Regulating for creativity and cultural diversity: the case of collective management organisations and the music industry

Street, John; Laing, Dave; Schroff, Simone

doi:10.1080/10286632.2016.1178733

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From a historical viewpoint, each CMO may have variances because of particular laws in their individual countries, but the basic goal of each CMO is to attain the best economic scale for the benefit of all of its members (CISAC, Op.Cit). In general, collective management organizations can be seen as acting on behalf of music publishers, broadcasters, public venues, and other locations where copyrighted works are performed (Street, J., Laing, D., & Schroff, S., 2018).…”

Section: Cmo's Role In Copyright Protection From the Indonesian Legal...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Existence of Collective Management Organization for Copyrights Protection: Do Its Roles Applicable for Dance Copyright Work?

Dharmawan¹,

Sarjana²,

Kurniawan³

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Business Law and Local Wisdom in Tourism (ICBLT 2022)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to explain the Collective Management Organization's function in copyright protection, particularly with regard to the collection of royalties from an Indonesian legal standpoint, and to investigate its function with regard to dance works that are used for commercial purposes in digital media in the tourism industry. This study combines statutory and conceptual techniques with normative legal research. According to the study's findings, the Collective Management Organization's role has historically been more heavily centered on obtaining royalties for musical and lyrical works as compensation for the creators' exclusive rights. In Indonesia, Articles 87 to 93 of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright regulate the existence of a Collective Management Organization. The Government Regulation No. 56 of 2021 on Management of Song and/or Music Copyright Royalties, which expressly governs the collecting of royalty fees for music and songs, is explicitly covered by Article 89 of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright. In fact, Article 88 (2) (c) of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright and Article 3 (c) of Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 36 of 2018 on Procedures for Application and Issuance of Operational Permits and Evaluation of Collective Management Organizations allow Collective Management Organizations to play roles in other copyright works, such as dances, in addition to music and songs. Dances may also be commercially exploited via digital technology without the Authors' or other relevant rights holders' consent. Therefore, it is important to establish a specific Collective Management Organization for dance and other performing arts, considering that the existing Collective Management Organizations only focus on music and songs.

show abstract

Section: Cmo's Role In Copyright Protection From the Indonesian Legal...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Existence of Collective Management Organization for Copyrights Protection: Do Its Roles Applicable for Dance Copyright Work?

Dharmawan¹,

Sarjana²,

Kurniawan³

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Business Law and Local Wisdom in Tourism (ICBLT 2022)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…55 Janssens and Tryggvadottir (2014), p. 36. 56 Street et al (2016 to ascertain. 60 In other words, it is not always clear what a CMO's repertoire actually entails in terms of the authors and specific works covered.…”

Section: Broad Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extended Collective Licensing for the Use of Out-of-Commerce Works in Europe: A Matter of Legitimacy Vis-à-Vis Rights Holders

Guibault

Schroff

2018

IIC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) schemes have been put forward in Europe as one of the solutions for the licensing of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions. ECL schemes extend the application of freely negotiated copyright licensing agreements between a user and a collective management organisation (CMO) to the works of non-members of the organisation. Not every CMO is suitable to license works under ECL provisions, however. In particular, the legitimacy of any agreement crucially relies on the ''representativeness'' of the CMO. This article focuses on the notion of representativeness of CMOs. On the basis of current European and national legislation, we argue that the representative character of a CMO encompasses three essential elements to be considered from the perspective of the rights owners: (1) the CMO must have a broad membership among the potential rights owners in the market it serves; (2) it must have a proper mandate from the rights owners in terms of category of works and rights covered; and (3) it must take appropriate measures to reach and inform (non-)members about the exercise of rights. ECL schemes can only be sufficiently legitimate to presume tacit approval by non-members if this assessment of the three criteria is carried out carefully.

show abstract

“…A study of rights-holder entities should be sensitive to their formation, which varies among countries (Street, Laing, and Schroff 2018). The present study was carried out in Norway, whose population of 5 million includes a growing number of composers and performers.…”

Section: Approaching Rights-holders and Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

License to stream? A study of how rights-holders have responded to music streaming services in Norway

Kjus

2021

International Journal of Cultural Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article rewinds a decade to reconstruct the arrival of streaming services and their impact on the music industry. It focuses on copyright holders and their experience with reaching out and getting paid via streaming, charting developments in the relationship between licensor and licensee such as the rise of direct licensing. The study is based on interviews with labels, publishers, collecting societies and interest organisations for composers and performers in Norway, where streaming caught on early. It finds that streaming services, with Spotify out in front, have led majors and indies to wage a war over rights and global market shares, while the ability of collecting societies to hang on to their bargaining cards now depends on the way in which on-demand access to music is legally defined. This article also concludes that, so far, these struggles have been easier on the composers than on the performers of music.

show abstract

Regulating for creativity and cultural diversity: the case of collective management organisations and the music industry

Cited by 11 publications

References 37 publications

The Existence of Collective Management Organization for Copyrights Protection: Do Its Roles Applicable for Dance Copyright Work?

The Existence of Collective Management Organization for Copyrights Protection: Do Its Roles Applicable for Dance Copyright Work?

Extended Collective Licensing for the Use of Out-of-Commerce Works in Europe: A Matter of Legitimacy Vis-à-Vis Rights Holders

License to stream? A study of how rights-holders have responded to music streaming services in Norway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About