Back in January this year the UK Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) published a consultation with different options for changing the law on public performance rights (“PPR”).  They have now taken stock of the responses and come to a decision.

Background

I covered the consultation in this article, but the crux of it is that there are more limited circumstances in the UK when foreign performers get PPR revenue in comparison to foreign producers and the UK Government has been considering different options for addressing the issue.

Essentially, foreign performers only get PPR if they are a national of a qualifying country or if their performance is given in a qualifying country and if that country gives corresponding PPR to UK nationals. That underlined requirement does not apply to foreign producers (e.g. record labels), meaning there can be circumstances (such as with the US which has more limited PPR than the UK) where foreign producers are getting PPR royalties but not foreign performers.

The IPO considered the following options:

• Option 0: do nothing. Different rules would continue to apply to foreign producers and performers. 
• Option 1: treat foreign performers in the same way as foreign producers.  This would mean an expansion of the rights of foreign performers in line with those of foreign producers.
• Option 2: treat foreign producers in the same way as foreign performers.  This would mean a reduction in the rights of foreign producers as they would only get PPR to the extent that their countries provide PPR to UK nationals.
• Option 3: apply Option 1 to pre-existing sound recordings and performances and apply Option 2 to new ones.  This would do what it says on the tin.

The consultation received 33 responses from interested parties such as music and broadcasting trade associations, collection societies and academics.  Most supported either Option 0 or Option 1.

The Decision

The UK Government’s view is that the existing law is inconsistent with some of the UK’s international obligations as parties to treaties such as the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations and the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty.  This means something has to be done and Option 0 is not going to cut it.

The Government was originally leaning towards adopting Option 1, however the responses to the consultation it received led it to revise its assessment of the potential financial impact of this option and instead it has decided to go with a new ‘Option 0A’.  This will mean:

• Continuing to provide PPR to producers of sound recordings on the same terms as it does now; and
• Providing PPR to performers on the same terms as it does now, except to also provide PPR to performers where the producer of the sound recording of their performance is a national of the UK or certain other countries, including any country that is party to the Rome Convention.

The Impact

But what does this mean in reality?  Essentially:

• Some more foreign performers will qualify for PPR.
• However, there will still be circumstances where a foreign producer of a sound recording gets PPR but the performer does not.
• UK record labels and the wider music sector will see some costs, with the former expected to take a hit of around £1.4 million per year. However, this will be much less than with Option 1, which was anticipated to be around £7.4 million per year.

Ultimately then, this is a win, albeit a rather small one, for foreign performers.  Legislative changes will be making their way through Parliament and will take effect in mid-December 2024.