I was a (small) part of an email exchange on the topic of how Facebook policies affect your corporate logo should you decide to put it on that site. It was Robin Browne who had kicked off the discussion and I deferred to Andy Kaplan-Myrth of the University of Ottawa Law and Technology program for an explanation.

In short, by putting your corporate logo on Facebook you do not surrender ownership of the logo. However, according to their terms of use, you implicitly grant a blanket license to Facebook for whichever use Facebook desires. This could include selling a license to your competitors to use your logo for whichever use they desire.

A lot of this is interpretation of the terms of use and how it relates to copyright versus trademark laws. There’s also a trade-off to consider where the benefit of exposure could outweigh the risks of licensing of your corporate logo.

You can read Andy’s complete explanation in his post, Using Logos on Facebook.

The latest issue of Podcast User Magazine includes a photo of me, taken by Steve Garfield, as the header for my Defining Moments column.

While I submitted the photo as a candidate for the header, I didn’t expect it to run without a credit. More importantly, use of the photo without clearing it with Steve is a problem in this particular case since PUM makes revenue from advertising and the photo is licensed under Creative Commons attribution-non-commercial-share-alike.

Steve’s a cool guy, though, and has assured me that with appropriate credit, he is okay with the use of the photo in this particular case.

Earlier today, I submitted a request to have the PDF updated and posted an acknowledgment through the comment feature on the PUM website. The comment is in moderation.

Thanks, Steve, for taking a cool photo and for sharing it with us!

The Canadian Podcasting Legal Guide was unveiled by Andy Kaplan-Myrth and Kathi Simmons at Podcasters Across Borders and is now available for download (in html and pdf) from the Creative Commons Canada site.

The presentation by Andy and Kathi will be available for download on the Canadian Podcast Buffet in the next two weeks.

David Basskin, President of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA), has agreed to a phone interview with me on the subject of reproduction rights in the new media space. We are currently working on scheduling the interview.

If you have a question that you’d like answered by the CMRRA, email it to me. I will do my best to work it into the interview (with no guarantees). You may want to review the CMRRA’s brochure on mechanical licensing before you send your question.

About a month ago, Charlie lamented that content licensing is still a bottleneck for Web 2.0 folks (Top Ten Reasons Why Web 2.0 Sucks). One of the reasons that podcasting shot to popularity the way it did is that it is not, nor should it be, mainstream media. Getting caught up in the inability to play today’s top 40 on a podcast suggests otherwise.

The apparent impatience for a licensing solution reinforces our dependency on what some people call “Internet speed”. However, most of the world doesn’t work that way — particularly those parts of the world that have been doing things a certain way for a long time. I don’t think farmers abandoned their horses for expensive tractors when they first rolled off the assembly line; when home computers first became the rage very few homes actually had them; and, it took a long time for the masses to adopt ATMs as a new way of doing business with banks.

The licensing issue will be addressed. The solutions will take time, input and a commitment from stakeholders to work towards a long-term fix that is a win for all involved. Until then, take advantage of the vast pools of quality independent content that can be used without cause for concern about licensing.  If we don’t take care of them, they’ll dry up.

Shortly after being contacted by John Harris Stevenson with details of the Copyright Board’s Tariff 22 hearings, I discovered that Michael Geist has blogged about SOCAN’s proposed $60 annual fee for podcasters whose music programming accounts for 20% or less of their podcast.

If I understand that correctly, podcasters would pay an annual fee of $60 to obtain performance rights to include any amount of music in their podcast provided the music programming does not exceed 20% of the program content. Before you get too excited, remember that this proposal only applies to the rights which SOCAN can license… performance rights. Podcasters will still need to obtain reproduction rights.

I will be meeting with John Harris Stevenson later this week to discuss the hearings. John is representing community and campus radio at the hearings and has suggested that the podcast community may want to present a formal case to the Board.

Stay tuned.

I have been catching up on my blog reading over the last few days (I fell behind sometime in late 2006). I’ve made huge progress. In the process, I have been reminded why I want to have Michael Geist speak at Podcasters Across Borders. Actually, there are many reasons.

Two of the posts that I have read so far this morning should be required reading for any Canadian Podcaster who has an interest in licensing issues and/or the use of music on their shows:

• In Good Company
• The Future of the Canadian Music Industry

Michael Geist’s blog is loaded with critical and insightful discussions on matters related to licensing and copyright.

The Podcasters Across Borders program will be announced later this month.

I’ve been in contact with lawyer Andy Kaplan-Myrth in order to learn more about SOCAN’s Tariff No. 22. He explained what Podcasters should know about this tariff and his comments are summarized below. Note that this post is a plain-english summary of what the tariff says, not legal advice.

Andy started off by providing some background on the tariff and its origins.

Back in 1996, The Society of Composer, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) asked the Copyright Board of Canada to approve their Tariff 22, which would have compensated their members by charging Internet service providers for the music that crossed the providers’ networks. The Copyright Board denied the request because ISPs simply provide the means of communication and are not liable for the information that crosses their networks.

Federal Court agreed, except with respect to caches — the Copyright Board had found that caches were necessary for Internet transmission and therefore not liable for the tariff; Federal Court disagreed and tariffed caches.

In 2004, The Supreme Court of Canada threw out SOCAN’s case, including the cache issue, finding that the ISPs’ services are simply a means of telecommunication — not subject to a tariff.

Michael Geist has a great article about this, called The Real Threat to the Music Download Market, from April 18, 2005.

SOCAN is trying again. This time the organization is going after the sites that post the content, rather than the intermediary ISPs. They have redrafted their Tariff 22 proposal and submitted it for 2006, and have now modified it for 2007. They are still waiting for the hearing which will be (mark it in your calendar!) April 17, 2007 at 10:00am.

Now that you have the background, here are the key points of the current draft:

• Tariff No. 22 applies only to songs for which SOCAN has licensing rights.

• SOCAN licenses performances only. So, this tariff only covers one piece of the puzzle. SODRAC and CMRRA license reproductions. These organizations have a proposal for licensing reproductions, which may only apply to commercial radio stations (including their Internet-based broadcasts).

• The SOCAN fees are based on a formula. Since most Podcasters make no money for their Podcasting activities, the SOCAN fees will be the minimum, $200/month.

• While it is always possible that SOCAN will want the fees to be applied retroactively to 1995, it is far more likely that this is not the case. Certainly, trying to identify and collect licensing fees from that far back will be an ominous task.

In the same way that Apple strong-arming the word “Pod” may move people away from using the word Podcast, perhaps Tariff No. 22 will encourage broadcasters to use more independent or Creative Commons licensed works for which they won’t be required to pay tariffs.

Daryl Cognito (Poddog Show) has brought Tariff No. 22 to my attention. It’s part of a document that was released on May 20, 2006 by the Copyright Board. Tariff No. 22 deals specifically with COMMUNICATIONS OF MUSICAL WORKS VIA THE INTERNET OR SIMILAR TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

A quick read through suggests that there will be a minimum monthly fee of $200 for online services that allow users to “select and listen to, reproduce for later listening, or both listen to and reproduce for later listening, a musical work or part of a musical work”. The tariff appears to allow the service to play all covered musical works “as often as desired in 2007″.

In an effort to figure out more about the scope of the tariff and what it means to Podcasters, I’ve sent an email to a few experts in this area. I will keep you posted.