fbpx

PROFILE

MY SUBSCRIPTION

LOGOUT

x

The latest industry news to your inbox.

    

I'd like to hear about marketing opportunities

    

I accept IQ Magazine's Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy

Going live on the right side of the law

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused the cancellation or postponement of the majority of concerts and live events, leading to an unprecedented crisis in the events and live music industry. In fact, although the streaming of music through dedicated platforms and apps has boosted the music industry in recent years, a great deal of an artist’s revenue still comes from live performances.

However, even during the months of lockdown, music did not stop, as the absence of live music events has stimulated artists and fans to reinvent the live concert experience by creating and supporting new platforms to discover, listen and share music while social distancing. The music industry has thus recently embraced new ways to encourage fan engagement by introducing the public to what could take the stage as the new normal for live events for a while: remote concerts and tours.

In this scenario, new legal challenges arise. Some of the most relevant issues concern the copyright protection of the works involved in streamed concerts, as well as the arrangement of the relevant compensations.

Firstly, the artist’s right to perform their copyrighted work in front of a public (whether in person or remotely) stands as one of the exclusive rights that a copyright owner is entitled to, along with the right to reproduce and distribute their work. But what if the concert is played by different artists, each from a different location and playing their own part and then synchronised to the moving images of each player or to different images? This is what happened, for instance, in the #Italiasuona flashmob recently organised by Filarmonica della Scala. The outcome of the performance will likely be considered a new audio-visual derivative work including a new live execution.

Thus, those who wish to share these kind of works with the public must check whether their new or existing agreements cover all the new normal rights (eg right of performance, right to communicate to the public through online means new executions of the same work, synchronisation rights over the concerned work). Not to mention the authorisation to use the image rights of each performer and share the content by each performer to maximise the audience.

The most important concern is making sure the livestreaming platforms involved only use authorised content

Further, such rights might run the risk of being infringed: the most important concern will be to make sure the livestreaming platforms involved only use authorised content in each online event. In this regard, some online music platforms and social networks have already been provided with algorithms which are able to automatically detect copyrighted music. Further, making the same performances of an artist available on demand, and thus on a continuous basis, would also involve the need to establish licences from right-holders, as well as licences related to synchronisation, in case videos are involved during the streamed events.

The compensation of artists and staff operating in the live industry is another crucial point of change for the future, which also needs to be taken into account in agreements. In this regard, although a different experience from the usual live concert atmosphere could justify a lower price for each single ticket sold, the online-based approach of such events will undoubtedly profit from a much wider and more diverse reach.

In this new era, the compensation of artists and staff has to be scrutinised under a different – and more digital – tax approach.

In principle, the OECD Model Tax Convention emphasises the need to assess the existence of a close connection between the income and the performance. Such a connection will generally be found to exist where it cannot be reasonably considered that the income would have been derived in the absence of a performance of these activities. The right to receive a remuneration for musicians and artists is strictly connected to their exhibitions.

These issues are high on the agenda of international music managers and artists, as well as tax professionals and authorities.

In this new era, the compensation of artists and staff has to be scrutinised under a different, more digital, tax approach

A recent case involved the analysis of tax treatment of income received by two musicians (tax residents of Germany and Switzerland) engaged by an Italian foundation to perform at two concerts outside of Italy.

According to the agreement concluded between the foundation and the international artists, though remuneration was due in connection with the participation in the concerts outside of Italy, all preparatory activities, such as concert rehearsals, had to be carried in Italy and no specific remuneration – nor a reimbursement of the expenses – was due.

The Italian tax authorities’ view can be summarised as follows: the income paid to the musicians is treated as income from artistic performance carried out entirely outside the Italian territory, regardless of the days present in Italy for concert rehearsals. Therefore, such income is not subject to Italian taxation in the hands of the non-resident musicians. As a matter of fact, concert rehearsals carried out in Italy should not be treated as separate activities from the concert (they are an essential part of it). The conclusion appears consistent with the clarifications provided in the OECD commentary on article 17 of the aforementioned model.

What about the legal and tax issues of compensation deriving from the streaming platforms? These issues might need to be explored more in detail, in light of the new key role of the digital tools for the live industry, especially in the case of concerts involving renowned international artists. Possible means to be considered to assess compensation include earnings calculators, which are unofficial tools already used by influencers, providing earning potential guidelines by taking into account the number of interactions, followers and reach of the shared content.

 


Antonio Longo and Elena Varese are lawyers in the Milan office of DLA Piper, a global legal firm. This article originally appeared on the DLA Piper website.

This article forms part of IQ’s Covid-19 resource centre – a knowledge hub of essential guidance and updating resources for uncertain times.

Ownership dispute over postponed SOS 4.8

Legal Music, promoter of Spanish festival SOS 4.8, has accused the Murcian government of illegally laying claim to the event, of which it is says it is “sole and rightful owner”.

The two parties have been at loggerheads since just before Christmas, when Legal Music announced the 2017 edition of SOS 4.8 would not go ahead following the withdrawal of funding from the Autonomous Community of Murcia (Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia, Carm), which the promoter accused of violating its sponsorship agreement with the festival.

Carm – which, it emerged, had trademarked the SOS 4.8 name in 2008 without informing Legal Music – responded by saying the festival would go ahead with or without Legal Music’s participation. Murcia will “not yield to any kind of threats” of cancellation from Legal Music, said a spokeswoman for the region, adding that the autonomous community is “the sponsor of SOS 4.8 and the owner of the brand”.

In a statement released this morning, Legal Music says the “attitude of the Ministry [of Culture of Murcia] is irrational and is jeopardising the viability and quality of an internationally successful festival”.

“The attitude of the ministry is jeopardising the viability and quality of an internationally successful festival”

“We want to remember and insist that LegalMusic is the sole and rightful owner of SOS 4.8, and the festival is the main asset of this company,” it says. “Therefore, no one can stage this event without Legal Music.”

SOS 4.8 has grown consistently since its founding in 2008, with Manic Street Preachers and The Libertines headlining the 2016 event.

Legal Music, which was declared insolvent in early January, has now filed a series of lawsuits against Murcia’s Ministry of Culture and portavocía (office of the government’s spokespeople) “in order to defend not only the legitimate interests of Legal Music, but also the general interests of citizens against the arbitrariness of the government”.

Legal Music’s other festivals include Pròxims in Barcelona and Calonge, and the now-defunct Castañas y Buñuelos (‘Chestnuts and Donuts’) in Madrid.

 


Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.