From October 2016 to March 2017 the team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Tian Lu and Hayleigh Bosher.

Thursday, 20 March 2014

Collective Rights Management Directive published in the OJ (at last)

Choose Bruce to manage your rights
instead of that old collecting society of yours
As IPKat readers will remember, at the end of February last the Council formally adopted a new EU directive "on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market" [on which see here and here]

While Merpel spent the past few weeks swearing that she would never waste precious time trying to learn the full and mouthful title of this directive by heart, this Kat kept wondering about its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union

Why? Not only because the OJ is one of her favourite magazines, but also because on the 20th day following this event this new piece of EU legislation will enter into force.

Via Katfriend and collective rights management enthusiast [is it an oxymoron, wonders Merpel] Sebastian Felix Schwemer (University of Copenhagen) comes the news that the Directive was published today in the OJ, thus acquiring the even longer official title of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market.

The full text can be accessed here.

Now it is up to Member States to transpose the Directive into their national laws. The deadline? 10 April 2016.


Anonymous said...


I'm trying to study the scope of the CRM directive which seems make a difference between the "traditional" collective management organisations (Art. 3(a)), independent management entities (Art. 3(b)) and "entities directly/indirectly owned or controlled, wholly/in part by a CMO" (Art. 2(3)). According to Article 2, different rules apply to these entities.

Which one of these categories do you think is applicable to joint ventures such as CELAS (or SOLAR)? At first I thought the concept of IMEs were made up to cover those but isn't there a rightholder control/ownership element if there is a publisher involved?

Anonymous said...

Dear Eleonora,

Although this post is relatively old, I think that the question asked in the comment before me is still relevant. The emergence of different forms of rights management and of multi-territorial licensing makes the qualification of different types of organisations as CMOs or IMEs increasingly urgent. Like the commenter before me, I am wondering how the qualification of IMEs works out in practice, for instance in the case of CELAS and SOLAR. In some aspects these organisations qualify as IMEs, but a qualification as such also depends on their ownership structure. Specific information about this is hard to come by.

Do you have any new insights that you can share with us in this regard? Or can you recommend any literature or other sources that provide information about the qualification of IMEs in specific cases?

I hope to hear from you. Thanks for your informative blog posts, I enjoy reading them!

Kind regards,


Sebastian said...


I actually have a section on this in my PhD dissertation. Note that SOLAR (post-CELAS) and other option-3-publisher vehicles are unlikely to qualify as IMEs, given that they represent only one repertoire. Unfortunately there's little insight in the setup of these organizations (some evidence can be found in recent merger proceedings PRS/STIM/GEMA regarding a Title III hub).

The route via Article 2(3) is not convincing either, by the way. In Germany, the lawmaker introduced a third notion of a "dependent management entity" (DK and SE lawmakers didn't).

Feel free to drop me a mail


Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':