Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

What did your look like this year? As music streaming services grow in popularity, more people have included them as part of their daily lives. On November 29th, The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) released its of its market study into music and music streaming. According to the report, streaming services are the primary method of music distribution for labels and artists, with 39 million active users and over 138 billion streams in the UK in 2021. Moreover, competition between music streaming services and the digitization of the market improved consumer outcomes greatly, though creators still had concerns about their earnings from streaming.

Falling subscription fees, benefits for emerging artists

Music streaming services have evolved to significantly benefit consumers in today's market. These services offer consumers access to an enormous catalogue of music, better audio quality, and new features, without the price tag. In fact, the report reveals that the price of music streaming plans dropped more than 20% between 2009 and 2021 because they did not keep up with inflation.

The music streaming market is also showing some positive results for creators, especially new artists. First, virtually anyone can share their music. Although the market is highly competitive, it has never been easier to create and record music and share it on streaming services. Secondly, deal options for creators are improving. Although creators do not necessarily need a label to share their music on streaming services, many of them are finding that they have more options in what type of deal they would prefer (for example, DIY distribution, A&L services, traditional record deals). Moreover, artists find that having an existing prominent following online helps them while negotiating a record deal. Major contracts with new artists for multi-track deals revealed more favourable terms for creators — an increase in average gross royalty rates, shorter minimum commitment periods and a reduction in the proportion of recordings owned by labels.

Average UK artist yearly streaming earnings from majors and average UK royalty rates. Source: CMA analysis of data from the majors.

Challenges call for broader policy debate, not competition intervention

Digitization has also presented some challenges. Market digitization has primarily limited competition to already popular artists — although streaming services offer a wide selection of music, consumer tastes tend to favour a small number of successful artists. Moreover, streaming allows both new and old music to reach new audiences, increasing competition as new music competes with older music for a share of streaming revenue.

Ultimately, the report concludes that these outcomes are not primarily caused by market competition and therefore, a competition intervention probably would not increase revenues for artists. Rather, the report calls for a broader policy debate, encouraging the government to consider further legislative and policy reforms for creator compensation in collaboration with DCMS Select Committee recommendations.

Labels are urged to provide more transparency to their artists about how streaming service earnings are calculated and how existing deals with streaming services will impact their current and future earnings. In addition, government and policymakers should examine options available to incentivize songwriting, such as determining a fair split between publishing and recording shares and exploring the licensing rates for music streaming. Future conversations revolving around these issues are critical, as the sustainability of the music streaming market depends on consumers and creators alike.

The post CMA Releases Report on Music Streaming Market appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

This past summer, Amazon made headlines when it announced an update that would make Alexa capable of , just after hearing under a minute of audio. While people are still unsure as to whether this is heartwarming or just plain creepy, AI continues to evolve, with recent developments showing its ability to not only mimic human speech but also singing.

AI-based audio technologies have been making waves worldwide. Last month, Google announced “”, which proposes “a new framework for audio generation that learns to generate realistic speech and piano music by listening to audio only”. More recently, , China’s leading music entertainment platform, demonstrated the influence of AI in music. According to Music Business Worldwide, the company has released over - one of the tracks surpassing 100 M streams. TME utilized a “patented voice synthesis technology” called “Lingyin Engine”, which the company claims can “quickly and vividly replicate singers’ voices to produce original songs of any style and language.” South Korea has been a strong player, with its most prominent AI-based audio start-up, . The company claims that its voice synthesis and real-time voice enhancement technology can create a hyper-realistic voice that is indistinguishable from real humans.

So far, these AI voice technologies have largely been publicized as an innovative way of and preserving the memories of lost loved ones. Nevertheless, companies will likely aggressively pursue these technologies for profit. In fact, according to NME, (record label of globally recognized boy band, BTS), which equates to about $44.6 million Canadian Dollars. last month, HYBE’s CEO confirmed that the company plans to “unveil new content and services to [its] fans by combining our content-creation capabilities with Supertone’s AI-based speaking and singing vocal synthesis technology.”

HYBE’s huge investment in Supertone starts to make a little more sense once we discover that the company’s “” in Q3 2022 was its Artist ‘Indirect-involvement’ revenues. BTS’s success suggests how more entertainment companies will follow HYBE’s footsteps to increase profits without the headache of coordinating any physical appearances of its artists.

The development of voice AI opens a plethora of legal questions to consider. These issues were highlighted more recently by the recent - who is given permission to use it and does the artist hold any rights to license their voice to third parties for use in other films? More specifically for , how do we determine who owns the copyright to the work? Does it make sense to look at the creators of the voice AI technologies themselves or at the source of the vocal data (the artist)? These questions clarify that the development of voice AI places our artists in a very vulnerable position — suggesting a much-needed intermission for this chaotic programme.

The post The Show Must Go On - AI Developments in Music appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Anita Gogia is a IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear combined their talent with their love for the Netflix Original, Bridgerton, to create the 15-song “Unofficial Bridgerton Musical” album. Barlow and Bear went on to become viral sensations on social media and (2022 Best Musical Theatre Album) for their production.

On July 29^th 2022, Netflix the TikTok stars Barlow and Bear in the U.S. District Court in D.C. alleging in violation of 17 and . Netflix Barlow and Bear have benefited from their album’s false association with the Bridgerton brand. Netflix also the position that Barlow and Bear “” the elements of expression, dialogue, characters, and key plot points from Bridgerton.

Allegedly, in March 2021, when Barlow and Bear’s team asked Netflix for permission to record their album, Netflix the activity but said they wouldn’t “”. Per their , Netflix told Barlow and Bear that they would not authorize any live performances of the songs. Despite Netflix’s statements, in July 2022, Barlow and Bear held a sold-out show in New 91��ɫ with ticket prices ranging from $29-$149+. When hearing of the future live shows Barlow and Bear had planned, Netflix that would permit their shows, continued distribution of the album, and any further performances of the Bridgerton-inspired songs; but Barlow and Bear refused the licensing option.

Perhaps more important for Netflix is the promotion and success of their event “Queen’s Ball,” a Bridgerton held across multiple cities. Barlow and Bear’s live show would likely compete with the profits of the “Queen’s Ball.”

Barlow and Bear hold the position that their work is not liable for IP infringement because it is inherently “fan fiction.” Netflix has that “Barlow & Bear’s conduct began on social media, but stretches ‘fan fiction’ well past its breaking point.” Jane Quinn, author of the books of which Bridgerton is based has a difference between flattery through composing songs on TikTok and performing an album for commercial gain.

Barlow and Bear may use the “fan fiction” defence to claim their work is not an infringement based on fair use by proving the elements of fair use: the art is to the original show. Additionally, fan fiction must be for the creator. considered for establishing fair use are the purpose of the work created, nature of the work copied, measure of the material copied, and the impact on the market.

Ironically enough, if this case was filed in Bridgerton home territory, the UK, Barlow and Bear may attempt to use the defence of parody and pastiche. Netflix would likely win their case had it went to court based on ��a very similar case earlier this . ��In the of v. Only Fools The Dining Experience, the court ruled in favour of the creators of the original show because the nature of the “dining experience” was not so removed from the original show “” with it. Similar to Netflix, Shazam had their own musical for which sales could have been diverted by their audience choosing the dining experience instead. The court also found that that the defences of parody and/or pastiche did not apply.

TikTok has proven since the pandemic its unique power to make music, books, and tv/film over-night sensations. The Netflix v. Barlow and Bear case illustrates that companies may have to navigate between having its work become a positive viral sensation ��while still protecting their business interests and the content that its ��team has worked so hard to create.

The post Bridgerton Helps Navigate The Limits Of The Fan Fiction Defence In Intellectual Property appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The reported on August 7, 2022 that Innovation Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne and Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez are working on reforming the to include an artist resale right (ARR) within the scope of the act’s protections. First enacted in France in 1920, ARRs have now been adopted by in the world, including India, the United Kingdom, the Philippines and Australia. To understand why ARRs may come into force, it is important to assess the various arguments in support of and against this legislation.

ARRs formed part of the Liberal Party’s in 2021, but have been central to artist rights advocacy for according to – the Canadian Artists Representation / Le Front des artistes canadiens – a non-profit organization of professional visual artists. Under current Canadian law, artists such as sculptors and painters receive no profits from their works’ resale. One commonly cited example is the late Inuit artist Kenojuak Ashevak’s print titled . Hailing from Kinnigait (formerly Cape Dorset), Nunavut, Ashevak originally sold her print for in 1960. In November of 2018, a limited-edition Enchanted Owl print sold for $216,000 at Waddington's Auctioneers and Appraisals Toronto: nine thousand times the original price and breaking the record for the most expensive Canadian artist print ever sold via auction.

If ARRs existed in Canada, Ashevak’s estate would have received $10,800 for the sale of Enchanted Owl. CARFAC has been advocating for to be granted to the original artist or their estate, pointing to the fact that half of Canada’s visual artists earn less than $18,000 per year. In its , CARFAC also highlighted the reality that many artists living in isolated northern communities live in impoverished conditions, while their work dramatically appreciates in value. In , Rankin Inlet-based artist Theresie Tungilik noted that “[the] artist's resale right will have a positive financial impact as 10% of Canada’s export is Inuit art.”

The rise of NFTs and blockchain technology – despite providing an – has also provided opportunities for artists to be compensated for the appreciation of their works. The embedding of “smart contracts” in NFT sales allows for the Exercising control of downstream purchaser actions for traditional or non-digital artistic mediums is more complicated. Outside of , which protect the original artist’s right to be associated with the work without modification or destruction, agreements of purchase and sale generally enable the purchaser to do whatever they see fit with the work.

While organizations like CARFAC, (Society for Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) and (Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec) are staunch supporters of the artist resale right in Canada, other groups remain hesitant. Both the Contemporary Art Galleries Association (AGAC) and Art Dealers Association of Canada (ADAC) are , arguing that ARR collections would be a bureaucratic burden for small galleries, as well as raise the price of art and reduce sales. Interestingly, a study done in the UK by WIPO entitled “” demonstrated that the resale right had no negative impact of the price of artworks or the competitiveness of markets. The study also found that the market continued to grow after the implementation of the resale right in 2006.

Not all Canadian galleries oppose ARRs. Jay Isaac, an artist himself who runs the Peter Estey Fine Art auction house in New Brunswick, has to . Isaac told Canadian Art that “as a small, artist-run business I have to say the idea of a policy is great, and the idea of a resale right becoming law is great—but sometimes I think that [lack of law] is used as an excuse not to move forward. People with money and power should really be doing this anyway.” Although no specific amendments have been presented yet, it will be interesting to see how the conversation regarding ARRs continues to develop in Canada. Most importantly, ARR discussions provide an opportunity to consider how to best support our diverse artists and creatives.

Further Reading:

Michelle Mao’s IPilogue on ARRs and NFT loopholes

�����䴡��’s to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology as part of the statutory review of the Copyright Act

WIPO Magazine, “” by Catherine Jewell

Inuit Art Foundation’s

The post Canadian Perspectives on Artist Resale Rights appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an IPilogue Writer and an incoming 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Imagine you are a new artist, who sells your art for $500 dollars, which is enough to cover the cost of supplies and your time spent on the piece. Then you find out ten years later that your original piece was resold for over $50,000 dollars while you are destitute. This situation is why artists around the world advocate for .

An Artist Resale Right (ARR) allows the artist or the artist’s estate to profit or financially benefit from the sale of the artist’s work in secondary markets after the original sale. Artists and advocates consider this right as a part of the wage artists should receive for their profession and livelihood. As of May 2022, Canada does not have a policy towards ARR in place.

Supporters have several arguments in favour of implementing ARR in Canada. First, artists as a group are more vulnerable to financial instability or more likely to take on additional jobs to achieve financial stability. ARR can provide a that can help artists improve their financial stability. Second, other artistic professionals, such as and writers, already have systems in place to continuously profit from the downstream payments made in relation to their original work.

Those opposing resale rights raise concerns regarding the possible on art sellers, and art resellers may not feel properly compensated for the risk they incur when collecting pieces for galleries and resale. regarding compliance with proper payment and the lack of global ARR standardization can complicate many logistics.

While the law of ARR is no longer a novel idea in the legal world, the importance of protections for an artist’s fair share of profits is ever-increasing as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) become mainstream. Currently, the specific wording creates for NFT transactions to forego payment to the original artist. This is because NFTs are a “one-time copy” of original art, and thus resale of the NFT does not activate ARR entitlements, which only apply to the original work.

Overall, profits made from the sale (and resale) of art must be balanced between artists, art professionals, art curators, auction houses, etc. sWith the value of artworks having the potential to increase so exponentially over time, it may be proportional for artists to make a percentage of resale revenue. The secondary income would acknowledge the artist’s mastery and skill, while properly compensating them for the value of the art that they created. Now, as NFTs become increasingly tied to , future artist compensation is increasingly important. Future ARR advocacy should consider how ARR can and should be adapted to not only address logistical complexities but also NFT loopholes.

The post Should Artists Make Money Off Future Sales of their Work? An Argument For and Against appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Anita Gogia is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The by Judge Rakoff for a motion to dismiss in the case of clarified the applicability of and the on NFTs containing trademarks for artistic expression. ��This case has significance in the application of our current understanding of trademark infringement in the metaverse.

Suggested reading: The March 2, 2022 article titled written by Jasmine Yu was posted on IPilogue and covers the early developments and key legal issues of this case.

Background

In brief, on January 14^th, 2022, Hermès filed a complaint against Rothschild for his use of Birkin bag trademarks in his NFTs. This case differed from other counterfeit trademark infringement cases because Rothschild’s work (100 NFTs of various Birkin bags) has no physical form. Hermès these “MetaBirkins” diluted their trademarks and goodwill contrary to s. 43(a) of the and are commercialized similarly to their valuable real-life products.

The Arguments

On February 9^th 2022, Rothschild submitted a motion to dismiss. On March 21, 2022, Rothschild , where he argued that ��his MetaBirkin commented “on the animal cruelty inherent in Hermès’ manufacture of its ultra-expensive leather handbags, and that the MetaBirkin is speech, art, and expression protected by the First Amendment. Harvard Law School Professor Rebecca Tushnet, representing Rothschild, .

the Rogers test from a 1989 2^nd Circuit ruling— those using trademarks for artistic expression which doesn’t explicitly mislead consumers are protected from infringement claims. The bar is high, and a slight risk that the use of a trademark suggests endorsement or sponsorship is “outweighed by the danger of restricting artistic expression”. Tushnet has also stated that anything but a dismissal of the case may have a on artists.

On the other hand, that Rogers does not apply because Rothschild’s actions of setting up an online store and the marketing materials support a goal of selling a digital good. To this, Tushnet that artists are protected in marketing their work to make a profit. Hermès also argues that in which he said that there wasn’t “much difference” between having the crazy handbag or “now” bringing that into the metaverse illustrates that the MetaBirkin NFTs are a commodity. that the court should apply the Polaroid factors to evaluate whether the use of the trademarks confuse the public.

The Decision

In May, Judge Rakoff Rothschild’s motion to dismiss, releasing detailed for his decision on May 18^th, 2022. that the Rogers test applies in this case because the MetaBirkin NFTs “could constitute a form of artistic expression”. Using the NFTs . .However, the motion was ultimately denied because the Court held that the MetaBirkin does not satisfy the Rogers test at this stage as Rothschild intended to associate the NFTs with the goodwill of their Birkin marks. that Hermès made sufficient allegations of “explicit misleadingness” and so denies the motion to dismiss. Rothschild’s argument that the court should not follow the Polaroid likelihood-of-confusion factors in assessing whether MetaBirkin explicitly misleads per Rogers.

It is notable that Judge Rakoff was influenced by Rothschild’s marketing efforts and commercial actions — this casted doubt as to whether the NFTs were meant only for artistic expression and not as commercial goods.

Although freedom of artistic expression varies globally, the inherent idea that art is interpretative and holds meaning beyond a superficial level is arguably a universal truth. The metaverse allows artists to explore a new source of income, undoubtedly increasing the volume and popularity of NFTs and other virtual commodities. Such a cultural movement illustrates the significance of this case; and while it originates in the US Southern District of New 91��ɫ, the importance transcends borders. This decision has important implications as to how courts may interpret metaverse-related trademark infringement claims moving forward.

The post What’s New in the Metaverse? The Line Between Artistic Expression and Commercial Goods May Soon Exist! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by C D-X ( )

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

On February 4, the to HitPiece.com’s lawyer and its founders, demanding that it stops infringing music creators’ intellectual property rights.

HitPiece.com was generating controversy prior to the demand letter, with several users calling it a scam NFT site. (“NFTs") are one-of-a-kind tokens stored on blockchain that can be sold and traded. As NFTs have gained popularity, . These sites use strategies like the and to drain cyptocurrency from fans’ wallets. Several musicians have over their songs being auctioned as NFTs without their knowledge, resulting in the site’s response on :

“Clearly we have struck a nerve and are very eager to create the ideal experience for music fans. To be clear, artists get paid when digital goods are sold on HitPiece. Like all beta products, we are continuing to listen to all user feedback and are committed to evolving the product to fit the needs of the artists, labels, and fans alike.” (also pictured below)

Tweet by @joinhitpiece, available at: .

The site is now offline, but the RIAA made it clear that this will not “absolve [HitPiece.com] of liability for their prior conduct.” The letter, which describes the site’s actions as “outright theft” and “outrageous as it is brazen,” further demands that HitPiece.com “provide[s] a complete listing of site activities and revenues to date, and account for all NFTs and artwork auctioned off.”

Music NFTs Create New Possibilities for Artists

Music NFTs come in various forms, including but not limited to audio files, concert tickets, and merchandise. In addition, music NFT marketplaces, , enable musical works to be and monetized, giving fans unique ownership over music.

The traditional music industry has long experienced issues with artists not receiving their deserved share of revenue from their music, which is split between various people including record labels and producers. Moreover, with music consumption shifting primarily to digital via streaming sites during the pandemic, artists were found to be —that is 250 streams to earn a dollar. NFTs offer a potential solution to this longstanding problem.��By cutting out the streaming platforms and selling directly to fans, NFTs allow artists to receive most of the revenue from their work.

A is particularly beneficial to new artists since it helps them mint their first NFTs and establish a consistent demand for their works. Through the platform, musicians can raise the amount of money they would have received as an advance from a major label. Additionally, famous artists like Snoop Dogg have used NFTs to improve their relationship with fans and explore new to engage with them.

Concerns Regarding Music NFTs

Despite the upsides, , especially as they continue to grapple with issues of unauthorized use. Within a week of the HitPiece controversy, users exposed offering artists’ music on its site without their permission.

In many cases, works being turned into NFTs already exist in other forms, so individuals should be careful when making use of these works as an NFT and consider . Whenever dealing with third parties that own or control works, individuals must ensure that the third party has provided the rights necessary for the work to be included in an NFT.

Looking Forward

NFTs could enable the creation of valuable works in the music industry and provide artists with the opportunity to interact and engage with their audience in novel ways. However, scam NFT sites like HitPiece.com show how easily copyright infringement can occur, turning some of the primary advantages of music NFTs on their head. Therefore, respective trade organizations ought to respond to scams with a speed that matches that of the growing NFT market. As we continue to traverse through the early world of NFTs, riddled with unanswered questions, users and creators must continue to keep relevant legal considerations in mind.

The post HitPiece Infringes Music Creators’ IP Rights: The Impact of NFTs in the Music Industry appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Tetyana Yablonska, (1967)

Claire Wortsman is an IPilogue Senior Editor and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On International Women’s Day in Odessa, Ukraine, soldiers friends and family flowers despite the fear of an imminent Russian attack. Soldier Dmitriy pink and yellow tulips for female soldiers, while flower vendor Alena tied a bouquet of blue and yellow tulips in honour of the Ukrainian colours. Flowers hold a special place in Ukrainian cultural heritage, which now faces of destruction.

On March 1, invading Russian forces shelled (Babyn Yar)—a Nazi killing ground where thousands of Jews, Romani people, psychiatric patients, and war prisoners were massacred. The shelling killed at five people, and injured another five. While the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center was not directly , the center had plans to expand to a nearby building that suffered damage in the bombing.

In the wake of destruction and killing at the symbolic site, President Zelenskyy , “[the Russian invaders] all have orders to erase our history, erase our country, erase us all.” It is important to understand and Ukrainian history and culture more than ever. Every day, especially during , it is also essential to understand and celebrate women’s contributions to the foundations of history and culture.

Flowers and Female Ukrainian Artists

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has recognized the decorative painting as a valuable part of humanity’s intangible cultural heritage. Petrykivka is named for Petrykivka village, where the Ukrainian Zaporizhian Cossack practice of decorating living quarters and belongings with fantastic flowers and natural elements was preserved despite the brutal Soviet regime. A local non-governmental organization, Agency for Regional Development of Dnipropetrovsk Region, the Petrykivka trademark.

Believed to protect the wearer from sorrow and evil, flower ornaments in the Petrykivka style were applied by women . Tetiana Pata, Nadia Bilokin, Paraska Pavlenko, Iryna Pylypenko, and Pelaheia Hlushchenko are known as the of the transformative period of Petrykivka art where local artists integrated the style to their traditional mediums following its re-discovery. The many talented Ukrainian female artists that have emerged throughout history have carved out their unique styles. Still, many have integrated uniquely Ukrainian elements of Petrykivka into their work, whether in the form of vibrant flora or fantastical fauna.

Petrykivka can transform everyday objects into art. During summers spent with her great-grandmother in Poltava, a Ukrainian village north of Petrykivka, Victoria dishes, vases, and kettles adorned with clusters of red guelder rose berries and orange flowers. Like Petrykivka artists, Odessa-born does not restrict herself to canvass. She is known for her wall paintings and has also created reminiscent of Petrykivka—accessories like handbags and wallets adorned with lively flora. Energetic florals are also alive in , whose work also features the poignant .

, an original member of —the first artist-run, not-for-profit gallery dedicated to women and non-binary artists in the USA—is another Ukrainian artist whose work features flowers. Dorosh fabric and textile work, a traditionally female craft, to explore complex topics such as the slippage of play between childhood and adulthood. Textile work was an important feature of art.�� For example, is a fabric sample where overlapping oblong shapes of varying blues, greens, and yellows resemble a collection of flower petals.

A discussion of flowers and female Ukrainian artists would be incomplete without , the self-taught painter of floral scenes who made Picasso , “if we had an artist of this level of skill, we would make the whole world talk about her.” Bilokur’s Happiness, Storks brought the baby (1950) features sunflowers. As Ukraine’s national flower, the has quickly become a symbol of resistance. Sunflowers have inspired Ukrainian artists from to to , each in their unique way.

The magical and bright flora featured in Ukrainian female artists’ work throughout history provides a stark contrast to the images coming out of Ukraine in recent weeks. As Ukraine’s humanitarian crisis continues during Women’s History Month, the comments of European Parliament President Roberta Metsola remain on my mind. He the “incredibly brave women of Ukraine who are fighting, forced to shelter their loved ones in bunkers, giving birth in metro stations and leading on the frontline.” On my mind, too, are the Ukrainian women who have built up the intangible cultural heritage of humanity and their images of strength, hope, and peace.

The post Flowers for Women’s Day: Exploring Female Artistry in Ukraine appeared first on IPOsgoode.

"Khvylya" by Olha Pilyuhina ()

Every year, March 8 is recognized as International Women’s Day. 91��ɫ President & Vice-Chancellor Rhonda Lenton and Vice President, Equity, People & Culture Sheila Cote-Meek beautifully addressed this year’s theme of #BreakTheBias in their earlier this week. This year, before we look back at some of our noteworthy pieces highlighting the accomplishments and continued struggles of women artists and innovators, and in light of the ongoing atrocities in Ukraine, we wish to briefly acknowledge the historic struggles of Ukrainian women artists.

In Ukraine, as in many other places, . This lack of recognition stems from many sources: women encouraged to focus on marrying rich instead of studying art, gender prejudices in early art schools, and women’s contributions overlooked when collaborating with male counterparts, to name a few. Today’s landscape has evolved a fair bit, as many previously ignored talents are moving into the light.��For more information about this history, read .��

Some great artists whose work you can browse online are ,��,��, and , whose painting is featured above.

Further IPilogue Reading for International Women’s Day

Since last March, the IPilogue featured plenty of articles showcasing achievements by prominent women, noteworthy IP lawsuits involving women and barriers that women artists and entrepreneurs continue to face. Browse our selection below:

• by Prof. David Vaver (7 March 2022)
• by Claire Wortsman (4 March 2022)
• by Emily Chow (1 March 2022)
• by Meena Alnajar (15 February 2022)
• by Shawn Dhue (29 November 2021)
• by Meena Alnajar (25 November 2021)
• by Tianchu Gao (5 November 2021)
• by Emily Chow (18 October 2021)
• by Natalie Bravo (13 October 2021)
• by Emily Prieur (8 October 2021)
• by Shawn Dhue (28 July 2021)
• by Meena Alnajar (26 July 2021)
• by Eloise Somera & Alessia Monastero (16 July 2021)
• by Sabrina Macklai (12 July 2021)
• by Ashley Moniz (30 June 2021)
• by Prof. Pina D’Agostino (28 May 2021)
• by Meena Alnajar (27 May 2021)
• by Meena Alnajar (21 May 2021)
• by Jenna Gulizia (3 May 2021)
• by IP Osgoode (28 April 2021)

The post International Women’s Day 2022: A Look at Women’s Artistry in Ukraine and a Brief Look Back at Women in IP this Past Year appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Katerini Zaikos is a Guest Writer and a first-year Dual J.D. student at the University of Windsor and the University of Detroit Mercy.����

Apple Music, the widely popular music streaming service, revealed in April 2021 that they will begin paying an average of to music rights-holders. Their biggest competitor, Spotify, has yet to adopt a comparable per-stream payout model, currently paying between .

The key question is whether music streaming platforms enable music workers to be fairly compensated for their intellectual property. A user-centric licencing model is a step in the right direction.

Royalties are payments made to artists in exchange for the licenced use of their copyrighted music. Evidently, royalties are one of the main sources of an artist’s income. In 2020, Apple Music claimed they paid royalties to . In November of the same year, Spotify announced that they will promote artists’ music to more users in exchange for .

However, (UMAW), representing thousands of music workers, has criticized Spotify for claiming to give artists the ability to “,” given that the current payout is extraordinarily less than a penny per stream. They insist Spotify adopts a “user-centric payment model”, such as the one recently implemented by , another popular streaming platform. Essentially, this model tracks users’ total listening time per artist and pays music rights holders in proportion to this individualized metric.

SoundCloud’s platform indie artists, rather than the royalty model geared towards mainstream artists. A pro rata model focuses on an artist’s popularity in general, while a user-centric model compensates artists based on subscribers’ behaviour and their interaction with artists on music streaming platforms. Here, a small percentage of users’ monthly subscription fee goes directly to the artists that the subscriber has listened to that month. Being the first in the industry to introduce these “”, SoundCloud has . This unique version of a user-centric model will almost certainly benefit . ��

Apple Music and Spotify have not commented on this model, favouring their own payout schemes. Although Apple Music has since announced their higher royalty payout, historically, Spotify has a larger userbase. Spotify reported in 2020, while Apple Music reported about in 2019. It remains unclear if Apple Music’s new royalty payout model will affect these numbers.

Notably, the $0.01 per stream royalty . Rather, this $0.01 per stream is between the labels, publishers, and distributors. The artists are then paid based on their agreements with their recording company.

Artists are among the many individuals suffering a financial loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the UMAW notes, without the , artists are relying more on streaming income than ever. As such, artists are seeking by advocating for higher royalty payments and more user-centric payout models.

Hence, the long-standing battle between music streaming services continues. It is evident that largely favour user-centric payouts. These models must endure in the world of music streaming, which has become the to music, to fairly compensate creative artists.

The post The Battle of the Streaming Giants appeared first on IPOsgoode.