Opinion ID: 402322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: NAB Claims for Commercial Broadcasters

Text: 44 NAB makes a host of arguments on behalf of commercial television and commercial radio broadcasters. These two groups of claimants were treated quite differently by the Tribunal, but in each case we affirm the Tribunal's decision. 45 NAB suggests several theories that are said to demonstrate that the Tribunal undercompensated commercial television broadcasters. One common strand of these theories is an emphasis on the creative work that goes into a television station's activities. 46 The first theory seeks compensation for each station's broadcast day as a compilation. NAB argues that cable operators do not retransmit individual programs selectively, but simply pick up the broadcasts of particular stations in their entirety. 13 The broadcast stations expend considerable time and effort in compiling a broadcast day, however, and NAB suggests that this compilation itself falls within the Act's definition of a copyrightable work. The Act defines a compilation as a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 101. As NAB emphasizes, such compilations are traditionally afforded copyright protection. 14 47 The second theory could be considered a more specific application of the first, focusing on the telecast of sports events. The Tribunal awarded a sizeable portion of the Fund to sports claimants after ruling that copyright vests in the athletic teams unless the broadcaster explicitly contracts otherwise. 15 NAB disputes this conclusion on several grounds. It notes that the mere performance of a sport or game could not be copyrighted at common law, 16 and argues that it is only the efforts of the broadcaster that create a copyrightable interest at all. 17 NAB also contends that because copyrights are divisible under the Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 102, 201(d)(2), broadcasters as well as sports teams should receive some compensation for the telecasts. 48 NAB's general theories are well taken. Although there is some confusion in the legislative history, 18 Congress clearly seemed to contemplate Tribunal recognition of the copyrightable interests claimed by NAB: 49 When a football game is being covered by four television cameras, with a director guiding the activities of the four cameramen and choosing which of their electronic images are sent out to the public and in what order there is little doubt that what the cameramen and the director are doing is what constitutes authorship. 50 House Report at 52. Anyone who has ever watched ABC's Monday Night Football, for example, knows that the commentary of the announcers and such effects as instant replay in slow motion add immensely to the quality of a sports telecast. 19 Similarly, there is little doubt that the efforts used in juggling programs and compiling a broadcast day constitute a copyrightable interest under the Act. 51 That the interests advanced by NAB are copyrightable does not get broadcasters to the promised land, however. The Tribunal still must address the value of these interests. It is true that the Tribunal has no authority under the Act to ignore valid copyright claims, and we find several somewhat bald statements in the Decision troublesome. See, e.g., Decision at 63,032 (it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to analyze the ownership and remedies provisions of the Copyright Act). By any standard, however, the theories advanced by NAB concern interests that are quantitatively de minimis. As the Tribunal observes, the work of television stations in broadcasting sports events and compiling broadcast days has minimal market value because the public tunes in sports broadcasts mainly to see the sports performance, not the activities of the director and the cameramen. Tribunal Brief at 24. The Decision also observed that (t)he record is void of any useful evidence that local broadcasters are harmed by cable carriage in distant markets of their locally produced programs, Decision at 63,038, and it is quite possible that distant carriage of local broadcasts is considerably beneficial to television broadcasters because the enlarged audience increases the reach of commercial advertising. 20 The Tribunal's award of 3.5% to commercial television broadcasters clearly falls within the zone of reasonableness in terms of compensating broadcasters for their activities. The character of the Tribunal's explanation for that award leaves room for improvement, but NAB's objections are greatly overstated. 21 52 NAB's second group of arguments concerns the Tribunal's refusal to make any award to commercial radio broadcasters. It is uncontested that cable systems retransmit radio programs as well as television broadcasts, and the Act clearly contemplates that the Fund may be used to compensate nonnetwork programming consisting exclusively of aural signals retransmitted beyond the local service area of the original transmitter. 17 U.S.C. § 111(d)(4)(C). Because of inadequacies in the information-gathering procedures implemented by the Copyright Office, however, radio claimants found it almost impossible to establish the distant carriage of their signals. 22 The Tribunal therefore concluded that (t)he record is inadequate to establish the extent of cable carriage of radio programming, and fails to show the value of such programming ... or support a finding that the carriage of commercial radio signals is harmful to radio stations. Decision at 63,040. 53 These findings are entirely reasonable. The ubiquity of recorded music may be a blessing of modern times, but this fact works to the disadvantage of commercial radio claimants. As Frank Mankiewicz told the Tribunal during the Phase I proceedings in his capacity as NPR president: 54 Almost all commercial radio systems, or radio stations, have the same sound. I mean-what I'm saying is this, I don't see the value of a cable system, a cable operator, taking the signal of a rock and roll station from Cincinnati, and sending it to, let's say, Detroit, because there are rock stations in Detroit which provide exactly the same sound. 55 Tr. 5/6/80, Joint Appendix (J.A.) 1613. Commercial radio claimants made no showing of the marketplace value their signals had to cable systems, and did not suggest that they were harmed by distant carriage of their signals. Indeed, like television broadcasters, radio claimants may even be commercially benefitted by the wider dissemination of their broadcasts. The inability of these claimants to establish the extent to which their signals were retransmitted in distant areas further demonstrates the reasonableness of the Tribunal's decision. 56 NAB contends, however, that the denial of even a token award to radio claimants violates the mandatory language of the Act, which states that the Tribunal 'shall ' distribute royalties to any copyright owner whose work was distantly carried on a cable system and 'was included in non-network programming consisting exclusively of aural signals.'  Brief for Petitioner NAB (NAB Brief) at 68. It is true, as Justice Cardozo stated in Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490, 493, 55 S.Ct. 818, 820, 79 L.Ed. 1566 (1935), that the word shall is the language of command. See Association of American Railroads v. Costle, 562 F.2d 1310, 1312 (D.C.Cir.1977); National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587, 601 (D.C.Cir.1974). The argument quotes the statute out of context, however. Section 111(d)(4) requires that the Fund be distributed among designated copyright owners, and makes it clear that royalty recipients must qualify under the terms of that section. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the Tribunal to conclude that commercial radio claimants did not qualify for an award under the criteria set by the Tribunal, nor was it a violation of the statutory commands of the Act.