic elements tell a brand's story and carve its niche. With the backdrop of federal laws and seminal court cases like <em>Taco Cabana</em>, the imperative for businesses becomes clear: to understand, establish, and ardently defend their trade dress, ensuring their brand remains distinctive and protected.</p>

Trade Dress: Federal Trademark Law Overview

<h2 class="p1"><strong>Introduction</strong></h2><p class="p3">The present state of name, image, and likeness (NIL) law is hugely important in sports and entertainment. With the rise of social media and the increasing value of personal branding, athletes and celebrities seek more control over their image and the ability to profit from it. As a result, legislation surrounding NIL rights has been a hot topic of debate.</p><p class="p3">Although the right of college athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness has been a contentious issue for many years, the broader conversation is reaching a fever pitch as Congress entertains bills for a uniform approach—with some big names supporting the various petitions.</p><h2 class="p1"><strong>The Pending Legislation</strong></h2><p class="p3">Four new federal NIL bills have been introduced in Congress, encompassing a range of proposals to address the NIL rights of college athletes.</p><h3 class="p4"><strong>The College Athlete Economic Freedom Act</strong></h3><p class="p3">Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass recently reintroduced the' College Athlete Economic Freedom Act'. This act has undergone revisions in 2023 to address issues that emerged with NIL over the last two years. It now includes a provision allowing international college athletes to fully exploit their NIL without infringing on their F-1 student visa status.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="p3">The act also proposes a revenue-sharing model requiring universities and conferences to obtain a group license from athletes to use their NIL in any promotion, including media rights deals. The universities and conferences would then be obliged to notify athletes how their NIL was being used and the revenue generated from the deal, thus providing athletes with the necessary information to negotiate their share of the revenue.</p><p class="p3">Moreover, it proposes an unrestricted right for college athletes to market their NIL without restriction, limiting the NCAA, conferences, or universities from imposing any parameters on NIL deals. Athletes would also have the right to retain representation from attorneys, agents, collectives, player associations, etc. The act also introduces several penalties for the NCAA, conferences, or universities, including per se antitrust penalties, a private right of action for athletes to pursue civil claims, and the ability of the FTC to levy “unfair or deceptive practices” penalties.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="p3">The bill doesn’t advocate a complete free-for-all, though, as there are counter-balances, such as the requirement that collectives register with the Federal Trade Commission and report all NIL deals to ensure no discrimination based on gender, race, or sport.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="p3">This bill's endorsement comes from notable figures like UCLA quarterback Chase Griffin and Sydney Moore, a Division 1 Volleyball Player at Cornell University, emphasizing the critical need for economic freedom for college athletes.</p><h3 class="p4"><strong>Protecting Athletes, Schools, and Sports Act of 2023</strong></h3><p class="p3">On the other side of the spectrum is the Protecting Athletes, Schools, and Sports Act of 2023, introduced by Sens. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., which offers specific protections for universities, with some prohibitions on NIL activity and limitations on transferring.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="p3">The act aims to relieve the NCAA, conferences, and institutions from liability for their efforts to comply with the legislation. It also intends to prohibit NIL deals involving alcohol, drugs, or conflicts with school and conference licenses. NIL deals considered inducements to attend or transfer to a particular institution would also be expressly prohibited.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="p3">Furthermore, it mandates agents and collectives to register with a regulating body, and all NIL deals would have to be disclosed within 30 days, with a public-facing website publishing anonymized data (a similar requirement is found in the ‘College Athlete Economic Freedom Act’).<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="p3">The legislation has garnered support from NCAA President Charlie Baker, university presidents from West Virginia, Auburn, Alabama, and Notre Dame, as well as the Big 12 Conference and the Southeastern Conference. They underscore the importance of this legislation in ensuring the health and safety of student-athletes, increasing consumer protections and transparency in the NIL market, and protecting women’s and Olympic sports.</p><h3 class="p4"><strong>The Student-Athlete Level Playing Field Act<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></strong></h3><p class="p3">Reintroduced by Representatives Mike Carey and Greg Landsman, the ‘Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act’ envisages a significant role for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), requiring any deal valued over $500 to be uploaded to an FTC clearinghouse. It also mandates a program for registering agents working with student-athletes. It aims to ensure athletes are not considered employees, affecting certain cases and charges against the NCAA and some universities.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="p3">Additionally, it contains provisions against recruiting inducements and preempts state laws regarding NIL, proposing a Covered Athlete Organization Commission to handle recommendations and dispute resolutions between athletes and athletic organizations or universities.</p><h3 class="p4"><strong>Noteworthy Contenders Lacking Big-Gun Support</strong></h3><p class="p3">The ‘College Athlete Right to Organize Act’ would grant college athletes the right to form labor organizations and collectively bargain for better NIL rights. This bill has gained significant support from athletes and advocates who believe that college athletes should have more control over their image and the ability to monetize it.</p><p class="p3">The ‘Athlete and Influencer Marketing and Empowerment Act’ is unique because it focuses on expanding NIL rights beyond college athletes. This legislation aims to allow all athletes and influencers to negotiate and profit from their image and likeness, regardless of their level of competition or affiliation. This bill has garnered attention from professional athletes and influencers who feel that current NIL laws do not adequately protect their rights.</p><h3 class="p4"><strong>Sen. Ted Cruz’s Draft Bill Discussion</strong></h3><p class="p3">Senator Ted Cruz has also been active in this legislative conversation, releasing a discussion draft of a bill aimed at codifying NIL rights for student-athletes. This draft aims to provide legal certainty for the roles of universities, conferences, and athletic associations while ensuring nationwide legal uniformity. However, the discussion highlighted the challenges in finding a federal solution to the NIL issue, with lawmakers noting the NCAA’s ongoing difficulty managing college athletes' NIL earnings.</p><h3 class="p4"><strong>Other Complications</strong></h3><p class="p3">Other stakeholders have also made themselves heard, such as the commissioners of the four HBCU NCAA leagues, who petitioned Congress to push NIL legislation in a way that would bolster their competitive stance. They advocate for a legal framework supporting their leagues in the evolving collegiate athletic landscape.</p><h2 class="p4"><strong>The Current State of NIL Law</strong></h2><p class="p3">Currently, the regulation of NIL rights varies from state to state. Some states, such as California and Florida, have passed legislation that allows college athletes to profit from their image and likeness. Other states have introduced similar bills but have yet to pass them into law. This patchwork of state laws has created a complex landscape for athletes and influencers who operate across state lines.</p><p class="p3">Additionally, the NCAA, the governing body for college athletics, has grappled with addressing NIL rights. In 2020, the NCAA announced it would allow college athletes to profit from their image and likeness. Still, the specifics of how this would be regulated and enforced were left up to individual schools and conferences. This has further added to the confusion surrounding NIL rights. NIL law is fractured, with states, individual institutions, and leagues all exercising control over NIL.</p><h2 class="p4"><strong>The Impact of Pending Legislation</strong></h2><p class="p3">If the pending legislation before Congress is passed into law, it would significantly impact the world of sports and entertainment. Athletes and influencers would have more control over their image and the ability to negotiate fair compensation for using their name, image, and likeness.</p><p class="p3">Furthermore, this legislation would provide a unified framework for NIL rights, eliminating the patchwork of state laws and creating a more consistent and fair playing field for athletes and influencers nationwide. It would also provide clarity and guidance for schools, conferences, and other entities currently navigating the complex landscape of NIL rights.</p><h2 class="p1"><strong>Wrap Up</strong></h2><p class="p3">The state of NIL law is a complex and evolving issue. A federal NIL law remains elusive, but with pending legislation before Congress, there is hope for a more unified and fair approach to NIL rights. Unfortunately, Congressional leaders have shown a mixed response towards the urgent push from the NCAA and colleges for a federal bill legislating NIL. During an annual gathering of college officials, Senator Ted Cruz mentioned that the odds were "60-40" in favor of getting the legislation done, reflecting the complex and evolving landscape of opinions and support for NIL legislation.</p><p class="p3">The dialogue on NIL legislation has evoked a significant level of interest and advocacy from various stakeholders. The NCAA President, prominent university athletic directors, sports leaders, and congressional leaders have all urged Congress to enact legislation regulating the NIL market in college sports. Some have testified in Senate hearings to express their viewpoints and concerns regarding the future of NIL contracts and the implications for college athletics. Because these hearings are underway and so many various bills are on the table, there is a substantial likelihood that something will come together—even if it doesn't dispose of every conceivable issue.</p><h3 class="p3">References:</h3><p>Axe, Brent. "NCAA leaders urge Congress to regulate athlete compensation." The Hill, 2023.</p><p>Axson, Scooby. "NCAA asks Congress for help on athlete pay." UPI, 2023.</p><p>Berg, Madeline. "Four New Federal Proposals For College Athlete NIL Rights—And What’s Next." Forbes, 2023.</p><p>Berg, Madeline. "NIL Legislation: Here’s What’s In The New Federal Proposals." Forbes, 2023.</p><p>Best, Neil. "NCAA wants Congress to regulate pay for college athletes." Washington Examiner, 2023.</p><p>Congressional leaders talk NIL legislation possibilities at LEAD1. (2023). Sports Business Journal.</p><p>Congressional NIL hearing shows difficulty in finding federal solution. (2023). Sports Business Journal.</p><p>Draper, Kevin. "N.C.A.A. Dilemma: How to Pay Athletes What They’re Worth." Sports Business Journal, 2023.</p><p>Federal NIL Bill Remains Unlikely Legislation. (2022). Sportico.com.</p><p>Goff, Steven. "NCAA wants help from Congress in regulating pay for athletes." Inside Higher Ed, 2023.</p><p>HBCU Gameday. "HBCU leagues petition Congress for NIL help." HBCU Gameday, 2023.</p><p>Sen. Cruz Releases Discussion Draft of Bill to Codify NIL Rights For Athletes Provide Legal Certainty for College Athletics. (2023).</p><p>Smith, Michael. "NCAA’s NIL timetable could be slipping away." Sportico, 2023.</p><p>Smith, Michael. "Congress showing little interest in NCAA’s plea for NIL help." Sports Business Journal, 2023.</p><p>Watch live: Senate holds hearing on NCAA’s NIL contracts. The Hill.</p>

NIL Law & Pending Congressional Legislation

<h2>In-Depth: Copyright Law and Music Publishing</h2><p>Aspiring musicians and songwriters often overlook the importance of understanding copyright law and music publishing. However, having a solid grasp of these concepts is crucial for protecting your creative work and ensuring you receive proper compensation for your efforts. This blog post will delve into the intricacies of copyright law and music publishing, shedding light on their significance in the music industry.</p><h3>What is Copyright Law?</h3><p>Copyright law grants exclusive rights to the creators of original works, including musical compositions and recordings. It protects the rights of songwriters, composers, and performers by prohibiting others from using, reproducing, or distributing their work without permission. This legal framework encourages creativity while allowing artists to control how their work is used and monetized.</p><h3>The Basics of Music Publishing</h3><p>Music publishing refers to acquiring, administering, and exploiting musical compositions. It involves the management of copyrights, licensing, and royalty collection on behalf of songwriters and composers. Music publishers are crucial in connecting songwriters with artists, producers, and other industry professionals, ensuring their compositions reach a wider audience.</p><figure id="figure-rzb5oe862loo0iz9e"><img id="rzb5oe862loo0iz9e" src="https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1526142684086-7ebd69df27a5?crop=entropy&amp;cs=tinysrgb&amp;fit=max&amp;fm=jpg&amp;ixid=M3wyNjI5NjF8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMXx8bXVzaWMtcHVibGlzaGluZ3xlbnwwfHx8fDE2OTkzNDIyOTV8MA&amp;ixlib=rb-4.0.3&amp;q=80&amp;w=1080" alt="music-publishing" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-mce-src="https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1526142684086-7ebd69df27a5?crop=entropy&amp;cs=tinysrgb&amp;fit=max&amp;fm=jpg&amp;ixid=M3wyNjI5NjF8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMXx8bXVzaWMtcHVibGlzaGluZ3xlbnwwfHx8fDE2OTkzNDIyOTV8MA&amp;ixlib=rb-4.0.3&amp;q=80&amp;w=1080" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3>The Role of Performance Rights Organizations (PROs)</h3><p>Performance Rights Organizations (PROs) collect and distribute performance royalties to songwriters and publishers. They monitor public performances of musical works, such as radio airplay, live performances, and streaming services, to ensure that the appropriate royalties are paid to the rights holders. Examples of PROs include ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.</p><h3>Understanding Mechanical and Synchronization Licenses</h3><p>Mechanical and synchronization licenses come into play when it comes to using music in different mediums, such as recordings or audiovisual projects. A mechanical license grants the right to reproduce and distribute a copyrighted musical composition. In contrast, a synchronization license allows the use of a composition in combination with visual images, such as in movies, TV shows, or advertisements.</p><h3>Importance of Registering Your Copyrights</h3><p>Registering your copyrights with the appropriate copyright office, such as the U.S. Copyright Office, is essential for establishing legal proof of ownership and protecting your rights in case of infringement. Registration also enables you to pursue legal action and claim damages if someone uses your work without permission. Remember, copyright protection exists when a work is created, but registration strengthens your legal position.</p><h3>Collaboration and Split Sheets</h3><p>When collaborating with other songwriters or musicians, it is crucial to establish clear agreements regarding ownership and royalty splits. A split sheet is a document that outlines the percentages of ownership and the division of royalties among the collaborators. A well-documented split sheet can prevent disputes and ensure all parties receive their fair share of royalties.</p><h3>International Copyright Considerations</h3><p>It is important to note that copyright laws vary across different countries. While copyright protection is automatic in many jurisdictions, understanding the specific rules and regulations in the countries where your music is being used or distributed is vital. Consult with legal professionals or organizations specializing in international copyright to ensure your rights are adequately protected.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Copyright law and music publishing are complex but essential aspects of the music industry. By understanding these concepts and taking the necessary steps to protect your creative work, you can safeguard your rights and maximize your earning potential as a songwriter or composer. Remember, it is always wise to seek legal advice from professionals specializing in copyright law to ensure you successfully navigate the complexities of the music industry.</p>

Insights

The Kaleidoscopic Products of Artificial Intelligence

Taylor Swift Is Rerecording Her Music: A Legal Explanation

Trade Dress: Federal Trademark Law Overview

NIL Law & Pending Congressional Legislation

Basics: Copyright Law and Music Publishing