The global emergence of intellectual property law is to protect creators of original works from exploitation by other individuals who contributed nothing to the actualization of such work. In other words, the essence of the regulations on intellectual property is to ensure that individuals or organizations do not exploit the work of creators who expended certain efforts in the creation of such work. Thus, copyright holders are always on the lookout to ensure that their copyrighted works are not exploited without their consent or without some form of acknowledgement as the creator of such work.

However, with the rapid development of technology worldwide, it has now become easier to exploit copyrighted works without the notice or knowledge of the copyright owner of such work. As such, the need for the development of organizations that will serve as an agent for copyright holders arose. This in essence birth the establishment of Collecting societies also refers to as Collective Management organization (CMO).

THE ROLE OF COLLECTING SOCIETY IN NIGERIA.

Collecting society also known as Collective Management Organization (CMO) is a society in respect of copyright administration. The society usually functions as the administrator of copyright rights of authors and creators. They serve as agents for their registered members who through registration voluntarily give the society an authority to administer and enforce copyright on their behalf by collecting royalties, issuing licenses, and ensuring fair compensation of their copyrighted works amongst others.

Collecting societies or Collective Management Organizations (CMO) are important in the administration of copyright works because usually, it is impossible for a copyright owner (a musician for example) to monitor all platforms or avenues where his work is being used or infringed. Thus, collective societies serves as an intermediary in bridging this gap by granting licenses to users and collecting to royalties on behalf of the copyright owner who they represents. Collecting societies also help to make it easier to access copyright works for use by other prospective users who are willing to use the work with the proper permission of the owner.

Collecting societies or Collective Management Organizations (CMO) are important in the administration of copyright works because usually, it is impossible for a copyright owner (a musician for example) to monitor all platforms or avenues where his work is being used or infringed. Thus, collective societies serves as an intermediary in bridging this gap by granting licenses to users and collecting to royalties on behalf of the copyright owner who they represents. Collecting societies also help to make it easier to access copyright works for use by other prospective users who are willing to use the work with the proper permission of the owner.

In Nigeria, by virtue of section 39 of the Copyright Act, a collecting society may be formed and licensed by the Nigerian Copyright Commission in respect of some certain rights of copyright owners for their exclusive benefits. Notwithstanding the provision of the Copyright Act regarding collecting societies, a copyright owner retains the exclusive right to his work whether to reproduce, adapt, and distribute amongst other the work is exclusively within the legal purview of the owner.

However, to enable the easy monitoring of the use of this work as stated earlier, a collective society maybe formed to administer one or more of the rights of the copyright owner. Currently, according to the NCC website, there are three (3) approved CMO’s in Nigeria to administer different categories of rights, they include;

1. Reproduction Rights Organization of Nigeria (RERONIG), a collecting society for literary and publishing
2. Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria (MCSN), a collecting society for musical works.
3. Audio-Visual Rights Society of Nigeria (AVRS), a collecting society for cinematography films

The provision on Collecting Society or Collective Management Organization in Nigeria is that the Nigerian Copyright Commission can only license one collecting society in respect of a specific right when it is satisfied that such collecting society is adequate in administering that specific right in that area.

SPOTIFY’S CASE AND CMOs

In 2019, Eminem through his publisher, Eight Mile Style, sued Spotify (a well- known digital streaming platform) for the unlicensed streaming of his tracks on their platform. It was alleged that even though Spotify had streamed these tracks a billion times, no royalty has been remitted to Eight Mile Style, just random payment that does not even account for a fraction of those steams. Thus, Eight Mile Style alleged that Spotify’s act amounted to willful copyright infringement and sued Spotify based on this claim. In 2020 however, Spotify responded to the lawsuit claiming that Kobalt Music Group, a company that administers Eminem’s music right, had misled them into believing they have the right to stream the rapper’s tracks. Eventually, it turned out that Kobalt Music Group had entered into an agreement with Spotify to license the rapper’s music when in fact, Kobalt Music Group has no such right themselves since the consent of Eight Mile Style, who was the publisher, was not sought or given.

After five years of back and forth of the legal battle between the parties (Eight Mile Style, Spotify and Kobalt Music Group), the parties came to an agreement and opted for a summary judgement to avoid full jury trial. Therefore, in August 2024, Judge Aleta A. Trauger issued her judgement and held that although Spotify mishandled Eminem’s copyrights, it is not liable to pay any damages to the Eight Mile Style. The court’s rationale for this is that it observed that Eight Mile Style had given Kobalt Music Group the authority to collect their royalties but not the authority to license or give license for the music but rather gave the authority to license to another different company. The court stated that the action of Eight Miles Style was an intentional act to extract money from Spotify through the copyright infringement complicated web they cunningly created and thereby held in favor of Spotify, stating that Eight Miles Style is not entitled to receive any damages.

Considering the spotify case briefly explained above, it is an undisputed fact that the defeat Eminem encountered regarding this case was due to the incompetence of the collecting society administering the right to his copyright work, that is, his over 200 tracks that was streamed without proper licensing. Although, the role of collecting societies cannot be overemphasized considering the advent and accessibility to technologies and social media platforms as well as the internet in general, however, with the tedious nature of monitoring copyright works on different platforms or avenues where a copyright work is being used or infringed by the copyright owner himself, the need for collecting societies becomes inevitable.

Despite the inevitability of collecting societies in administering copyright rights on behalf of the owners, it is also imperative to set a clear and concise legal framework, an unambiguous purview within which collecting societies should exercise these rights on behalf of the owners. Also, a copyright owner must ensure that there is a proper agreement between himself and the collecting society acting on his behalf and there should be a clear instruction and agreement on the management of his right. It is quite unfortunate that the expected right of the rapper, Eminem, which is to be properly enforced in his favor was jeopardized because of the act of the collecting management administering his right. Due and proper permission of a copyright owner ought to be sought before any action is being carried out in respect of his work, whether streaming or otherwise.

Conclusion

The administration of copyright rights of copyright owners ought to be properly enforced by the collecting societies in charge of monitoring and granting licenses in respect of such copyright work. There should be a clear and concise agreement between the owner and the society and also, frequent checks should be done to ascertain that there is no misrepresentation of any sort and any form of deception when it comes to the right to grant license or collect royalties. It is imperative to regulate the acts of collecting societies and not open window for wide, uncontrollable discretionary power because this may be detrimental to the interest of copyright owners.