Collective management organisations and efforts to protect rights owners (Part 2)  

In order to increase music users’ obligations, GHAMRO embarked on a number of programmes to ensure its members receive fair remuneration for their works. The programmes include training its members, computerising its database, sensitising users, signing agreements with user groups, and improving royalty collection methods (including the use of the copyright monitoring team). These activities led to annual increases in revenues.

There has been significant growth in revenue from both mechanical rights (private copying levy) and performance rights. There was an increase in revenue from performing rights of 162.7 per cent in 2015 over that of 2014, and an increase of 73.8 per cent in 2016. This trend clearly shows that the programmes designed to increase user obligations in the form of sensitisation and signing of agreements, together with improvements in collection methods, are yielding fruits.

REPROGRAPHIC RIGHTS ORGANISATION OF GHANA (COPYGHANA)

The initial effort towards the establishment of CopyGhana started in 1999 as a joint effort between the Ghana Association of Writers and the Ghana Book Publishers Association under the auspices of the Copyright Office. The organisation was officially named CopyGhana in 2000. Between 2003 and 2011, the Reprographic Rights Organisation of Norway (Korpinor), provided annual funding for the operation of CopyGhana.

CopyGhana is mandated under the Copyright Act of 2005 (Act 690) and the Copyright Regulations to serve as the Collective Management Organisation to license photocopying and some digital copying in the country. The organisation represents and protects the professional, economic, moral and other interests of members in Ghana and abroad.

The current member associations of CopyGhana are:

• Ghana Association of Writers • Ghana Book Publishers Association

• Ghana Journalists Association

• Ghana Association of Visual Artists

• Ghana Union of Professional Photographers

Collecting revenues for its members

Section 18 of the Copyright Regulations defines the mode for collecting revenues for the members of CopyGhana as follows:

1. A reprographic rights collecting society shall determine a fee in respect of photocopying of works protected by copyright and related rights by educational institutions and any other outlets where reprography is carried out commercially;

2. In furtherance of sub-regulation (1), the reprographic rights collecting society shall collect the fee on behalf of stakeholders and beneficiaries; and

3. Where there is a dispute over a fee imposed on photocopying of copyright works by a collecting society, the Tribunal shall levy a flat rate fee as it (Tribunal) considers fit.

The main sources of CopyGhana’s income are reprographic fees through licensing agreements with user institutions and the mechanical rights levy or private copying levy. The licensing strategies of the organisation have been public education, dialogue and negotiations with authorities of user institutions, student leaders and education policymakers.

The challenge the organisation had in its dialogue and negotiations with the authorities of the tertiary institutions was the issue of the minimum permitted copying rights. CopyGhana, in order to prove that the level of photocopying and digital copying being undertaken in the tertiary institutions is above the permitted level, undertook a survey in seven tertiary institutions. The survey was funded by Kopinor and the Copyright Clearance Centre of the USA. As a result, the survey:

1. Provided an important tool for licensing and distribution of remuneration to rights holders

2. Increased rights holders’ awareness of the infringement of their works

3. Raised the awareness of both the authorities and students of user institutions of the level and volume of copying in their institutions

4. Established a scientific way of fixing the tariff

CopyGhana used the results of the survey as a tool to conclude negotiations with 10 technical universities and one public university. Negotiations on signing licensing agreements with the other tertiary institutions are still ongoing, and this is expected to lead to a substantial increase in the revenue of the organisation.

AUDIOVISUAL RIGHTS SOCIETY OF GHANA (ARSOG)

Like the other two collective management organisations, ARSOG’s operations are enforced under the Copyright Act and Copyright Regulations. The organisation’s membership consists of producers, authors and performers in the audiovisual sector of the creative and performing arts industry.The organisation had 147 members in 2012 and, by the end of 2015, the number had increased to 216.

One of the first actions of ARSOG was to develop a website (www.arsog.org) to encourage interaction with its members and the general public. Members can register online as well as put their own works on the site to publicise them for sales locally and internationally.

In 2013, a number of projects were undertaken by ARSOG to help collect enough information for planning. Among the projects were:

1. An impact assessment of infringement on the film industry in the country

2. A market survey to identify true owners of works and the validity of credits of works

3. Identification and sensitisation of users of audiovisual works.

Collecting revenues for its members

Like the other two CMOs, ARSOG is a recipient of the levy on recordable material (blank levy) from the Government on behalf of the owners of audiovisual works. In addition, ARSOG collects royalties on behalf of owners from public users of audiovisual works. The main user categories are the same as that of GHAMRO.

The activities and processes aimed at enhancing the collection of royalties from users are similar to that of GHAMRO. In order to eliminate the duplication of efforts, ARSOG, as one of its resounding decisions to propel the society forward in 2016, entered into collaboration with GHAMRO for ease of operations in areas of common interest.

In conclusion, CMOs in Ghana have stood up to the task of representing their members’ interests vis à vis the public and government. Thus, CMOs are critical intermediaries for the enforcement of copyright laws. The CMOs have the capacity to provide the necessary infrastructure for managing digital rights if they get the needed support from government.

[This piece is culled from a study conducted by Magnus Ebo Duncan (PHD), titled: “Economiccontribution of copyright companies in Ghana”]

By Dr. Akofa K. Segbefia