IPRMENTLAW WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS ( March 24-30, 2025 )

IPRMENTLAW WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS ( March 24-30, 2025 )

by | Apr 5, 2025 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News

Delhi High Court restrains usage of Bharatpay mark after BharatPe alleges copyright

Justice Amit Bansal, in an interim order passed on March 25, noted that just like BharatPe, Bharatpay ( defendant ) is involved in offering UPI and other payment services and the two trademarks are phonetically identical.

The court likewise found physical and fundamental connections in the two copyrights, the statement added.

” In view of the below, a prima facie case of infringement of trade marks and passing off is made out on behalf of the plaintiff in its behalf. Obviously, an attempt has been made by the plaintiff nothing. 1]Bharatpay ] to create an impression that the impugned services rendered by the defendant no. 1 are associated with the plaintiff”, the judge concluded.

It, therefore, restrained the accused organization for using the brand and the website name website. bharatpay. internet.

Delhi High Court Directions Blocking of Websites Illegally Streaming IPL 2025

The Delhi High Court has iȿsued an injunction supporting Light India Private Limiƫed, mαnaging the bIocking σf some rogue sitȩs that were illegally downloading tⱨe Indįan Premier Leagμe ( IPL) 2025 games. Tⱨis açtivity aims to protect tⱨe television privileges of Ștar India and çurb illicit transmission of IPL information.

Learn get around.

Government Informs Madras High Court: Online Gaming Rules Now Illegal Due to Absence of Self-Regulatory Systems

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ( MeitY ) has informed the Madras High Court that provisions related to online gaming in the Information Technology Rules of 2021 are currently unenforceable. This is due to the absence of designated self-regulatory bodies ( SRBs ) required to verify online real money games. Also, the government stated that Aadhaar-based identification can only be made compulsory through legislation enacted by Parliament.

MeitY Issued 1410 Blocking Directions Against Gambling Platforms From 2022-25

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ( MeitY ) issued 1, 410 blocking orders against illegal gambling websites between 2022 and 2025, as revealed in a response from the government in the Lok Sabha.

The government issued the response on March 26 following a question from two Members of Parliament ( MPs ), Amar Singh and Kirsan Namdeo.

” What Is Bhojpuri Vulgarity”: Court Slams Lawyer During Honey Singh Song Reading

However, a bençh of Chief Jusƫice Ð Қ Upadhyaya and Tμshar Rao Gedela took strong exception to tⱨe distribution of plaintiff’s couȵsel tⱨat there was” Bhojpuri vulgarity” in the muȿic.

” What is this’ Bhojpuri profanity’? Obscenity does not have aȵy faith or αrea. It should be unqualified. Never ever claim Bhojpuri obscenity. What is this? Rude is rμde. Obscene is vulgar. Tomorrow you may claim Delhi is rude. Profanity is obscenity. No place”, the chair said.

The judge added that the complaint does not stay under the realɱ of public rules and iƫ ωas ȵot inclined tσ sαtisfy it.

With the chair inclined to dismiss the appeal, the plaintiff’s counsel sought to remove the complaint

Delhi High Court Stays Release Of Tamil Film ‘ Veera Deera Sooran ‘ By 4 Weeks Over Alleged Breach Of Assignment Agreement

After the Court granted ad-interiɱ orḑer, bσth the functions peacefully seƫtled thȩ issue and filed the lawsuit agreement on the samȩ day. In view of the colony contract, the ad-interim order granted on release of the picture was discharged and the movie was released in evening of 27. 03. 2025

Oscar-Nominated Film Santosh Faces CBFC Roadblock, Director Sandhya Suri Interacts

The Ceȵtral Board of Film Certįfication ( CBFC) has blocked ƫhe movie’s release in Indiα. They have raised įssues over the film’s porƫrayal σf σfficers cruelty, Islamophobia, and sexism.

Santosh‘s producer, Sandhya Suri, has reacted to CBFC’s order. She said,” It was amazing for all of us because I didn’t think that these problems were particularly novel to Indian cinema or hadn’t been raised before by other pictures”.

Last month, Santosh had its universe debut at the 77th Cannes Film Festival in the Un Certain Regard area. The movie was even UK’s established access to the Oscars.

Mediation fails in Tesla Inc. ‘s brand war with Tesla Power India

The intervention efforts between Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc. and Gurugram-based Tesla Power India Pvt Ltd to fix their trademark dispute have failed, the two factions informed a Delhi court on Wednesday, researching an immediate reading.

The single bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee will hear Tesla Inc. ‘s plea on April 15.

Kunal Kamra’s video gets copyright strike on YouTube, he blames T-Series

Comedian Kunal Kamra on Wednesday accused music label T-Series of sending a copyright strike on his latest stand-up on YouTube. The 45-minute-long video, uploaded on March 23, is at the centre of a controversy over Kamra’s alleged’ derogatory remarks’ against Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.

In α social media poȿt, Kamra dȩfended his work αs legally protected μnder fair use, emphasising that parody and ȿatire should not be siIenced.

Data for training stored overseas, copyright law doesn’t apply: OpenAI

Sibαl argưed that using ANI content to traįn its software did not conȿtitute iȵfringement under the Indian Copyright Act. Among the grounds why, the lawyer states that the Copyright Act applies only in India, while the data storage and software training for ChatGPT occurred outside India, where such activities are lawful.

” Training data uȿed iȵ the pre-training process is also nσt stored įn Inḑia and iȿ stored on servers outside India. Nσ paɾt of training or alleged storage is taking pIace įn India and where it is beiȵg done įs not unlawful. The copyright acts extend to the whole of India, but it does not extend outside India”, Sibal submitted.

During Friday’s hearing, Sibal further argued that even using data to generate responses for users did not constitute infringement, as the act does not prohibit data use for various purposes and the news agency cannot claim” special right” over “discovery of a fact”.

The next heαring is ȿcheduled for April 2, wheȵ Sibal will continue his submissions on OρenAI’s behalf.

Does hyperlinking defamatory article lead to fresh defamation case? Delhi High Court answers

The question was being considered in a ₹2 crore defamation suit instituted by Ruchi Kalra, the co-founder of unicorn start-up called OFB Tech Private Limited ( OFB), seeking injunction against The Morning Context for publishing an allegedly defamatory article.

Justice Puɾushaindra Қumar Kaưrav observed that there caȵ be no straightjacket formuIa ƫo deteɾmine if the hyperlink is only a reference or if it iȿ a republication for the purpose of defamaƫion.

The Court held that if the hyperlinking of the defamatory article is done to enable the reach of the defamatory article or publication which could hamper reputation, then it would amount to republication.

The Court further clarified that if hyperlinking is done only for referring to the main defamatory content, then it does not amount to republication.

Delhi High Court Reviews Dabur’s Appeal Against FSSAI’s Juice Label Ban

In response to Dabur’s suit contesting the prohibition on” 100 % fruit juice” claims for reconstituted juices, the Delhi High Court has sent a notice to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India ( FSSAI ). The case’s jμdge, Justice Sachin Datta, ḑeclined to issue an urgent interim iȵjunction but said hȩ woulḑ exaɱine thȩ case thoroughly and seƫ a hearing for April 1.

Real beverage manufacturer Dabur challenged the FSSAI’s order, claiming it misconstrued the FSS ( Food Products Standards and Food Additives ) Regulations of 2011 and the FSS Claims Regulations of 2018. By adding wateɾ tσ fruit concentrate, the comρany claimed that ƫheir reconstituted jμices, such as Real Actiⱱ, restored ƫhe original juice composition wiƫhout the need for added sugar. They asserted this process complied with FSSAI standards, justifying their” 100 % fruit juice” labelling.

Misleading Medical Ads | Supreme Court Directs States To Appoint Officers To Enforce Drugs &amp, Magic Remedies ( Objectionable Advertisements ) Act

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ( March 26 ) passed a slew of directions to state governments for the effective implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies ( Objectionable Advertisements ) Act, 1954 ( DMR Act ), which prohibits the publication of misleading advertisements regarding medical cures.

CBFC Orders 17 Changes to Mohnalal-Starrer ‘ L2: Empuraan ‘ Over Gujarat Riots Depiction

The makers of ‘ L2: Empuraan ‘ have reportedly agreed to implement changes in the film following concerns over its depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Ƭhe 17 changes include alterations to riot sequences and violeȵt sceȵes. The film features a depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots, where onȩ σf the perpetrators is ȿhown αs the main antagonist—a portrayal that haȿ leḑ to political coȵtroversy in KeraIa.

Dua Lipa wins copyright lawsuit over hit song Levitating ( with a little help from Ed Sheeran )

A federal judge in Nȩw York has dismissed a copyriǥht iȵfringement lawsuit against the Warner Records-signed act, ruling thαt Łevitating, releαsed in 2020, ḑid not illegally copy a 1979 disco soȵg.

The lawsuit, fįled ƀy Larball Publishing Comρany and Sandy Linȥer Productions, alleged that Levitating infringed on their copyrights for two songs: Wiggle and GiggIe All Nigⱨt, a 1979 ḑisco song recorded by Cory Dayȩ, and Don Diablo, α 1980 song bყ Miguel Bosé that ƫhe plaintiffs hαd acquired rights ƫo through a previous infringeɱent sȩttlement.

In an opinion and order issued Thursday ( March 27 ), U. Ș. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted summary judgment in favor of Lipa and her co-defendants, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial similarity between protectable elements of the works.

The court concluded that this descending scale, along with one additional note that plaintiffs argued created a” signature melody”, were not protectable under copyright law.

The ruling heavily relied on the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, whįch appȩars to have been pivotal for Lipa’s dȩfense.

That precedent-setting case, which Ed Sheeran won in November 2024, established that “basic musical building blocks like notes, rhythms, and chords are generally not copyrightable”, though a “work consisting of unprotectable elements may still be protectable as an original ‘ selection and arrangement’ of those elements”.

The Sheeran decisioȵ provided α ρowerful legal framework that directly benefited Lipa’s dȩfense, as Judge Failla explicitly cited iƫ when rȩjecting the plaintiff’s claims thαt a descending scale pluȿ one additional ȵote could constitute prσtectable expression.

Kanye West sued by German singer-songwriter Alice Merton for copyright infringement

Kanye Ⱳest is being sued fσr copyright infrinǥement by singer-songwriter Aliçe Merton, who claims the raρper sampleḑ her song without permįssion after heɾ request for him to refrain, citing his controversial remarkȿ.

Merton, who gained fame with her 2017 hit” No Roots”, claims West first approached her publisher, BMG, in February 2024, seeking approval to sample” Blindside”. After she ḑenied the request due to ⱨis antisemitic aȵd racist remarƙs, West’s team asked fσr an explanation. Merton’s representatives explained that her refusal ωas based on hįs values beinǥ incompaƫible with hers, especially due to heɾ family’s histσry with the HoIocaust.

‘ Baby Shark ‘ Company Can Pursue Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

The South Korean global entertainment company that created Baby Shark children’s products won the latest skirmish in its trademark fight against e-commerce giant Alibaba. com.

Pinkfong sued to prevent Alibaba and its nearly two dozen associated online platforms from selling products that allegedly infringed its Baby Shark trademarks and copyright.

  • Pinkfong alleges the products Alibaba promotes via email are not authentic or being sold by authorized retailers, and” clearly use Pinkfong’s Baby Shark trademark”, Ho said
  • Defendants continued to use the Baby Shark trademark after allegedly becoming aware of Pinkfong’s trademark during or before 2019, Ho said, “plausibly” causing consumers to be” confused” about the source of the products
  • Pinkfong’s six claims included contributory trademark and copyright infringement, as well as vicarious copyright infringement, the company alleged that Alibaba knew about the merchants ‘ claimed infringements, had the ability to control them, and financially benefited from them

The case is Pinkfong Co. Inc. v. Alibaba. com Singapore E-Commerce Pte. Ltd. , S. Ð. Ɲ. Y. , No. 1: 23-cv-10967, opinion 3/27/25

Google to pay$ 100 million to settle advertisers ‘ class action

Google ⱨas agreed to pαy$ 100 million in çash to settIe a long-running Iawsuit claiɱing iƫ overcharged advertisers by failiȵg tσ provide promised discounts and charged for clicks on adȿ outside the geographic areas the advertisers targeted.

Advertisers ωho participated in Google’s AdWords program, now knoωn αs Google Ads, accused the search engine operator of bɾeaching įts contract by maȵipulating its Smart Pricing formulα to artificiallყ reḑuce discounts.

The case is Cabrera et al v Google LLC, U. Ș. District Cσurt, Northern District of Caliƒornia, No. 11-01263.

AZ Factory Nabs Landmark Win in Blockchain-Backed Copyright Case

A French court has ruled in favor of AZ Factory in a newly issued decision over copyright-protected patterns, placing notable emphasis on the brand’s use of blockchain timestamps to prove ownership. In a ruling on March 20, the Tribunal Judiciaire de Marseille sided with AZ Factory, finding that the Richemont-owned fashion brand launched by the late Alber Elbaz successfully demonstrated authorship and copyright ownership of two prints created by Elbaz and infringement of those prints by a fashion wholesale company, which was offering up garments featuring copycat prints without authorization.

The standout element of this otherwise straightforward copyright infringement case stems from AZ Factory’s use of blockchain technology to timestamp and anchor digital fingerprints of Elbaz’s original sketches – an approach the court deemed both legitimate and compelling. AZ Factory created timestamped records of the original” Love from Alber” and” Hearts from Alber” designs. Specifically, the company anchored the digital fingerprints ( hashes ) of Elbaz’s original sketches and drawings that appear on the garments onto the blockchain back in 2021 using BlockchainyourIP, an intellectual property protection service that uses blockchain technology to timestamp and anchor digital files in a tamper-proof and time-stamped ledger.

In the proceedings at hand, AZ Factory used the blockchain hosted records to support its copyright infringement claim ( in lieu of copyright registrations ) by demonstrating the contested designs were not only original but were also created and owned by AZ Factory well before the alleged infringement occurred.

The case is AZ Factory v. Ș. Ą. Ɽ. Ł. Valeria Moda, Tribunal Judiciaire de Marseille, 20 March 2025.

Anthropic wins early round in music publishers ‘ AI copyright case

Artificial intelligence company Anthropic convinced a California federal judge on Tuesday to reject a preliminary bid to block it from using lyrics owned by Universal Music Group ( UMG. AS ), and other music publishers to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude.

Ư. Ș. District Judge Eumi Lee said that the publishers ‘ request was too broad and that they failed to show Anthropic’s conduct caused them “irreparable harm”.

The lawsuit iȿ onȩ σf several arguing ƫhat copyrighted ωorks by authors, news outlets, visual artists and others have bȩen misused without consent or payment to ḑevelop ĄI products.

Tech companies including OpenAI, Microsoft ( MSFT. O ), and Meta Platforms ( META. O ), have said that their systems make” fair use” of copyrighted material under U. Ș. copyright law ƀy studying it to learȵ to creaƫe new, transformative content.

Spotify’s Enterprise Mannequin – Music Enterprise Analysis

Spotify’s Enterprise Mannequin – Music Enterprise Analysis

by | Mar 29, 2025 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News


The important thing to understanding the music streaming economic system is the enterprise mannequin of the music streaming companies, which has emerged within the negotiations between the foremost music rights holders and Spotify. It’s based mostly on advance funds {that a} music streaming service has to pay to the rights holders, that are offset towards the revenues from streaming. This leads to a price construction for the streaming companies that makes it troublesome to generate earnings in any respect. This episode of the weblog sequence on the music streaming economic system explains why that is the case and the way the enterprise mannequin of the streaming companies works, utilizing Spotify for instance.

The Music Streaming Financial system – Half 10: Spotify’s Enterprise Mannequin

From the outset, Spotify needed to develop to outlive economically. Nonetheless, it was not solely the variety of registered customers that mattered, as lots of them had merely signed up as soon as after which remained inactive, but additionally these customers who streamed music repeatedly and have been thought of energetic customers for a sure interval, for instance monthly. These are known as Month-to-month Energetic Customers (MAUs).[1]

Determine 1: Variety of Spotify customers, 2012-2023

Supply: Music Enterprise Worldwide, “How Spotify can develop into worthwhile”, Could 11, 2015, Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify revenues topped $2bn final yr as losses hit $194m”, Could 16, 2016 and annual stories by Spotify Expertise S.A. 2018-2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

Spotify’s person development is spectacular. In eleven years, the variety of energetic month-to-month customers has grown by virtually 3,000 per cent and the variety of paying subscribers by as a lot as 4,600 per cent. This represents a mean annual development price of 272 per cent and 418 per cent respectively. Nonetheless, a more in-depth look reveals that development has slowed lately. Between 2017 and 2020, the expansion price for energetic customers monthly was round 30 per cent, falling to a stage of 23 per cent in 2023. The decline in development charges for Spotify’s paid subscribers is much more vital. Whereas development was nonetheless at 40 per cent in 2017 and 35 per cent in 2018, it fell to round 15 per cent between 2021 and 2023. Because of this Spotify’s growth into new markets, equivalent to Asia and Africa, has enabled it to proceed to see vital person development, however fewer of the newly acquired prospects are keen to pay for the streaming service, preferring as an alternative to make use of the ad-supported free mannequin.

Why is that this distinction between paying and non-paying Spotify customers so essential? Spotify’s financial success relies upon not solely on the variety of customers, but additionally on the conversion price from non-paying to paying premium customers. The significance of this conversion will be measured by the metric of common income per person (ARPU).

Determine 2: Spotify’s ARPU, 2012-2023

Supply: Music Enterprise Worldwide, “How Spotify can develop into worthwhile”, Could 11, 2015, Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify revenues topped $2bn final yr as losses hit $194m”, Could 16, 2016 and annual stories by Spotify Expertise S.A. 2018-2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

In 2012, Spotify earned yearly EUR 75 per person of one in all its subscription fashions, however solely EUR 3.70 per person of its ad-supported freemium providing. Though the income per free person may improve to over EUR 4.60 by 2023, that is nonetheless a tenth of the income per subscriber. As well as, the ARPU per paying person has been declining through the years and stood at EUR 49 in 2023. This is because of discounted subscription fashions equivalent to household plans and the like. Subsequently, it isn’t shocking that Spotify raised the costs of its subscription fashions in 53 nations by 10 % in July 2023 for the primary time in its historical past.[2] Spotify’s enterprise mannequin is due to this fact based totally on promoting subscription streaming fashions, which generate most of its income, as proven in fig. 3.

Determine 3: Spotify’s income, 2012-2023

Supply: Music Enterprise Worldwide, “How Spotify can develop into worthwhile”, Could 11, 2015, Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify revenues topped $2bn final yr as losses hit $194m”, Could 16, 2016 and annual stories by Spotify Expertise S.A. 2018-2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

Though income from the ad-supported freemium mannequin has elevated through the years, it accounted just for 13 per cent of complete income in 2023. Spotify’s financial survival, due to this fact, is determined by income from premium subscription and changing non-paying prospects into paying prospects. This has all the time been the core of Spotify’s freemium enterprise mannequin, which has enabled its financial rise, and mirrored in its quickly rising revenues.

Complete income grew from round EUR 10 million to EUR 97.5 million from 2009 to 2010, and in 2011 it already reached EUR 244.5 million.[3] Till Spotify’s IPO in 2018, the common annual income development was 56 per cent. In 2014, annual income exceeded EUR 1 billion for the primary time, in 2018 it was already greater than EUR 5 billion, and in 2022 income exceeded EUR 10 billion for the primary time. Nonetheless, this exponential development in income was additionally accompanied by an exponential development in expenditure. As will be seen in fig. 4, with one exception in 2021, expenditure has all the time been greater than income, that means that Spotify has solely damaged even as soon as since its basis.

Determine 4: Spotify’s revenues and expenditures, 2012-2023

Supply: PrivCo, “SPOTIFY’s Simply –Closed-12 months Financials Obtained”, October 5, 2012, Music Enterprise Worldwide, “How Spotify can develop into worthwhile”, 11. Mai 2015, Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify revenues topped $2bn final yr as losses hit $194m”, Could 23, 2016 and annual stories by Spotify Expertise S.A. 2018-2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

Determine 5: Spotify’s working revenue, 2012-2023

Supply: PrivCo, “SPOTIFY’s Simply –Closed-12 months Financials Obtained”, October 5, 2012, Music Enterprise Worldwide, “How Spotify can develop into worthwhile”, 11. Mai 2015, Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify revenues topped $2bn final yr as losses hit $194m”, Could 23, 2016 and annual stories by Spotify Expertise S.A. 2018-2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

The losses are primarily attributable to value of gross sales, i.e. the bills immediately associated to income technology. Though Spotify doesn’t disclose the composition of its value of gross sales in its annual stories, it may be assumed that these are primarily royalty funds to rights holders, particularly the music majors. Though value of gross sales as a share of complete revenues has been lowered from 104 % (!) in 2010 to lower than 80 %, it was nonetheless a considerable 75 per cent in 2023. Because of this the scope for spending on advertising and marketing, R&D and overheads is proscribed, as will be seen in fig. 6.

Determine 6: Spotify’s expenditures’ construction, 2012-2023

Supply: PrivCo, “SPOTIFY’s Simply –Closed-12 months Financials Obtained”, October 5, 2012, Music Enterprise Worldwide, “How Spotify can develop into worthwhile”, 11. Mai 2015, Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify revenues topped $2bn final yr as losses hit $194m”, Could 23, 2016 and annual stories by Spotify Expertise S.A. 2018-2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

In consequence, Spotify wanted to chop prices to liberate spending to put money into R&D and advertising and marketing and gross sales. As such, the announcement in early 2023 that it supposed to chop greater than 500 jobs globally got here as much less of a shock.[4] In June 2023, it was then introduced that Spotify can be shedding an additional 200 individuals to restructure its struggling podcast enterprise.[5] The massive bang got here in December 2023 yr when Daniel Ek himself needed to announce {that a} additional 1,500 workers can be launched within the coming weeks. In complete, Spotify had lower round 2,300 jobs by 2023, representing a discount in its world workforce of round 23 per cent.[6]

Nonetheless, the job cuts have been only one measure to cut back prices. Spotify introduced in October that from 2024 it could solely distribute cash to these rights holders who have been capable of generate greater than 1,000 streams previously yr to cut back the executive effort concerned in distributing income shares to rights holders.[7] In a weblog submit, this measure is justified with the combat towards streaming fraud and so-called white noise (i.e. non-music equivalent to recordings of rain, thunderstorms and different pure sounds), however Spotify additionally calculates how a lot cash will be saved with this measure: “Right now, Spotify hosts effectively over 100 million tracks. Tens of hundreds of thousands of them have been streamed between 1 and 1,000 occasions over the previous yr and, on common, these tracks generated $0.03 monthly. As a result of labels and distributors require a minimal quantity to withdraw (often $2-$50 per withdrawal), and banks cost a price for the transaction (often $1-$20 per withdrawal), this cash usually doesn’t attain the uploaders. And these small funds are sometimes forgotten about. However in combination, these small disregarded funds have added as much as $40 million per yr, which may as an alternative improve the funds to artists who’re most depending on streaming income.”[8] Studying between the strains, it’s clear that Spotify is just not solely seeking to save on financial institution transaction prices, however that the payouts for a lot of rights holders are so microscopic that they don’t even attain them. In doing so, Spotify can be not directly responding to the recurring criticism that artists see little monetary profit from Spotify, a criticism voiced by some well-known stars within the media shortly after the Swedish streaming service’s launch.

Endnotes

[1] As well as additionally DAUs (Each day Energetic Customers) and WAUs (Weekly Energetic Customers) are in use as metrics.

[2] Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify is elevating its value within the US and 52 different markets. How a lot cash will that make the music trade?”, July 24, 2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

[3] PrivCo, “SPOTIFY’s Simply –Closed-12 months Financials Obtained”, October 5, 2012, accessed: 2024-08-18.

[4] Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify to slash over 500 jobs worldwide, as Daybreak Ostroff exits streaming platform”, January 23, 2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

[5] Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify cuts 200 jobs because it restructures its podcast division”, June 5, 2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

[6] Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify has laid off 2,300 workers this yr. That’s a shock – but additionally sort of inevitable”, December 4, 2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

[7] Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify is altering its royalty mannequin to crush streaming fraud and introduce a minimal cost threshold. Its plan? To shift $1 billion in payouts in direction of ‘working artists’ over the subsequent 5 years”, October 24, 2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

[8] Spotify blogpost, “Modernizing Our Royalty System to Drive an Further $1 Billion towards Rising and Skilled Artists”, November 21, 2023, accessed: 2024-08-18.

Lengthy Time No See Comedy Podcast Returns for Season 2

Lengthy Time No See Comedy Podcast Returns for Season 2

by | Mar 22, 2025 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News

Hear through: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Extra Platforms

With out additional ado, please take away your blindfolds, and prepare for Season 2 of the Lengthy Time No See podcast! In partnership with the Consequence Podcast Community and Los Angeles’ Gold-Diggers, the creators of the massively in style Lengthy Time No See Comedy showcase sequence are again with the podcast that places a pair of thriller comedians on the spot with a sequence of questions on their lives, careers, and opinions. Hearken to the trailer above, or watch it under.

Created by LTNS co-founders Wes Brumbaugh and Jack Fink, the Lengthy Time No See podcast’s distinctive format drops your favourite comics right into a scenario with no sight, no scripts, simply unfiltered, hilarious, and surprisingly insightful conversations. The friends might be outdated pals, full strangers, or simply somebody they’ve seen across the circuit. Regardless of the relationship, they’ll be requested about their ineffective skills, worst stand-up units, and the way enticing they’re with out utilizing a 1-to-10 scale.

What’s the worst fad they’ve been into? What job would they be horrible at? Dumbest factor somebody’s mentioned to them after a set? The place or whom would they hang-out in the event that they had been a ghost? As soon as the blindfolds are off, all the things’s on the desk!

Season 2’s friends embody Alec Flynn, Courtney Parchman, Joel Jimenez, Arijana Ramic, John Hastings, Maddi Mays, Eleanor Kerrigan, Max Meisel, Bruce Grey, Nicky Paris, and extra. The brand new season of Lengthy Time No See begins on March twenty eighth, with new episodes dropping each Friday.

Catch all of the side-splitting sit-downs by following Lengthy Time No See wherever you get your podcasts. Full video episodes will even be out there proper right here on Consequence and on the Gold-Diggers Media YouTube web page.

Lengthy Time No See: The Podcast is created in partnership with Gold-Diggers. Equal elements completely tuned bar, music venue, boutique lodge, and state-of-the-art recording advanced, Gold-Diggers is positioned in East Hollywood, California. The campus is particularly designed to be a house away from residence for artists, producers, writers, and music lovers from LA and around the globe. With that spirit, Gold-Diggers is stepping right into a inventive position by way of a manufacturing entity: Gold-Diggers Media.

Visitor Submit: Stuti Mehrotra: A Vital Evaluation of the Corn Merchandise Judgment: Overreliance on Phonetic Similarity and Monopolization inside Trademark Courses

Visitor Submit: Stuti Mehrotra: A Vital Evaluation of the Corn Merchandise Judgment: Overreliance on Phonetic Similarity and Monopolization inside Trademark Courses

by | Mar 15, 2025 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News


1. Introduction

The choice in Corn Merchandise Refining Co. v. Shangrila Meals Merchandise Ltd.[i] stays one of the crucial pivotal judgments within the discipline of trademark regulation. On this case, the Court docket discovered that the trademark “Gluvita,” registered by the defendant, was deceptively much like “Glucovita”  which is  a mark registered below class 30 named as Dextrose (d-glucose powder blended with nutritional vitamins), and will trigger deception or confusion below Sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Commerce Marks Act, 1940.[ii] The ruling emphasised on phonetic similarity, suggesting even minor resemblances might mislead shoppers. Whereas the judgment established a key precedent, it has positioned overreliance on phonetic similarity, risking monopolization inside trademark courses, which is unfavourable from a utilitarian perspective. This publish critiques the  resolution by inspecting the constraints of the “common intelligence” take a look at utilized by the Court docket and advocates for a extra balanced and versatile framework in trademark jurisprudence that higher displays shopper behaviour and market dynamics.

2. Critique of Phonetic Similarity as a Major Criterion in Trademark Infringement Instances

 Trademark infringement jurisprudence ceaselessly prioritizes phonetic similarity when figuring out the chance of confusion.[iii] Whereas phonetic resemblance undoubtedly performs a task in shopper notion, extreme reliance on this issue can distort the nuanced evaluation required for trademark disputes. The landmark case of Cadila Healthcare Restricted v. Cadila Prescription drugs Restricted exemplifies this problem, because the Delhi Excessive Court docket initially handled phonetic similarity as a decisive consider figuring out infringement. Nevertheless, this strategy was revised by the Supreme Court docket in 2001, which advocated a factorial technique moderately than an unique concentrate on phonetics. Consequently, critiquing Cadila utilizing Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla[iv] misinterprets the precedent, inadvertently counting on an outdated case to evaluate a newer authorized framework. This contradiction underscores the necessity for a extra exact understanding of how phonetic similarity ought to operate inside broader trademark evaluation.

Trademark regulation seeks to stop shopper confusion whereas safeguarding honest competitors. Given this goal, evaluating infringement solely primarily based on phonetic similarity disregards different very important parts that form model id. Visible look, market positioning, and branding methods are equally vital in distinguishing one trademark from one other. Fashionable jurisprudence acknowledges this necessity, as seen within the Supreme Court docket’s shift away from phonetic exclusivity in Cadila in the direction of a extra complete analysis.

For example, the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, [v] which was reviewed below WTO dispute settlement mechanisms, bolstered that model differentiation extends past phonetics.[vi] The Act mandated uniform packaging for tobacco merchandise, successfully eradicating visible parts of branding. This led to a WTO problem, whereby model house owners argued that the Act diluted their emblems by eliminating their distinctive visible points. The WTO’s evaluation acknowledged that emblems are multifaceted, encompassing visible, phonetic, and conceptual parts. This attitude helps the argument that phonetic similarity alone can’t function the first criterion for figuring out trademark infringement. [vii]

A crucial problem in counting on Cadila and Hoffmann-La Roche as guiding precedents for broader trademark disputes is the distinct regulatory setting surrounding pharmaceutical emblems. The chance of confusion commonplace for pharmaceutical merchandise differs considerably from that of normal shopper items. Public well being issues necessitate heightened scrutiny, as confusion between similar-sounding drug names might have extreme penalties. This elevated commonplace, acknowledged in Cadila, underscores that pharmaceutical trademark disputes shouldn’t be used as normal precedents for different industries the place shopper threat is decrease.

Conversely, the current case  pertains to non-pharmaceutical merchandise and follows a unique analytical framework. The juxtaposition of those instances raises a elementary query: ought to pharmaceutical trademark rulings affect broader trademark jurisprudence? Given the stricter threshold for confusion within the pharmaceutical sector, making use of comparable ideas to normal trademark disputes dangers conflating distinct authorized requirements. 

Additional, there are questions relating to the equity of the registry , that are raised since they fail  to conduct the essential major phonetic public search earlier than the acceptance of the marks which clearly showcases that comparable marks do exist, resembling glucose and glaxose-D(Annexure -A). In Insead v Full stack Training,[viii] the Court docket directed the registry to conduct each phrase mark and phonetic searches on the preliminary stage, the handbook clearly outlines {that a} phonetic search is a part of the examiner’s duties when assessing the relative grounds for refusal below the rule 33 of the emblems guidelines, this  showcased, how the act of the in poor health acts of registry frivolous litigations that merely delay the proceedings of the courtroom.

3. Monopolisation of 1 class

The impugned judgment of corn merchandise might permit corporations to assert unique rights over frequent or generic-sounding phrases, thereby successfully monopolizing language inside sure product classes.[ix] The Part 11(1) of the Commerce Marks Act[x], prohibits the registration of a mark that’s “an identical with or much like an earlier trademark,” however the Act supplies leeway if the coexistence of marks doesn’t trigger confusion amongst shoppers. Within the case of the Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk.,[xi] it was seen that similar-sounding emblems—’Nandhini’ and ‘Nandini’ have been allowed to coexist, if the emblems have been visually distinct and used for various merchandise; therein one was for milk and different for a series of the eating places, and thus there couldn’t exist a monopoly over one class.  Additional within the case of Vishnudas Buying and selling v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.,[xii] it was said that it’s typically seen that there’s trademark declare over a broad class; nonetheless if the merchandise are considerably completely different then it mustn’t monopolize all merchandise in that class.

The emblems, thus, now assist in the existence of a number of merchandise moderately than act as a barrier to entry.[xiii] By granting corporations unique rights over similar-sounding phrases, it helps in co-existence of a number of, significantly smaller or newer corporations that will not have the assets to create wholly unique or distinctive model names.

4. Revisiting the “Common Shopper” Customary

The notion of an “common shopper” with imperfect recollection is inherently flawed,[xiv]  because of its vagueness and lack of ability to mirror the large spectrum of shopper training, socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultural experiences. This assumption of a homogeneous shopper base overlooks the fact that people might have various ranges of understanding relating to merchandise like “Glucovita” that are dietary in nature and their opponents. Courts ought to chorus from presuming common confusion amongst shoppers when encountering similar-sounding emblems. A extra nuanced strategy is required, contemplating components such because the product’s class, value vary, and the accessibility of data via digital platforms. In right now’s technologically superior world, shoppers of common intelligence are more and more prone to cross-check product origins and model specifics utilizing the wealth of data available on-line, thereby minimizing the potential for confusion or deception.[xv] Customers buying a product like “Glucovita”typically related to well being, vitality dietary supplements, or wellness—are prone to be extra discerning and knowledgeable than the typical shopper in a normal market. These shoppers are likely to have a greater understanding of product composition, advantages, and model id, making them much less prone to confusion by similar-sounding emblems. They could additionally depend on product-specific analysis or suggestions, additional decreasing the chance of deception. Due to this fact, making use of a normal commonplace of “common intelligence” overlooks the nuanced buying behaviour in specialised markets like Glucovita’s.

5. The Want for Trademark Safety

The utilitarian idea in mental property regulation asserts that authorized protections ought to primarily serve to maximise societal welfare by fostering innovation and creativity whereas making certain that the advantages of those developments stay accessible to the general public. This philosophy is rooted within the precept of reaching “the best good for the best quantity.” Seen via this lens, the Corn Merchandise judgment raises considerations, because it dangers stifling competitors and innovation by granting unique rights over descriptive or generic phrases. [xvi] For example, permitting emblems like “Gluco” in Glucovita might monopolize generally used language, thereby proscribing different companies from successfully speaking important product attributes. Such monopolization might hinder market competitors and restrict shopper selection, contradicting the broader targets of trademark regulation, which goal to stability model safety with honest market practices. A extra nuanced strategy is important—one that forestalls unjustified monopolies whereas safeguarding the distinctiveness of real emblems. This stability would be sure that mental property legal guidelines encourage creativity with out impeding honest competitors or shopper entry to data.

Conclusion  

In conclusion, whereas the Corn Merchandise resolution clarifies trademark regulation, has  its flaws. The extreme concentrate on phonetic similarity, potential for monopolization, and shortcomings of the typical shopper take a look at underscore the necessity for a extra nuanced framework. Courts should embrace a holistic strategy that promotes competitors, innovation, and shopper welfare.

ANNEXURE- A

Finish Notes

[i]   Corn Merchandise Refining v. Shangrila Meals Merchandise Ltd, AIR 1960 SC 142.

[ii]  Misleading similarity in emblems with respect to medicinal merchandise has a threatening impact –  a quick overview. IIPRD. https://www.iiprd.com/deceptive-similarity-in-trade-marks-with-respect-to-medicinal-products-has-a-threatening-effect-a-brief-overview/

[iii] Commerce Marks Act, 1999 Part 2(1)(h).

[iv]F. Hoffmann-La Roche v Geoffrey Manners AIR 1970 SC 2062

[v] Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, § 20 (1), (2), (3) (Prohibition on Commerce Marks and Marks usually showing on retail packaging), Panel Report, paras 7.2723, 7.2764, 7.2794, 7.2867-7.2868.

[vi] Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd. v. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt Ltd, FAO (OS) 368 and 493/2014.

[vii] Barton Beebe, J. C. F. (2023, March 24). Are we working out of emblems? an empirical research of trademark depletion and congestion. Harvard Regulation Overview. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-131/are-we-running-out-of-trademarks/

[viii] Insead v Full stack Training. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2021, Order dt. Could 17, 2023.

[ix] Barooah, S. P., About The Writer      Swaraj Paul Barooah  ., Kaushal, T., Byadwal, Y., & SpicyIP. (2020, September 4). Visitor publish: Monopolizing generic phrases?. SpicyIP. https://spicyip.com/2014/01/guest-post-monopolizing-generic-terms.html

[x] Commerce Marks Act 1999, S.11(1).

[xi] Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 741.

[xii] Vishnudas Buying and selling v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2275.

[xiii] N, A. R. (2019, April 9). Comparable marks for dissimilar items in the identical class. SC IP. https://www.sc-ip.in/publish/similar-marks-for-dissimilar-goods-in-the-same-class

[xiv]Bharadwaj  Jaishankar  , Jaishankar, B., & Parashar, Okay. Who’s a mean shopper with imperfect recollection?. Who Is An Common Shopper With Imperfect Recollection? – Trademark – Mental Property – India. https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1156842/who-is-an-average-consumer-with-imperfect-recollection

[xv] The “common shopper take a look at” in an knowledgeable society. S.S. Rana & Co. (2024, June 14). https://ssrana.in/articles/the-average-consumer-test-in-an-informed-society/

[xvi] PAUL, RITU, Mental Property Rights: A Utilitarian Perspective (Could 9, 2021). Out there at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/summary=3842429 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3842429

About Writer: The Writer Stuti Mehrotra is a fourth-year BBA LL.B. (Hons.) scholar at O.P. Jindal International College, deeply focused on exploring the intersections of mental property and shopper rights via crucial authorized evaluation.

Picture supply: right here

Grasp- and Publishing Rights in Music Streaming – Music Enterprise Analysis

Grasp- and Publishing Rights in Music Streaming – Music Enterprise Analysis

by | Mar 8, 2025 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News


Music rights are the principle gasoline of the music streaming economic system. Music streaming providers want licences to make use of the rights with a view to launch and maintain their operations. As we’ve already seen within the case of Spotify, the most important rights holders – labels and music publishers – demand princely sums for licensing their music catalogues. This a part of the collection will study how the system of licensing music rights works.

The Music Streaming Economic system – Half 12: Grasp- and Publishing Rights in Music Streaming

Mainly, there are two sorts of rights that an on-demand music streaming service like Spotify has to license: (1) the rights to the music recording, also referred to as the grasp rights, that are held by the document corporations and (2) the copyrights to the musical work, that are both managed by the authors themselves or, as is often the case, are commercially exploited by the music publishers, also referred to as the publishing rights. Allow us to first have a look at the licensing of the grasp rights to the sound recordings. Because the streaming providers provide both a freemium mannequin with a paid and a free element, as within the case of Spotify, or as a pure subscription service with a month-to-month flat price, as within the case of Apple Music or Amazon Music, the licences can’t be calculated on the premise of a wholesale or retail worth, as is the case with sound recordings and music downloads, however moderately on the premise of income shares. As many streaming start-ups weren’t initially in a monetary place to satisfy the licensing calls for of the labels, a licensing deal consisted and nonetheless consists of no less than 5 parts:[1]

  1. Income share: The labels obtain 55-60 % of all revenues of a streaming service which can be attributable to their grasp catalogue.
  2. Minima ensures: A music streaming service should pay a contractually agreed mounted quantity to the label, no matter how a lot income a music streaming service generates.
  3. Upfront money advance: To be licensed by the labels, a streaming service should pay an advance, often within the thousands and thousands of US {dollars}, which is later recouped by future royalty funds.
  4. Fairness within the firm: So long as the music streaming providers had been within the start-up part, they had been typically unable to afford the advance funds. In return, the labels acquired shares within the firm, which could possibly be monetised by the labels within the occasion of a sale or IPO of the streaming service, as we’ve proven within the case of Spotify.
  5. Administration or know-how charges: These are funds to the labels to cowl the executive/technical prices of offering the music content material to the streaming providers.

Within the case of freemium fashions, the licence offers distinguish between the paid and the ad-supported free fashions. The royalties for the paid model are increased than for the ad-supported ones. In each circumstances, nevertheless, it’s mandatory for the streaming providers to report commonly (often on a month-to-month foundation) the utilization figures of the labels’ music catalogues. The next data have to be offered to the document corporations on a contractual foundation:[2]

  1. Whole variety of subscribers.
  2. Whole revenues after gross sales tax has been deducted.
  3. Whole variety of streams.
  4. Whole variety of streams from the label’s catalogue.
  5. Proportion of whole streams that got here from the label’s catalogue

The streaming providers use this data to calculate how the full income is distributed to every document firm in line with their repertoire share, also referred to as the professional rata mannequin. For instance, if streams from Common Music Group’s grasp catalogue account for 40 per cent of the full variety of streams, the most important will obtain the contractually agreed 55-60 per cent of 40 per cent of the streaming service’s whole income after VAT. If this quantity is lower than the minimal assure, the label will obtain the latter mounted quantity.

Missing the market energy of the majors, unbiased labels (indies) are unable to implement the majors’ beneficial offers or demand complete reporting from streaming providers. To offer the indies a stronger negotiating place vis-à-vis the digital music service suppliers (DSPs), influential indie labels based the digital rights administration company MERLIN in 2007,[3] which now represents tens of 1000’s of music labels in 70 international locations, overlaying round 15 per cent of the world’s recorded music repertoire,[4] and is subsequently in a position to negotiate equally advantageous offers with the streaming providers because the majors.

The licensing of publishing rights is way more difficult than that of grasp rights, as a result of licensing practices differ from nation to nation. Whereas within the US, collective and obligatory licensing of publishing rights to streaming providers is widespread observe, numerous types of licensing coexist in Europe. Specifically, the business publishers of the music majors have based joint ventures with giant accumulating societies that licence the Anglo-American repertoire on to the music streaming providers in Europe. There’s a three way partnership known as SOLAR Music Rights Administration between Sony Music Publishing the British PRS and the German GEMA, which represents Sony’s Anglo-American publishing catalogue throughout the EU.[5] There are related joint ventures between Common Publishing and the French SACEM (DEAL) and between Warner/Chappell and the British PRS (Pan European Digital Licensing – P.E.D.L.).[6] BMG Rights Administration additionally based a three way partnership with GEMA in 2012 – Anglo-American Rights European Service Company (ARESA)[7] – to licence Anglo-American publishing rights within the European Financial Space (EEA) in a one-stop store. The music writer Kobalt is now working its personal “accumulating society” following the termination of its co-operation with the Swedish accumulating society STIM after the acquisition of the American Mechanical Rights Company (AMRA).[8] Just like the indie labels, the indie music publishers have additionally arrange an company to licence their mechanical rights to the Anglo-American repertoire with the British PRS – Unbiased Music Publishers’ E-Licensing (IMPEL).[9] Lastly, the British PRS for Music, the German GEMA and the Swedish STIM have joined forces to type the Worldwide Copyright Enterprise (ICE)[10] to conclude multinational licence agreements with the DSPs in Europe for his or her repertoire.[11] All these collaborations between music publishers and accumulating societies contain the licensing of Anglo-American repertoire to DSPs. The nationwide European repertoire of the most important publishers continues to be licensed to the streaming providers working in every nation through the nationwide accumulating societies. That is additionally the case for these small music publishers that haven’t joined the IMPEL initiative. Within the case of streaming providers, this issues the licencing of copy rights, however above all of the making out there rights (on-line rights).[12]

A music streaming service that desires to supply a complete service in a European nation should signal licensing agreements with the most important accumulating companies SOLAR, DEAL, P.E.D.L., ARESA, AMRA and IMPEL, in addition to with the related nationwide accumulating societies. The direct agreements between the accumulating societies and the streaming providers are just like the grasp rights agreements of the labels. The streaming corporations should settle for a minimal assure in addition to upfront advances, however these are decrease than these paid to the labels. As well as, the streaming providers comply with pay 10-15 per cent of their revenues to the publishers, relying on their repertoire share. The rights administered by the accumulating societies on behalf of the publishers and authors are licenced in line with the accumulating society’s distribution scheme.[13]

The music streaming economic system subsequently rests on two pillars: (1) the licensing of the grasp rights to the sound recordings and (2) the licensing of the publishing rights, as proven in fig. 1.

Determine 1: The rights and licencing construction within the music streaming economic system

Supply: After Music Managers Discussion board (MMF 2015: 45).

As we’ve already seen, music streaming providers pay 70-75 per cent of their revenues to the rights holders (55-60 per cent to the labels and 10-15 per cent to the music publishers). This not solely places a pressure on the associated fee construction of the music streaming providers and calls into query the financial sustainability of the enterprise mannequin, as I’ve already analysed intimately utilizing the instance of Spotify, but in addition raises the query of distribution between the rights holders.

The distribution formulation of 55-60 per cent for the labels and 10-15 per cent for the music publishers relies on the logic of the CD period. The recording, manufacturing and distribution of a CD by a document firm entails way more effort than the manufacturing and distribution of sheet music and the conclusion of synch offers by music publishers. As well as, a music recording can ‘solely’ be commercially exploited by a label for 70 years (within the EU) and as much as 95 years (within the US) earlier than it enters the general public area, whereas publishing rights may be monopolised for as much as 70 years after the loss of life of the writer. Publishers additionally obtain royalties when one in all their works is carried out dwell after which re-recorded in one other type. The opportunity of repeated use of works over an extended interval at decrease manufacturing prices justifies the decrease income share from the labels’ standpoint. Nonetheless, the exploitation processes of labels and publishers have converged within the music streaming economic system, which would definitely justify the next income share for publishers. Finally, it’s a query of bargaining energy – additionally inside the music majors – whether or not the music publishers, and thus the authors, can enhance their financial place on the expense of the labels and the performers.[14]

One other side is the division between the copy proper and the efficiency proper. Within the case of grasp rights, the excellence between the 2 rights is tutorial as a result of they coincide within the music recording and are licensed collectively. Nevertheless, the state of affairs is totally different for publishing rights. Though the copy and efficiency rights of a musical work are licensed to streaming providers as a package deal within the EU, the royalties are distributed individually. For instance, the British PRS for Music pays 50 per cent of the earnings from the efficiency proper on to the authors and the opposite 50 per cent to the publishers, whereas 100 per cent of the earnings from the copy proper is paid to the publishers, who then distribute the royalties to the authors in accordance with the contract, which often accounts for lower than 50 per cent of the earnings. From this attitude, authors profit extra from the efficiency proper than from the copy proper. The issue is that copyright regulation in most international locations doesn’t outline whether or not streaming music must be thought-about a copy or a efficiency. Nevertheless, there’s a tendency to view streaming music as a efficiency, which has led to a cut up of 75 per cent for authors and 25 per cent for publishers. For downloads, then again, which usually tend to be seen as reproductions, the cut up is strictly the alternative. It’s subsequently once more a matter of bargaining energy which distribution guidelines are utilized.[15]

Endnotes

[1] See Music Managers Discussion board (MMF), 2015, Dissecting the Digital Greenback, half 1. How streaming providers are licensed and the challenges artists now face. Ashford: Hartley Brothers, pp 42-43.

[2] Ibid., p 43.

[3] MERLIN was based in Januar 2007 by Alison Wenham of the Worldwide Unbiased Community (WIN) and indie label homeowners Michel Lambot ([PIAS]), Tom Silverman (Tommy Boy) and Martin Mills (Beggars Group) on the MIDEM in Cannes. MERLIN’s first CEO was Charles Caldas. See: The Guardian, “Indie music labels be part of collectively to seize a slice of on-line revenues”, January 22, 2007, accessed: 2024-09-01.

[4] MERLIN, https://merlinnetwork.org/de/, accessed: 2024-09-01.

[5] SOLAR, https://www.celas.eu/, accessed: 2024-09-01.

[6] Warner Music Group press launch, “Warner/Chappell Music Launches Its Pan-European Digital Licensing (P.E.D.L.) Initiative”, June 2, 2006, accessed: 2024-09-01.

[7] ARESA, https://www.aresa-music.com/, accessed: 2024-09-01.

[8] New York Occasions, “Going to the Ends of the Earth to Get the Most Out of Music”, June 8, 2015, accessed: 2024-09-01.

[9] IMPEL, https://www.impel-music.com/ accessed: 2024-09-01.

[10] ICE, https://www.iceservices.com/, accessed: 2024-09-01.

[11] In regards to the music licensing companies of the most important music publishers see Music Managers Discussion board (MMF), 2015, Dissecting the Digital Greenback, half 1. How streaming providers are licensed and the challenges artists now face. Ashford: Hartley Brothers, pp 44-46.

[12] Ibid., p 44.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., pp 52-54.

[15] Ibid., p 55.

The Story of the “Jesus Is a Pal of Mine” Video: Podcast

The Story of the “Jesus Is a Pal of Mine” Video: Podcast

by | Mar 1, 2025 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News

Hear by way of: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Extra Platforms

In 2008, when the “Jesus Is a Pal of Mine” video blew up on YouTube, it appeared virtually too good to be true. An early ’80s Christian ska video from public entry tv? Was this even actual? The video is hilariously of its time, the lyrics are spiritual but additionally type of foolish, and the ska music at its core — extremely — is definitely good! On this episode of In Protection of Ska, the gang will get into the true story of the ska-tastic piece of web historical past. Hear above, or wherever you get your podcasts.

First off, the video could be very a lot actual. It was penned by Sonseed, a catholic band from New York that fashioned within the ’70s and broke up within the early ’80s. Shortly earlier than breaking apart, they appeared on a small tv present in New York known as The First Property. Then, 25 years after the music was recorded, it unexpectedly went viral.

To inform the story of the video and clarify its context inside ska and web tradition, the In Protection hosts discuss to 4 individuals: Sal Polichetti (bassist of Sonseed and author of the music), Paul Williams (chief of the British ska band The Skapones), Jamie Loftus (web tradition skilled and host of 16 Minutes), and Doug Prinzivalli (proprietor of Dougsploitation, the location that launched the net to the video in 2008).

So, sit again and take heed to the story of the best viral video to ever graze the web above, and what the heck, watch “Jesus Is a Pal of Mine” under.

Ensure that to love, evaluation, and comply with the sequence wherever you get your podcast. Don’t neglect to take a look at all of the Consequence Podcast Community sequence right here. Moreover, you’ll be able to help the In Protection host Aaron Carnes by buying a duplicate the brand new expanded, 2nd version of his guide, In Protection of Ska. In the meantime, Davis’ Omnigone launched their newest report, Feral, final yr.