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.
Collective Rights Management Directive published in the OJ (at last) Collective Rights Management Directive published in the OJ (at last) Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Thursday, March 20, 2014 Rating: 5


  1. Hello,

    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?

  2. 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,


  3. Frank,

    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



All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.