On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Counseling Clients in the Entertainment Industry 2017 - Sound Recordings; Music Publishing

Released on: Mar. 15, 2017
Running Time: 06:11:57

Experienced entertainment attorneys and business executives will discuss legal, financial, business, and ethical issues in the practice of entertainment law, with a focus on new methods of delivery.

The first session will be geared toward a basic understanding of an artist-record company agreement with a mock negotiation as the format, and will address current issues and trends in the record industry including digital distribution of sound recordings. The next session will provide a basic understanding of music publishing terms and concepts, and will include a mock negotiation of an exclusive songwriter and co-publishing agreement.  Both panels will discuss the practical impact and legal implications of the digital delivery of music.

Special Features:

  • Network at the cocktail reception on the evening of Day 1, sponsored by SESAC
  • Earn one hour of Ethics credit (evening of Day 1)

Credit Offered:

CLE and CPD

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:11:57]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Introduction* [00:00:49]
    Kenneth M. Kaufman, Linda A. Newmark
  • Sound Recordings [03:10:08]
    Nicholas C. Ferrara, Julie Swidler
  • Music Publishing [03:00:59]
    Kenneth J. Abdo, Linda A. Newmark, Michael Abitbol, Madhavi Tandon Batliboi

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Introduction & Overview of Entertainment Law Issues
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Television, Video & User-Generated Content Part I
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Television, Video & User-Generated Content, Part II
    Vernon G. Chu
  • Television, Video & User-Generated Content, Part III
    Lisa A. Williams-Fauntroy
  • Television, Video & User-Generated Content, Part V
    Julie Wolf
  • Articles from Manatt Digital Newsletter (November 22, 2016)
    T. Hale Boggs
  • Theater: Acquisition of Rights, Financing and New Developments
    S. Jean Ward, Patricia Crown
  • A 2017 Update: What Every Entertainment Lawyer Needs to Know—How to Avoid Being the Target of a Legal Malpractice Claim or Disciplinary Action
    Jack P. Sahl
  • Game and App Development Deals from 36,000 feet: The Broad View
    Jim Charne
  • Sound Recordings
    Julie Swidler
  • Music Publishing
    Linda A. Newmark
  • “Music Publishing,” Ch. 2 in Entertainment Law, 4th ed. (Howard Siegel ed., New York State Bar Association 2013)
    Michael J. Perlstein
  • Section 115 Mechanical Reproduction Royalty Calculations
    Stephen J. Dallas
  • Publicity Rights and the First Amendment: Balancing Athletes and Other Celebrity Interests
    Lateef Mtima
  • Copyright Fair Use, Excerpted from Chapter 4 (Copyright Protection in Cyberspace) of E-Commerce and Internet Law
    Ian C. Ballon
  • DMCA Safe Harbors: An Analysis of the Statute and Case Law, Excerpted from Chapter 4 (Copyright Protection in Cyberspace) of E-Commerce and Internet Law
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Data Privacy Class Action Litigation, Excerpted from Chapter 26 (Data Privacy) of E-Commerce and Internet Law
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Security-Breach Class Action Litigation, Excerpted from Chapter 27 (Internet, Network and Data Security) of E-Commerce and Internet Law
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Secondary Trademark Infringement in Internet, Media and Mobile Cases, Excerpted from Chapter 6 (Trademark, Service Mark, Trade Name and Trade Dress Protection in Cyberspace) of E-Commerce and Internet Law
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Film: Key Legal Issues in the Development, Financing, Production & Distribution of Theatrical Motion Pictures
    Joseph J. Dapello
  • Outline—Production
    Emerson E. Bruns
  • Counseling Clients in the Entertainment Industry 2017—Discussion Outline
    Kirk T. Schroder
  • Film Financing Agreement
    Kirk T. Schroder
  • Sample Confidential Private Placement Memorandum
    Kirk T. Schroder
  • Outline 2017
    Alison Cohen
  • International Distribution License Agreement
    Alison Cohen
  • Form Sales Agency Agreement 2017
    Alison Cohen
  • Publishing Agreement, Simon & Schuster, Inc.
    John Schline, Gail Ross

Presentation Material


  • COUNSELING CLIENTS IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY: SOUND RECORDINGS
    Nicholas C. Ferrara, Julie Swidler
  • Music Publishing
    Kenneth J. Abdo, Michael Abitbol, Madhavi Tandon Batliboi, Linda A. Newmark
  • Royalty Rates for the Use of Musical Works in Services Providing Interactive Streaming and Limited Downloads
    Michael Abitbol
Co-Chair(s)
Kenneth M. Kaufman ~ Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Linda A. Newmark ~ Executive Vice President - Head of Acquisitions & Strategic Projects, Universal Music Publishing Group
Speaker(s)
Kenneth J. Abdo ~ Fox Rothschild, LLP
Michael Abitbol ~ Sony Corp Of America
Madhavi Tandon Batliboi ~ Commercial Counsel, Google, Inc.
Nicholas C. Ferrara ~ Nicholas C. Ferrara & Associates, PLLC
Julie Swidler ~ Executive Vice President, Business Affairs & General Counsel, Sony Music Entertainment
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.