Readers may have been following the IPKat reporting on the UK Economics of Music Streaming Inquiry [background here, previous update here]. Progress continues to be made and here are the latest developments:
 |
| Progress! Music to our ears. Image: Riana Harvey |
Meta Data Agreement
As part of the Industry Working Group on Data Transparency, established by the UK IPO after the Government followed the recommendations of the then DCMS Select Committee Report, an agreement has been reached.
The UK industry agreement on music streaming meta data sets out a positive commitment from players across the music streaming industry to improve metadata on music streaming services in the UK. It includes:
• a shared ambition to progressively improve metadata in new recordings and consistent crediting on streaming services over a two-year period,
• agreement to take steps to ensure a core data set is associated with all new recordings,
• agreement to follow and promote good practice in industry,
• agreement to establish and support expert working groups on education and technical solutions to drive forward further improvements during the two-year period.
Remuneration Working Group
After the Follow Up Inquiry session [where this Kat gave evidence here] a working group on remuneration has now been announced. The Government will establish a working group to explore and consider industry-led actions on remuneration for existing and future creators, acknowledging recent progress by music companies in this space.
The Government will be discussing the formation of the group and terms of reference with industry stakeholders over the coming weeks. The group will be composed of representatives and experts from across the music sector and will consider the research and progress already made in this area.
In a recent CMS Select Committee session, Kevin Brennan MP questioned DCMS Minister, Lucy Frazer MP, about the remuneration working group. She confirmed that the Government’s intention is for the working group to be purposeful and effective and not merely a talking group.
Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher
on
Sunday, June 18, 2023
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html