MLK Memorial Foundation Forced To Change Name By King Children

By Joseph Williams and Roland S. Martin
TV One, Washington Watch

They spent six years raising more than $100 million, one cocktail fundraiser, and souvenir mug and lapel pin at a time.

And on October 16, 2011, the idea to build a monument in honor of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., an idea that began 28 years earlier at the kitchen table of a member of his fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., came to fruition.

Thousands of people of different races and backgrounds watched as President Barack Obama, two of King’s children, and countless other entertainers and veterans of the Civil Rights Movement, dedicated a bold statue to civil rights icon.

Less than two years later, however, the organizing force behind the national monument – the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Foundation – is no more after the surviving children of Martin and Coretta Scott King refused to grant a license for the group to continue to use the name “Martin Luther King Jr.”

The copyright of the “I Have A Dream” speech filed by Attorney Clarence Jones. Courtesy: Clarence Jones

The website that served as the centerpiece of the foundation’s fundraising and informational efforts – www.mlkmemorial.org – no longer exists. What used to be a vibrant site that served as the centerpiece for online donations and information related to the memorial has vanished after the King children, through their attorneys, demanded it be turned over to them.

King’s surviving children – Dexter, Bernice and MLK III – control the copyrights to their father’s images and words through a for-profit entity, King, Inc., which was set up after his death to handle all affairs of his estate.

There have been a number of contentious moments between the MLK foundation and King, Inc., over the last few years. At one point as the memorial was ready to be dedicated, King, Inc. had all of Dr. King’s books removed from the bookstore on the site of the memorial. The King children wanted to control the bookstore and reap all profits from the selling of merchandise.

All of this despite the foundation paying MLK children through King, Inc., $2.7 million to use the likeness of King and his quotes on the memorial on the National Mall.

“We are trying to keep the memorial relevant,” said Harry E. Johnson Sr., a Houston lawyer and president of The Memorial Foundation, the foundation’s new name (The site is www.thememorialfoundation.org and bears the slogan, “Builders of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial).

“We had planned a hundred events around the memorial” and King’s famous name – including year-long classes and a seminar on nonviolent protest featuring the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who was King’s inspiration, Johnson said.

Clarence Jones, who served as a personal advisor and attorney for Dr. King, called the refusal to grant a new license by King, Inc., to the foundation “obscene.”

“They have done something unique in the history of this country in getting corporate America, private America to fund a memorial to honor the greatest hero of the 20th century,” said Jones, a scholar-in-residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Institute at Stanford University.

“They did this in a tribute to his legacy as an Alpha member…it’s not about protecting the legacy or encouraging discussions of King. It’s not about that. It’s about unexplained, selfish interests, which I believe Martin King would be appalled.”

Civil rights historians who have studied King and his family say the move follows a familiar pattern, one in which King’s children tightly control his image – and use a heavy hand to protect it.

That pattern could be at the center of plans to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

The historic August 28,1963, event has left an indelible imprint on the history of America when 250,000 people gathered before the Lincoln Monument to present a series of demands to the federal government. The march has long been credited with setting the stage for the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But it has also gone down in history due to the stunning speech of Dr. King. Today it is known as the “I Have A Dream” speech, even though that wasn’t the initial name, and the dream portion of it was never in the written text.

The march was convened by the top civil rights organizations and organized labor, including Congress of Racial Equality, the National Urban League, NAACP, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. It was organized by A. Phillip Randolph and Bayard Rustin.

The 50th anniversary march was supposed to commemorate that historic day, but the King children have different plans. For them, that day is more about King’s speech rather than the march. In fact, the King Center, the non-profit entity set up to continue his works, is promoting August 28 as the 50th anniversary of the speech first, and the march second, based on a logo they are using on various materials.

Since late last year, leaders of the civil rights organizations who organized the original march, as well as the Rev. Al Sharpton, founder of the National Action Network, have been quietly meeting with King family representatives and officials from the National Park Service, which issues permits for demonstrations on the Mall.

The latest meeting took place two weeks ago in Washington, and involved high-level representatives from some of the organizations involved in the event planning. The talks are so sensitive, however, that no one is willing to speak about them publicly or privately.

National Urban League CEO Marc Morial, Wade Henderson of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and Ben Jealous, NAACP president and CEO, all declined to comment on the record. Sharpton did not return several calls requesting an interview.

“Some things are being sorted out,” said one activist with knowledge of the situation. “In two weeks, we will have a clearer picture… The march is going to happen.”

Eric Tilden, a principal of Intellectual Properties Management, which controls Rev. King’s words and image, agreed to facilitate an interview with Dexter and Bernice King, two of the three shareholders of King, Inc. Their brother, Martin Luther King III, is the other (Yolanda King, the eldest child, died in 2007).

Tilden has not responded to follow-up calls and emails and the King siblings have not been made available for comment. We also called and texted Bernice King and MLK III to no avail.

Civil rights historian David Garrow said if the March on Washington organizers are negotiating with the King children – and putting money on the table – they’re making a mistake.

“As we’ve seen for over 15 years now, the behavior of the family’s financial representatives continue to do active harm to Dr. King’s legacy,” said Garrow, a University of Pittsburgh law professor and author of “Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.”

“King’s legacy has a reduced visibility and less substantive visibility because of the family’s demands,” said Garrow, noting that the family’s estate has raked in millions through the years by managing their father’s “brand” — something King himself would have adamantly rejected.

At the same time, “it’s not as if (King, Inc.) Is using any of this income for charitable good deeds,” Garrow said. “We’ve seen none of that whatsoever.  It appears to be simply self-enrichment for a small number of people.”

For years, the King heirs have used the courts to stop any unauthorized use of their father’s likeness and words, suing for custody of documents or a share of any proceeds in merchandise and publications. In the 1990s, the family reached undisclosed settlements with USA Today and CBS over their use of King’s seminal “I Have a Dream” speech without permission; in 1999 a federal appeals court sided with the estate, ruling that the speech was not in the public domain.

Yet the civil rights hero’s words and picture – including images from the March on Washington – have been used in major ad campaigns for products like Apple Computers, Mercedes-Benz and Chevrolet. Neither the corporations nor Intellectual Properties Management have disclosed the amount of money the foundation received for the ads.

In June 2006, Dexter King, then-head of King, Inc., put up the bulk of Dr. King’s personal papers for auction. But then-Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin prevented the sale by orchestrating a $32 million deal to buy them and have the papers preserved in the city of Atlanta. That money went directly to King, Inc.

Lawyers for King, Inc. even tried to demand that the man who helped Dr. King craft the “I Have A Dream” speech, and the one who filed the copyright, pay for using the full speech in his book.

Clarence Jones, who served as a personal advisor, attorney and speech writer for King, says when he wrote his book, “Behind the Dream: The Making of the Speech that Transformed a Nation,” he was told by attorneys for King, Inc., that if he wanted to use the full speech in the book, he could for $20,000.

A stunned Jones said, “If it wasn’t for me copyrighting that speech, the King children wouldn’t today own their biggest moneymaker.”

His small publisher was afraid of getting sued by King, Inc., so Jones indemnified them from any costs associated with a lawsuit and dared lawyers for the King children to sue him.

They never did.

The King children angered many civil rights leaders in September 2011 when King, Inc. sued Jackson, Miss., TV anchor Howard Ballou after he broadcasted a story about the papers his mom collected working for King at the SCLC.

The estate wanted possession of documents, photographs and other items that Ballou’s mother, Maude Ballou, said King gave her when they worked together at the Montgomery Improvement Association and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the 1950s.

Attorneys for King, Inc. asserted they owned any and all papers of his mom. But last week, a federal court in Mississippi ruled that Ballou could keep documents and other materials associated with Rev. King. The documents include a sermon; a written statement King made after a landmark Supreme Court ruling on segregation; and a handwritten letter to Ballou’s mother from Rosa Parks.

While the March on Washington commemoration is still in the early planning stages, Carol Johnson, a National Park Service spokeswoman, said the Park Service holds the event permit for Aug. 28 on the National Mall. That’s not uncommon, she said, particularly since the march is months away, organizers haven’t specified their plans or outlined how they intend to cover the millions of dollars in baseline logistical and security costs.

Given the costs, it’s likely that the March on Washington organizers will have to raise significant amounts of money just to put the march on the National Park Service calendar.  Throw in additional events, such as seminars and a prayer breakfast, and the financial hurdles they must clear get even steeper.

At least one member of the organizing committee, however, isn’t worried.

“The preparations I know about are going just fine,” Clayola Brown, president of the Randolph Institute, told TV One’s Washington Watch. She said organizers have tentatively planned a weeklong series of events, culminating in a rally on the Mall expected to draw hundreds of thousands of people.

So far, she said, there have been about four meetings in Atlanta and elsewhere involving civil rights leaders and various unions.  They also met with the National Park Service and members of the King family for additional planning, though she wouldn’t specify the nature of the discussions.

The NAACP’s Jealous wouldn’t talk about the meetings with the King family and rejected any suggestion that the march wouldn’t happen.

“The 50th anniversary of the March for Jobs and Freedom comes in the midst of a moment in which black unemployment remains the highest in recent memory,” he said.  “There needs to be a march, and it needs to happen now, or we risk our children becoming truly the first generation of African Americans to be decidedly more worse off than their parents.”

But Garrow cautions Jealous and others from reaching a deal with the King children at any cost without keeping the meaning of the original march in mind.

The organizers “don’t need to deal with [the King heirs] to do a 50th anniversary event, so long as they’re not rebroadcasting a 50th anniversary of the ‘I Have A Dream’ speech,” Garrow said.  “Dexter King doesn’t represent anybody, while you’ve got a number of organizations that do represent the African American community. You can honor Dr. King’s legacy without talking to Dexter in the slightest.”

“I think the big question is whether it goes off in a significant way or goes off in an insignificant way,” he added.  “Does it really present a policy agenda and focus on issues? Or is it just a commemoration for the sake of commemoration?”

Disclosure: Roland S. Martin is a life member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., and played a role in helping the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Foundation raise money to help build the memorial. He has also emceeded a fundraising dinner for the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, and wrote an endorsement for the book published by Bernice King about her mom, “Desert Rose: The Life and Legacy of Coretta Scott King.”

http://rolandmartinreports.com/blog/2013/03/mlk-memorial-foundation-forced-to-change-name-by-king-children/

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

John Conyers: Music legends deserve R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Quirk in copyright laws allows free use of songs recorded before 1972. That's wrong.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Does it make any sense that Motown legend Dionne Warwick is being compensated by digital music services when they use her recording of I'll Never Love This Way Again (1979) but not for her recordings of Walk On By (1964), I Say a Little Prayer (1967) or I'll Never Fall in Love Again (1968)? Similarly, should The Temptations be compensated for the use of their recording of Papa Was a Rollin' Stone (1972) but not for their recordings of My Girl(1964)?

A quirk of history protects songs recorded before 1972 under state law and songs recorded after Feb. 15, 1972 under federal law. Some digital radio services interpret that disparity to resist paying legacy artists who recorded music before 1972. The inexplicable result is that artists whose recordings were made before 1972 are not compensated by digital radio services while their counterparts whose recordings were made after that time are paid.

For creators and producers, music is their livelihood. Their work product — their property — is what pays the bills.

House panel investigation

In recent months, the House Judiciary Committee has begun exploring whether copyright law is in need of revision in light of technologies that have revolutionized the way we access information and entertainment. This investigation could also reveal whether the compact between those who create music, those who distribute music and those who consume music remains fair and workable.

Rolling Stone compiled what the magazine considers the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time." Nine out of their top 10 songs, and 18 out of their top 20, were recorded before 1972. Many of these songs were a soundtrack for social movements and change and are still played all the time. For example, No. 4: Marvin Gaye's What's Goin' On (1971), and No. 5: Aretha Franklin's Respect (1967), which not only anointed her as the Queen of Soul but also became an anthem of feminism. It is undeniably disrespectful for the digital music services not to compensate Aretha for her work.

Satellite radio included

And don't forget that there are numerous stations on satellite radio that air nothing but songs recorded before 1972. Clearly, they do artists wrong by not paying to use their older songs.

This arbitrary line in copyright law also means that these music services are compensating some artists for the use of the newer parts of their catalog but not for the older parts. While state law offers a patchwork quilt of protection, the Library of Congress has recommended revisions that ensure consistency and uniformity by bringing all sound recordings under the federal copyright umbrella. While we would need to work with the Library's experts, users and rights holders to address the complex issues presented by such a transition, it is worth the effort to protect older artists, curtail litigation and eliminate the untenable withholding of royalties.

I can only imagine what new devices will be used to listen to "oldies" in the future — but we're grateful that technology will keep our rich music history alive. As Congress undertakes its review of copyright law, ensuring due compensation for sound recordings made before 1972 is worthy of our consideration and, most certainly, our Respect.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Judiciary Committee Overwhelmingly Passes Bipartisan Legislation on Selection Process for Copyright Register

Washington, D.C. -- The House Judiciary Committee today approved the bipartisan Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act(H.R. 1695) by a vote of 27-1.

The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act, authored by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), makes important changes to the selection process for the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, known as the Register of Copyrights.  Specifically, the legislation creates a selection panel made up of Members of Congress and the Librarian of Congress.  This panel would be tasked with submitting a list of at least three qualified individuals to the President for his or her consideration. Finally, the President would nominate an individual from the selection panel’s list and that individual would be subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate.  The legislation also limits the Register to a ten year term which is renewable by another Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation and notes that the Register can only be removed for cause.

Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers praised today’s approval of the bill in the statement below.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Over the last few years we have been working together in a bipartisan fashion to review our copyright laws.  This initiative is designed to determine whether the laws are still working in the digital age to reward creativity and innovation.  While we are fully committed to continuing the work of our copyright review and our efforts to modernize the Copyright Office, there is an immediate need when it comes to the selection process for the next Register of Copyrights.  While this is only the first initial legislative step, as always we remain open to working with every member and every stakeholder at every step of the way – including the Leadership on both sides of the aisle -- as we continue to enhance our Committee’s work.    

“In the past, the authority of the Copyright Office to conduct rule makings has been challenged in the courts because the Register is not currently Presidentially-appointed. This bipartisan legislation would put to rest, once and for all, that question, and ensures that the Register is accountable to Congress.”

Background:  As part of the copyright review, the House Judiciary Committee held 20 hearings which included testimony from 100 witnesses.  Following these hearings, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers invited all prior witnesses of the Committee’s copyright review hearings and other interested stakeholders to meet with Committee staff and provide additional input on copyright policy issues.  In addition, the House Judiciary Committee conducted a listening tour with stops in Nashville, Silicon Valley, and Los Angeles where they heard from a wide range of creators, innovators, technology professionals, and users of copyrighted works. In December 2016, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers released the first policy proposal to come out of the Committee’s review of U.S. Copyright law.  Additional policy proposals will be released.

Register of Copyrights 5 Selection and Accountability Act of 2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, GOODLATTE, GRASSLEY, FEINSTEIN, LEAHY Call for Quick Action on Legislation to Provide Selection Process for Register of Copyrights

Makes Register a Presidential Appointment with Senate Confirmation 

Washington, D.C. -- House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)  today introduced the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act, which is the product of months of bicameral, bipartisan discussions led by Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman Goodlatte, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Senate Judiciary Committee Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act makes important changes to the selection process for the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, known as the Register of Copyrights.  Specifically, the legislation requires the Register to be nominated by the President of the United States and subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate.  It would also limit the Register to a ten year term which is renewable by another Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Senator Leahy released the following joint statement upon introduction of the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act.

Dean of the U.S, House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“We are pleased to join together in a bipartisan, bicameral effort to make important and necessary improvements to the selection process for the position of Register of Copyrights. We remain absolutely committed to working on modernizing the Copyright Office. Reforms being considered include public advisory committees, improvements to Copyright Office systems for data inputs and outputs, and copyright ownership transparency.  However, time is of the essence when it comes to the selection process for a new Register of Copyrights.

“America’s creativity is the envy of the world and the Copyright Office is at the center of it.  With the current Register serving only on an acting basis, now is the time to make changes to ensure that future Registers are transparent and accountable to Congress.  We must ensure that any new Register is a good manager and fully qualified to lead and make this office more operationally effective as he or she continues to directly advise Congress on copyrights. The next Register of Copyrights should be dedicated to serving all stakeholders in the copyright ecosystem.”  

The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act was introduced with twenty-nine bipartisan cosponsors.

Background:  As part of the copyright review, the House Judiciary Committee held 20 hearings which included testimony from 100 witnesses.  Following these hearings, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers invited all prior witnesses of the Committee’s copyright review hearings and other interested stakeholders to meet with Committee staff and provide additional input on copyright policy issues.  In addition, the House Judiciary Committee conducted a listening tour with stops in Nashville, Silicon Valley, and Los Angeles where they heard from a wide range of creators, innovators, technology professionals, and users of copyrighted works. In December 2016, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers released the first policy proposal to come out of the Committee’s review of U.S. Copyright law.  Additional policy proposals will be released.

Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Original Cosponsors:

Karen Bass (D- Calif.) Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) Ken Buck (R-Colo.) Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) Judy Chu (D-Calif.) David Cicilline (D-R.I.) Doug Collins (R-Ga.) Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) Blake Farethold (R-Texas) Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) Hank Johnson, Jr. (D-Ga.) Mike Johnson (R-La.) Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) Steve King (R-Iowa) Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) Tom Marino (R-Penn.) Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) Ted Poe (R-Texas) John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) Martha Roby (R-Ala.) Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

Reform of the U.S. Copyright Office by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & GOODLATTE Release First Policy Proposal of Copyright Review Proposal on Copyright Office Reform

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) released the first policy proposal to come out of the Committee’s review of U.S. Copyright law.  This first proposal identifies important reforms to help ensure the Copyright Office keeps pace in the digital age.  With the release of this document, the Committee requests written comments from interested stakeholders by January 31, 2017.  These comments will be shared with members of the House Judiciary Committee as they come in and the Committee intends to make comments publicly available after the comment period closes.

Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers released the following statement via video:

“We would like to take a few minutes to share with you our plan for the next stage of the House Judiciary Committee’s review of our nation’s copyright laws. For years now, we have deliberately listened – through hearings, listening sessions, and site visits – to the views and concerns of stakeholders from all sides of the copyright debate.

“Now, it is time to move forward into the next stage.  We intend to periodically release policy proposals on select, individual issue areas within the larger copyright system that are in need of reform where there is a potential for consensus.  These policy proposals are not meant to be the final word on reform in these individual issue areas, but rather a starting point for further discussion by all stakeholders, with the goal of producing legislative text within each issue area.

“Today, we are releasing our first policy proposal, which identifies reforms to modernize the Copyright Office so that it can meet the challenges of the 21st Century.  Among the reforms in this document are granting the Copyright Office autonomy with respect to the Library of Congress, requiring the Copyright Office to maintain an up-to-date digital, searchable database of all copyrighted works and associated copyright ownership information, and many others reforms. 

“Nothing should be read into the fact that we are only releasing a policy proposal on one topic today. This is just the beginning of this stage of the copyright review, and we intend to release policy proposals on music licensing issues and other individual issue areas in time.

“But this is not a one way street.  We need your help to turn these policy proposals into legislation.  It is only through the input of all interested parties that agreements can be successfully achieved. 

“Thank you to everyone who has participated in the copyright review, and we look forward to continuing to work with you to improve our nation’s copyright system.”

Background: As part of the copyright review, the House Judiciary Committee has held 20 hearings which included testimony from 100 witnesses.  Following these hearings, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers invited all prior witnesses of the Committee’s copyright review hearings and other interested stakeholders to meet with Committee staff and provide additional input on copyright policy issues.  In addition, the House Judiciary Committee conducted a listening tour with stops in Nashville, Silicon Valley, and Los Angeles where they heard from a wide range of creators, innovators, technology professionals, and users of copyrighted works.  More information on the House Judiciary Committee’s comprehensive copyright review can be found here. 


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & GOODLATTE Statement On The Resignation Of Maria Pallante

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) today issued the following joint statement after the announcement that Maria Pallante, the former Register of Copyrights, will be leaving the U.S. Copyright Office:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“We are saddened to learn that Maria Pallante, who served with distinction as only the 12th Register of Copyrights and the Director of the Copyright Office for the last five years, will be leaving the Copyright Office.  This will be a tremendous loss for the Copyright Office and for America’s creators, innovators, and users of copyrighted works.

“We have had the pleasure of working closely with Maria over the last few years as the House Judiciary Committee conducted a comprehensive review of U.S. copyright law to determine whether the law is still working in the digital age to reward creativity and innovation.  Maria has played an instrumental role in the Committee’s efforts.   We have welcomed her thoughtful testimony on copyright law and policy a number of times and closely studied the reports produced by her office.

“As Maria transitions from the Copyright Office, it is the perfect opportunity to examine the selection process for the new Register.  America’s creativity is the envy of the world and the Copyright Office is at the center of it.  We must ensure that any new Register is fully qualified to lead this important office as it continues to directly advise Congress on copyright policy and law.  The new Register of Copyrights should be dedicated to protecting creative rights and modernizing the Copyright Office.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, GOODLATTE Raise Copyright Concerns with FCC’s Set-Top Box Proposal

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) released the following statement regarding copyright concerns with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) set-top box proposal.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the FCC’s efforts to create set-top box alternatives, we have very serious concerns that this should not be accomplished through a compulsory copyright licensing process that may well exceed the FCC’s jurisdiction. The proposed text of the FCC’s revised set-top box proposal has not been given to Congress, but published reports indicate that the FCC is considering a licensing body to develop a one-size fits all standard apps license.  There are many unresolved questions about this proposal, not the least of which is the fundamental question of whether the FCC even has the authority to create such a regime.  We are also concerned that this proposal encroaches upon the Judiciary Committee’s copyright jurisdiction, and may not adequately protect creators’ rights and the contractual rights of parties.  We will be conducting oversight over this matter in the weeks and months to come.”

Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers also joined Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) in sending a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler requesting that he release the text of the set-top box proposal in order to allow all stakeholders time to examine and discuss the implications of his proposal.

Goodlatte and Conyers Raise Copyright Concerns with FCC’s Set-Top Box Proposal Letter by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Urges Congress to Support FAIR PAY FOR ARTISTS & MUSICIANS

Conyers & Four Tops Founding Member Duke Fakir Call on Congress to Pass Fair Play Fair Pay Act

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) joined U.S. Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) as well as legendary Four Tops founding member, Duke Fakir, T Bone Burnett, Roseanne Cash, and more than three dozen artists and musicians at a press conference in support of H.R. 1733, the Fair Play Fair Pay Act. The legislation would harmonize and modernize the outdated rules that currently govern music licensing for digital and terrestrial radio broadcasts.

Dean of the U..S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Detroit has many legacy artists who have never received fair compensation for their groundbreaking contributions to the music industry,” said Ranking Member John Conyers. “Failing to adequately pay artists and musicians, undermines their potential to create music. The Fair Play Fair Pay Act would provide long-overdue fairness for artists regardless of when their music was recorded or where it is played.” 

Key components of the Fair Play Fair Pay Act:

·         Creates a terrestrial performance right so that AM/FM radio competes on equal footing with its Internet and satellite competitors who already pay performance royalties. This would resolve the decades old struggle for performance rights and ensure that – for the first time – music creators would have the right to fair pay when their performances are broadcast on AM/FM radio.

·         Brings true platform parity to radio – so that all forms of radio, regardless of the technology they use – pay fair market value for music performances. This levels the playing field and ends the unfair and illogical distortions caused by the different royalty standards that exist today.

·         Ensures terrestrial royalties are affordable capping royalties for stations with less than $1 million in annual revenue at $500 per year (and at $100 a year for non-commercial stations), while protecting religious and incidental uses of music from having to pay any royalties at all.

·         Makes a clear statement that pre-1972 recordings have value and those who are profiting from them must pay appropriate royalties for their use, while we closely monitor the litigation developments on this issue.

·         Protects songwriters and publishers by clearly stating that nothing in this bill can be used to lower songwriting royalties.

·         Codifies industry practices streamlining the allocation of royalty payments to music producers.

·         Ensures artists receive their fair share from direct licensing of all performances eligible for the statutory license.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©