PNB Meeting - Jan 2007 - Executive Director Report

LICENSING AND DISTRIBUTION

It is essential, as soon as possible, for Pacifica to address the issue of rights and licensing in a way that respects the work of volunteer programmers and protects current revenue sources, while allowing Pacifica to distribute content using innovative strategies based on reciprocal relationships and shared rights. In September, I recommended that Pacifica assess the potential of an open licensing system to expand the network’s audience and increase revenue. In addition, I suggested the design and implementation of a voluntary “open source” archive of future programming with agreements (licenses) that encourage people to share, allow listeners and others to aggregate content for non-commercial distribution, and create contractual relationships providing income for both creators and the network.

Addressing this issue, a new task force began to meet in November, thanks largely to the efforts of Rob Robinson and Dave Adelson. Many good questions have been asked, a model license is being reviewed, and Pacifica has begun to move this issue from theory to a plan of action. Here are some comments I forwarded to the group:

I believe that the Pacifica Foundation should recognize that unpaid producers hold the copyright to their work. However, I also think that these copyright holders should grant Pacifica the right to broadcast their material, to archive their content, and to distribute it via any platforms that we use. In essence, this means signing at least the non-commercial portion of a license.

 Pacifica should also be able to distribute content to its affiliates without charge. If a producer doesn’t want to sign such an agreement, this may create a problem for our distribution to affiliate stations down the line, since they will also to want to distribute content digitally. 

For programming produced by Pacifica staff, it can be argued that the organization holds the copyright and can use any license it wishes. However, if a paid producer effectively markets a program, they could get a percent of revenues. This would provide an incentive to improve our marketing without necessarily increasing our costs.

 For unpaid producers, the commercial use issues include:

• If Pacifica uses a program as part of a package of programming marketed to others (e.g. satellite radio), the programmers should receive a share of the revenue.
• If Pacifica markets programs individually to other distributors, unpaid producers should get most of the proceeds and have some rights in any negotiations.
• Unpaid producer should be free to market their program. If the proceeds are small – below an agreed threshold – they should keep the money. If the proceeds are substantial -- as could be the case in a few instances -- Pacifica should receive a small percent. The rationale is that Pacifica helped develop the audience.
• We should be willing to enter into tailored arrangements with particular producers when necessary. 

In short, I think that we should agree that unpaid producers hold copyrights to their content, but ask that in the future they assign non-exclusive distribution rights to Pacifica through an open source style license. In doing this, we need to be sure that our producers have the right to use their content; in other words, that we have speaker and talent releases whenever possible. If we don’t get these signed as often as possible, we don't know whether we have the right to distribute all the content.

To clarify a bit more, I recommend using a form of the creative commons hybrid license so content can be distributed non-commercially if volunteer programmers wish. This can be Pacifica’s and the producer's contribution to civic media, a contribution with the potential to bring donations back to Pacifica from a new generation in the years ahead. The idea is to let content spread under its own power on a noncommercial basis. The Internet can provide bandwidth for whatever content is licensed.