The UK's Intellectual Property Office has opened a consultation on which foreign performers should qualify for remuneration when their recordings are broadcast or played in public. It puts the spotlight on an issue that continues to cause controversy within the European Union.
“This consultation is focused on an important and complex issue, and it’s crucial that we gather a range of evidence and views”, says IPO boss Adam Williams. “We strongly urge anyone with an interest in this topic to have their say and respond to the consultation".
This all relates to money generated by the broadcast and public performance of recorded music, which in the UK is managed by collecting society PPL. That revenue is shared between whoever owns the copyright in a recording - often a label and referred to as the 'producer' in law - and the performers who appear on it.
When users of music in the UK which rely on PPL licences broadcast or play tracks that were recorded and released in other countries, it's the rights of foreign labels and performers that are being exploited. However, it is still PPL that collects the money, passing it on to its counterpart societies in other countries, which then pay the relevant labels and performers. As a result, rights and royalties move around a global networking of collecting societies.
However, in some countries, restrictions in copyright law mean that money isn't generated when recorded music is broadcast or performed. That includes the biggest music market of them all, the USA, where only online and satellite broadcasters have to pay any royalties.
This poses the question: if country X has broadcast royalties and country Y does not, should country X still pass money over when music from country Y is broadcast or performed, even though there are no equivalent royalties to flow in the other direction?
Some copyright systems answer that question "no", applying what is called the ‘reciprocity’ approach. So no royalties would flow to labels and performers in the US, because no royalties are flowing back from that market. In the European Union, different countries used to apply different approaches in this domain, but the EU courts ruled that under European law the ‘reciprocity’ approach is not allowed. Which has created something of a controversy.
In the UK, the rules that define whether or not foreigners qualify for broadcast and performance royalties differ for copyright owners and performers. The outcome of which is that labels generally do qualify and performers do not.
Outlining the new consultation, the IPO states: "At present, UK law restricts foreign performers’ eligibility for [performance royalties] on material reciprocity terms but provides [performance royalties] to foreign producers on a broad basis”.
“While the international treaties on copyright allow parties to apply material reciprocity in respect of [performance royalties]”, it adds, “they require greater consistency between the treatment of performers and producers than UK law currently provides".
It is likely that any change to the rules wouldn't impact on the customers of music, but would change the way revenues coming into the industry are distributed. As this consultation progresses, it will be interesting to see whether there is a disagreement between different stakeholder groups within the industry on what is the best approach.
There is more information about the consultation below.
Intellectual Property Office