The High Court has ruled that Recorded Artists Actors Performers Limited (RAAP) can collect equitable remuneration for individual performers only where they have assigned that right to it. The court also held that the producer of a sound recording, or its representative, is responsible for calculating the amount due to each performer under an agreed or imposed distribution scheme.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 11 January 2019 in preliminary issues in proceedings between RAAP and Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited (PPI). The case concerns how licence fees from the public use and broadcasting of recorded music are shared between producers and performers. The judge said the issues had been tried over four days in November 2018.
RAAP argued that it should receive a lump sum representing performers’ share of the fees and distribute it to individual performers after administrative costs. It also argued that its registration as a licensing body entitled it to collect for all performers in the relevant classes, whether or not they had assigned their rights to it.
The court rejected those arguments. It distinguished between negotiating a distribution scheme, collecting payments under that scheme and calculating individual entitlements. A collecting society may negotiate for performers it represents and collect sums due to those who assigned it their rights. If the parties cannot agree on a distribution scheme, the matter may be referred to the Controller, who has authority to determine the method of calculating and paying equitable remuneration. The producer or its representative then performs the separate calculation of individual payments under the scheme.
The judge also held that registration under sections 280 and 281 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 does not give a licensing body a presumptive right to act for every performer in a registered class. In the court’s interpretation, performers must request representation and make the necessary assignment or licence. RAAP’s collection right therefore extends only to performers who actually assigned the relevant right to it.
The judgment did not resolve whether collecting societies must register with the Controller to collect under section 208 of the Act. The judge said it was unnecessary to decide that dispute because registration would not have the broad effect RAAP claimed. He also said the precise form of the order on the preliminary issues would be addressed after hearing counsel. The judgment does not state the final order.