Collective Management Organisations and Royalty Distribution

Introducing the UK Collective Management Ecosystem

‍

In the United Kingdom, the infrastructure that enables musicians, composers, and rights holders to receive remuneration for the use of their works is supported by a network of Collective Management Organisations. These bodies, often referred to as CMOs, act as intermediaries between creators and the myriad users of musical works. Prominent examples include PRS for Music, which licenses the public performance and communication of musical works on behalf of songwriters and publishers, MCPS, which oversees mechanical reproduction rights, PPL, which manages neighbouring rights for performers and record companies, and Christian Copyright Licensing International, commonly abbreviated as CCLI, which provides specialist licensing solutions within faith-based contexts. The ecosystem is therefore not monolithic but instead a network of interlinked entities, each with a defined mandate under both contract law and statutory frameworks.

‍

At the heart of this structure lies the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988(CDPA 1988), which establishes the scope of copyright protection and the exclusive rights of authors and performers. Section 16 of the Act enumerates the restricted acts, including reproduction, distribution, communication to the public, and performance of works. For a composer, this means that each time their song is played on radio, streamed online, reproduced as a download, or performed live, the use potentially gives rise to royalties. The difficulty is that individual enforcement of these rights would be entirely impractical for most working musicians. The establishment of CMOs has therefore become the practical means of ensuring that rights are collectively licensed and royalties equitably distributed.

‍

PRS for Music is perhaps the most recognised of the UK CMOs. Formed through the merger of the Performing Right Society and the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society in 1997, PRS today represents hundreds of thousands of songwriters, composers, and publishers. It issues blanket licences to users ranging from broadcasters to live music venues, and it distributes the collected revenue to its members. Membership is governed by contractual assignment or mandate, with each songwriter entering into a binding agreement authorising PRS to administer their rights. This contractual relationship is not merely a private arrangement; it is subject to regulation through the Collective Rights Management Regulations 2016, which impose obligations concerning transparency, accountability, and equitable treatment.

‍

Alongside PRS operates the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society, now technically a subsidiary within the PRS group but maintaining a distinct role. MCPS manages the mechanical reproduction right, meaning the right to reproduce a musical work in recorded form, whether through physical copies or digital downloads. This function has particular relevance to record labels, production companies, and digital platforms, ensuring that when a songwriter’s work is recorded or copied, the mechanical royalties are captured and distributed. In legal terms, MCPS operates under the same statutory umbrella as PRS, but its historical role in mechanical rights means that many practitioners still treat it as a distinct entity when advising clients.

‍

Phonographic Performance Limited, or PPL, provides a parallel service but in respect of neighbouring rights. These rights, recognised under Part II of the CDPA 1988,grant performers and record companies remuneration when their recorded performances are played in public or broadcast. For example, a session guitarist who records on a track will have a statutory entitlement to receive royalties when that track is broadcast on radio. PPL administers these rights, collecting licence fees from radio stations, shops, and other users, and distributing them among performers and labels. From a legal perspective, the contractual relationship between PPL and its members is framed by assignment or mandate, but the underlying entitlement derives directly from statute.

‍

CCLI, though more specialised, illustrates the breadth of the collective licensing ecosystem. Originating in the United States but now operating widely in the United Kingdom, CCLI provides licences to churches and faith-based organisations for the reproduction and projection of song lyrics, the making of service recordings, and the streaming of worship services. This organisation fills a niche role, recognising that faith communities frequently use music in contexts not easily served by traditional commercial licensing. CCLI operates through agreements with publishers, collecting licence fees from congregations and distributing royalties to songwriters and publishers. The contractual and statutory structures are therefore adapted to the particularities of faith-based musical use.

‍

For the working musician, understanding this ecosystem is vital. A songwriter may join PRS to administer their performance rights, affiliate with MCPS for mechanical rights, and indirectly benefit from CCLI distributions if their works are used in church contexts. Meanwhile, as a performer on recordings, they may also register with PPL to collect neighbouring rights royalties. Each of these memberships involves a contractual commitment, and the terms of membership agreements are binding. The courts treat such agreements as enforceable contracts, subject to the general principles of English contract law including the doctrines of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations.

‍

Historically, the courts have upheld the legitimacy of CMO enforcement. In Performing Right Society Ltd v Harlequin Record Shops Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 602, the High Court confirmed that in-store playing of music constituted a public performance requiring a PRS licence. Similarly, European jurisprudence such as SGAE v Rafael Hoteles SA (Case C-306/05) affirmed that providing broadcast signals in hotel rooms amounted to communication to the public, thereby requiring licensing through CMOs. These cases highlight the judicial recognition of collective licensing as an essential mechanism for ensuring remuneration to rights holders.

‍

The statutory regime introduced by the Collective Rights Management Regulations2016 further reinforces musicians’ protections. These regulations, derived from Directive 2014/26/EU, require CMOs to provide members with detailed information about royalty collection and distribution, including administrative deductions and investment policies. They also grant members the right to participate in governance and to challenge distribution decisions. For instance, a songwriter who discovers that royalties from CCLI are not distributed in accordance with the stated policies may challenge the organisation under both contract law principles and statutory duties. This dual framework of protection provides musicians with multiple avenues of redress.

‍

From a contractual standpoint, the relationship between musicians and CMOs can raise significant legal issues. Membership agreements often contain exclusivity provisions, requiring that rights be administered solely through the CMO. This exclusivity is justified on practical grounds but may raise questions under the doctrine of restraint of trade if terms are oppressive. The leading case of Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment [1994] EMLR 229, while not concerning CMOs, demonstrates judicial willingness to scrutinise contracts for fairness. Though George Michael did not succeed in releasing himself from his contract, the court recognised the imbalance of bargaining power and the need for equitable consideration of contractual terms. By analogy, should a CMO impose terms that severely restrict a songwriter’s autonomy without proportional benefit, legal challenge could be mounted.

‍

Competition law also plays a role in regulating CMOs. Because these organisations often hold monopolistic control over particular rights, they are susceptible to scrutiny under the Competition Act 1998, which prohibits abuse of a dominant position. The European Commission’s CISAC case (COMP/C2/38.698), which investigated anti-competitive behaviour among CMOs, illustrates the potential for regulatory intervention. For UK musicians, this provides reassurance that while CMOs wield significant power, they remain accountable under competition law.

‍

To illustrate the practical consequences, consider the case of a worship leader in Manchester who composes original songs for church use. By affiliating with CCLI, they ensure that when congregations reproduce or project their lyrics under licence, royalties are returned to them. If that same individual also records the songs and distributes them digitally, MCPS would manage the mechanical rights while PRS would collect royalties for public performances and broadcasts. Should the recording be played on local radio, PPL would distribute performer royalties. This example demonstrates the layered nature of the collections ecosystem, with each organisation fulfilling a distinct statutory and contractual role.

‍

In sum, the UK collections ecosystem represents a carefully constructed balance between statutory entitlement, contractual delegation, and regulatory oversight. Musicians navigate this network by affiliating with one or more CMOs depending on their role as songwriter, publisher, or performer. The courts have repeatedly recognised the legitimacy of these organisations in enforcing rights, and the statutory overlay ensures accountability. For practitioners advising musicians, a thorough understanding of PRS, MCPS, PPL, and CCLI is essential to ensuring that clients maximise their royalty entitlements while remaining alert to potential contractual pitfalls.

‍

Royalty Collection, Distribution, and the Legal Obligations of CMOs

‍

The operation of Collective Management Organisations in the United Kingdom centres on two interconnected functions: the collection of royalties from users of music and the distribution of those royalties to rights holders. While this may sound straightforward, the legal complexities are considerable, and the obligations upon CMOs are significant both under contract law and statutory regulation. For working musicians, the way in which royalties are collected and distributed determines the flow of income that sustains their professional practice. Consequently, the law has evolved to strike a balance between administrative efficiency, fairness to rights holders, and accountability of collecting bodies.

‍

Collection of royalties begins with the licensing process. PRS for Music, for example, issues blanket licences to broadcasters, live venues, restaurants, and online platforms, granting permission to use the entire repertoire of works in exchange for a fee. The legal basis for these licences is the statutory exclusivity conferred by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Section16 provides that only the rights holder or their authorised agent may permit restricted acts, and when a songwriter has mandated PRS to act as agent, PRS is legally empowered to license use of the work. A similar model applies to PPL, which licenses recorded performances, and CCLI, which licenses churches for reproduction and streaming of worship music. Each licence is therefore enforceable under general contract law principles, with breach leading to potential liability for copyright infringement.

‍

The distribution side of the equation is more complex. Once licence fees are collected, CMOs must allocate and distribute revenue to members in accordance with contractual rules and statutory duties. The Collective Rights Management Regulations 2016 are central here. Regulation 26 requires CMOs to ensure that rights revenues are distributed regularly, diligently, and accurately. They must make distributions no later than nine months from the end of the financial year in which the rights revenue was collected, except where objective reasons justify delay. This statutory timetable provides musicians with certainty, preventing undue retention of funds by collecting bodies.

‍

For example, a songwriter whose work is licensed for performance in public through PRS is entitled to receive royalties within that statutory timeframe. If PRS were to delay payment without justification, the songwriter could challenge the delay under both the membership contract and the statutory regulations. This provides dual protection. Contract law enforces the terms of the membership agreement, while statutory law imposes additional duties which cannot be excluded by contract.

‍

The regulations also impose strict duties of transparency. Regulation 27 requires CMOs to provide members with at least annual statements detailing revenue collected, deductions applied, and amounts distributed. For a performer registered with PPL, this means receiving a statement showing exactly how royalties have been calculated, what administrative deductions have been made, and what sum has been paid. Failure to provide such information would not only be a contractual breach but also a statutory violation subject to potential enforcement.

‍

The fairness of distribution policies has been the subject of disputes. Case law illustrates how courts scrutinise the practices of CMOs to ensure compliance with statutory obligations. In British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors v Performing Right Society Ltd [2015] EWHC 1723 (Ch), the High Court addressed concerns about distribution rules for online streaming revenues. The court accepted that PRS had discretion in formulating distribution policies, but emphasised that such policies must be applied fairly and transparently. This case illustrates the balance between the autonomy of CMOs to manage practical allocation and the need for judicial oversight where fairness is in question.

‍

Administrative deductions are another source of legal scrutiny. CMOs are entitled to deduct reasonable administrative costs before distributing royalties, but these must be disclosed and objectively justified. Under Regulation 12 of the Collective Rights Management Regulations, deductions must be fair, proportionate, and not discriminatory. Consider the example of a small folk singer whose repertoire is licensed by PRS. If PRS were to deduct an unreasonably high percentage of revenues under the guise of administrative costs, that artist could challenge the deductions as both a breach of contract and a breach of statutory duty. The law therefore places real limits on the ability of CMOs to diminish the sums flowing to musicians.

‍

A particular complexity arises in relation to cross-border licensing and distribution. Since many works are exploited internationally through digital platforms, CMOs enter reciprocal agreements with their counterparts abroad. PRS, for instance, may license repertoire in the UK and remit revenues to foreign CMOs, which in turn distribute to their local members. The legal obligation to ensure transparency and accuracy extends to these reciprocal arrangements. Musicians often express frustration at delays or lack of clarity in receiving international royalties, but the statutory framework requires CMOs to ensure diligence in cross-border administration. The European Court of Justice’s decision in CISAC (Case COMP/C2/38.698) also highlighted the risks of anti-competitive agreements among CMOs in the allocation of territories, illustrating how competition law intersects with royalty distribution.

‍

Practical disputes frequently arise over the accuracy of distributions. Consider a working jazz ensemble performing in small venues across the country. The venues may pay blanket licence fees to PRS, but unless performances are accurately reported, the ensemble may not receive their fair share of royalties. PRS operates distribution systems based on sampling, cue sheets, and reporting, which can sometimes disadvantage less mainstream acts. The law requires that CMOs apply their distribution policies in a manner consistent with fairness, but the evidential burden falls upon the musician to demonstrate underpayment. Dispute resolution mechanisms are therefore critical. Under the Collective Rights Management Regulations, members are entitled to access internal complaints procedures, with further recourse to the Copyright Tribunal or the courts.

‍

The Copyright Tribunal, established under Part VI of the CDPA 1988, plays a central role in resolving disputes over licensing terms and royalty distributions. It has the authority to adjudicate disputes between CMOs and users, as well as disputes concerning fairness of terms. For instance, if a broadcaster challenged the licence fees imposed by PRS as unreasonable, the Tribunal would be the proper forum. Equally, if a group of musicians challenged discriminatory distribution practices, the Tribunal could adjudicate. This provides an accessible specialist forum for disputes, reducing the burden on the ordinary courts.

‍

CCLI, while operating within a more specialised faith-based market, is also subject to similar principles of contractual fairness and statutory transparency. Churches purchasing licences rely upon CCLI to distribute revenues fairly among rights holders. A worship songwriter whose works are included within the CCLI catalogue is therefore entitled to accurate reporting and distribution. If royalties were not properly allocated, they could raise disputes under the terms of their publishing agreement, or through statutory rights if CCLI falls within the definition of a CMO under the 2016 Regulations.

‍

Another point of legal complexity arises from joint authorship and collective rights. Under section 10 of the CDPA 1988, works of joint authorship confer rights jointly, and royalties must be allocated accordingly. In practice, CMOs require accurate registration of co-writers to ensure distributions reflect joint authorship. Disputes often arise where songs are registered incorrectly. In Hadley v Kemp [1999] EMLR 589, the High Court dealt with the question of whether members of the band Spandau Ballet were co-authors of songs written by Gary Kemp. The court held that they were not co-authors but merely contributors to performance. While not directly about CMO distribution, the case illustrates the importance of accurate authorship determination. In the context of PRS or CCLI distributions, if authorship is disputed, royalties may be withheld until resolved, highlighting the intersection of authorship law and royalty administration.

‍

Technology has added further layers to the legal framework. Digital service providers such as Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube require complex licensing structures, often involving multi-territorial licensing. The European Union’s Directive 2014/26/EU encouraged CMOs to provide such licences, and the UK regulations continue to require transparency in digital distributions. For musicians, this means that streaming royalties are governed not only by their membership contract with PRS or MCPS but also by the regulatory obligations ensuring fair treatment. Disputes in this area are common, as distribution methodologies for streaming revenue are frequently criticised for lack of proportionality. Yet, statutory obligations provide musicians with avenues to demand transparency and challenge unfairness.

‍

Consider a practical scenario involving a songwriter whose worship song becomes widely used across UK churches. CCLI collects licence fees from congregations and distributes royalties accordingly. If the songwriter discovers that distributions are significantly lower than expected, they may first use CCLI’s internal complaints mechanism. Should this fail, they may argue that under the principles of the Collective Rights Management Regulations, they are entitled to transparent disclosure of how revenues were collected and allocated. If the issue concerns incorrect attribution of authorship, they may also rely upon principles of joint authorship under section 10 of the CDPA. Such disputes illustrate the vital role of legal practitioners in guiding musicians through the interwoven statutory and contractual protections.

‍

Royalty distribution therefore operates at the intersection of contract law, copyright law, statutory regulation, and competition law. Musicians rely upon membership contracts to secure their rights, statutory regulations to ensure timely and transparent distribution, and case law to resolve disputes. For practitioners advising musicians, understanding this framework is essential to ensuring that clients are not disadvantaged by opaque systems. For musicians, the ability to rely upon statutory duties of transparency and fairness provides real leverage in disputes with powerful collecting bodies. The collections ecosystem is complex, but it is shaped and constrained by legal obligations that exist to safeguard the interests of the very individuals whose creativity sustains the industry.

‍

Dispute Resolution, Reform, and Practical Guidance for Musicians

‍

The collective management of copyright and related rights in the United Kingdom, while indispensable to the functioning of the music industry, inevitably gives rise to disputes. These may concern the terms of licences, the fairness of royalty distributions, the allocation of authorship shares, or the accuracy of reporting by users. The legal framework provides musicians with several avenues for resolving disputes, yet navigating these requires careful consideration of contract law, statutory overlay, and industry practice. Beyond dispute resolution, the continuing evolution of collective management raises questions of reform and highlights the need for practical strategies by musicians to safeguard their rights.

‍

The Copyright Tribunal occupies a central role in the resolution of disputes between Collective Management Organisations and licensees. Established under Part VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of licence terms, fees, and conditions imposed by CMOs. A broadcaster, for example, who contends that the licence fee demanded by PRS is excessive may apply to the Tribunal for a determination. Similarly, a small business owner disputing a PPL licence may seek adjudication. The Tribunal’s decisions are binding and may be appealed only on points of law. For musicians, while they are not typically direct applicants before the Tribunal, its determinations shape the flow of revenues, as licence fee structures directly influence the quantum of royalties distributed.

‍

Internal dispute resolution mechanisms also play an important role. Under the Collective Rights Management Regulations 2016, CMOs must establish effective procedures for members to lodge complaints and seek redress. Regulation 33 mandates that these procedures be accessible, fair, and capable of addressing issues concerning membership, authorisation of rights, and distribution of royalties. For instance, a songwriter who disputes the allocation of royalties by PRS may first raise the matter through its internal complaints process. If dissatisfied, they retain the right to escalate the matter either through independent mediation or by commencing legal proceedings. This layered approach ensures that disputes can often be resolved without recourse to litigation, while preserving the musician’s right to judicial oversight.

‍

The courts have also adjudicated disputes concerning the governance and fairness of CMO operations. In the case of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors v Performing Right Society Ltd [2015] EWHC 1723 (Ch), concerns were raised about PRS’s distribution policies for online revenues. The court recognised the discretion of PRS to set distribution policies but emphasised the need for transparency and fairness. This case illustrates the tension between the managerial autonomy of CMOs and the rights of individual members. Musicians, while bound by membership agreements, are not without remedies where practices become opaque or discriminatory.

‍

Contract law remains a fundamental avenue for musicians seeking redress. Membership agreements constitute binding contracts, and breaches may give rise to claims for damages or equitable remedies. For example, if a CMO fails to distribute royalties within the statutory nine-month timeframe without justification, a musician may allege breach of contract as well as breach of statutory duty. The courts would then consider not only the express terms of the membership agreement but also the implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, particularly where there exists a fiduciary dimension to the relationship between musician and CMO.

Practical disputes often arise over joint authorship and the allocation of shares. Section 10 of the CDPA 1988 provides that works of joint authorship are owned jointly, and each co-author is entitled to a share of royalties. Disputes frequently emerge where co-writers disagree on relative contributions. In Hadley v Kemp [1999] EMLR 589, the court determined that contributions by bandmembers did not amount to co-authorship, thereby entitling Gary Kemp to sole authorship of Spandau Ballet’s songs. For musicians today, the lesson is clear: accurate registration of co-authors with PRS, MCPS, or CCLI is essential to prevent disputes at the distribution stage. Legal practitioners advising musicians should ensure that split agreements are documented in writing and filed correctly with the relevant CMO.

‍

Another area of contention concerns the accuracy of reporting by licensees. Many CMOs rely on sampling methods to determine distributions, particularly in the live performance context. A jazz trio playing in small venues may find that their performances are not fully captured within PRS distribution samples, resulting in lower royalties than expected. While PRS provides mechanisms for members to submit setlists to ensure more accurate distributions, the reliance on sampling remains a structural limitation. The law requires fairness in distribution, but it does not prescribe a specific methodology, leaving CMOs with discretion. Musicians must therefore adopt proactive strategies, such as diligent setlist submission, to safeguard their income.

‍

Competition law also plays a role in protecting musicians from unfair practices. CMOs, by their nature, operate with significant market power, and the Competition Act1998 prohibits abuse of a dominant position. While investigations often focus on the relationship between CMOs and users, the principles apply equally to protect members. If, for instance, a CMO were to impose discriminatory distribution policies favouring certain classes of members, this could amount to an abuse of dominance. The European Commission’s CISAC decision underscored the need for vigilance against collusive practices among CMOs. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority retains jurisdiction to intervene where necessary.

‍

Reform of collective management remains an ongoing debate. The shift to digital platforms has exposed shortcomings in traditional distribution models. Streaming services generate complex revenue streams, often resulting in lower per-stream royalties for musicians. While PRS and MCPS have adapted their policies, musicians frequently express dissatisfaction with the opacity of calculations. There is growing discussion of whether legislative reform is required to mandate greater transparency in streaming distributions, similar to the statutory frameworks for traditional broadcasting. For practitioners, staying abreast of these developments is crucial, as the law is likely to evolve in response to industry pressures.

‍

CCLI presents a unique case study in reform. As faith communities increasingly livestream worship services, questions arise as to whether existing licences adequately cover new uses. CCLI has introduced streaming add-ons, but the adequacy of distributions to songwriters remains under scrutiny. Musicians whose works are widely used in churches may find that royalties do not reflect actual usage, prompting calls for enhanced reporting obligations upon licensees. The law may eventually intervene to require more granular reporting, thereby ensuring fair remuneration for creators in the faith sector.

‍

From a practical guidance perspective, musicians should adopt several strategies to protect their interests. First, accurate registration of works is paramount. Failure to properly register a song with PRS or MCPS may result in lost royalties, as unregistered works cannot be matched with licence revenues. Second, musicians should ensure that co-authorship splits are agreed in writing at the outset and lodged with the relevant CMO. This prevents disputes later and ensures that royalties are allocated correctly. Third, musicians should actively engage with CMO governance structures. Under the Collective Rights Management Regulations 2016, members have rights to participate indecision-making and to scrutinise financial statements. By exercising these rights, musicians can exert pressure for greater transparency and accountability.

‍

Legal practitioners advising musicians must also remain alert to potential disputes and remedies. Where a musician believes they have been underpaid, the first step is to request detailed disclosure from the CMO. If the issue is not resolved internally, recourse may be had to the Copyright Tribunal or the courts. Practitioners should also be aware of potential claims under competition law, consumer protection law, and the doctrine of restraint of trade. While CMOs provide essential services, their monopolistic position requires constant vigilance from those representing individual creators.

‍

Consider the example of a songwriter whose works are regularly performed both in secular concert halls and in church services. They may be a member of PRS, MCPS, and affiliated with CCLI through a publisher. Suppose they discover that while their works are frequently performed, the distributions from CCLI appear disproportionately low compared to PRS. The first step would be to request transparent disclosure of CCLI’s collection and distribution methodologies. If concerns persist, they may raise a formal complaint under Regulation 33. Should this prove ineffective, they may escalate to litigation, alleging breach of contract and breach of statutory duty. In parallel, they might seek to engage with PRS governance structures to advocate for more robust reciprocal reporting arrangements. This scenario illustrates how musicians must navigate multiple contractual and statutory frameworks simultaneously.

‍

Ultimately, dispute resolution and reform in the collective management ecosystem reflect a broader principle: the need to balance efficiency in rights administration with fairness to the individual creator. CMOs enable the mass licensing of millions of works, a feat that individual negotiations could never achieve. Yet, this efficiency must not come at the cost of transparency, accountability, or equitable treatment. The law, through contract, statute, and case law, provides musicians with tools to protect their interests, but those tools must be actively utilised.

‍

As the industry continues to evolve, particularly with the dominance of streaming and digital platforms, the legal framework governing CMOs is likely to face further reform. For now, musicians should adopt proactive strategies: registering works, documenting co-authorship, engaging with governance, an dutilising statutory complaint procedures. Legal practitioners must continue to hold CMOs to account, ensuring that the rights enshrined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and reinforced by the Collective Rights Management Regulations 2016 translate into meaningful financial returns for those whose creativity sustains the industry.