Karoake Law!!!!!!!!!!! It Costs More to Sing the Words.

It is just a matter of time before there is an opinion about most anything. Today's is karoake.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a compulsory license does not include the right to print or display song lyrics with the recordings. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing, Case No. 06-55102 (9th Cir., Jan. 2, 2008). So, how does karoake work?

From a copyright angle, BMG, here, the license owner, issues "compulsory mechanical licenses" to copyrighted musical compositions under § 115 of the Copyright Act. But wait; we need the lyrics, not just the song, for a karoake feast. So, in addition to the mechanical fee required for the compulsory mechanical license, BMG demanded that karaoke companies pay a “lyric reprint” fee and a “synchronization fee.”

The exclusive rights granted to a copyright author for "nondramatic musical works" to make and to distribute "phonorecords" of such works are subject to compulsory licensing. There are several different compulsory license provisions in copyright: nondramatic musical compositions, public broadcasting, retransmission by cables systems, subscription digital audio transmission, and nonsubscription digital audio transmission such as internet radio. Authors do not have every right under copyright law, and collective licensing systems have been mandated by Congress. Sadly for the karoake world, rights to copy lyrics and synchronize them with music (which is covered by the mandatory license) are not included.

The law? Compulsory licensing is for "phonorecords," and does not include audiovisual works, like lyrics. Thus, § 115's compulsory licensing scheme does not apply to audiovisual works. And synchronization rights remain with the copryight owner. courts have recognized a copyright holder's right to control the synchronization of musical compositions with the content of audiovisual works and have required parties to obtain synchronization licenses from copyright holders. See Maljack Prods., Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp., 81 F.3d 881, 884-85 (9th Cir.1996) ; ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Stellar Records, Inc., 96 F.3d 60, 63 n. 4 (2d Cir.1996). The karaokers cannot sing this tune; Congress failed to anticipate their needs back in 1976. That Congress has and has used to power to grant licenses is instructive in this digital age. At some time, Congress will have to revisit these issues to take into account new technologies.