A group of songwriters who are suing PRS have written an open letter that is scathing of the UK collecting society. The letter is the latest development in a dispute over how PRS handles withdrawal of rights when writers want to do direct licensing deals around the live performance of their songs
The songwriters who are suing PRS in a dispute over how the UK collecting society deals with members directly licensing live performances have published an open letter, accusing the society of failing to acknowledge that “their own writer members are suing the organisation” because they feel it no longer operates in their best interests.
The letter is signed by writers like King Crimson founder Robert Fripp and two members of the Jesus & Mary Chain, as well as Pace Rights Management, the agency they work with when direct licensing their songs.
The recent lawsuit – which involves Pace as well as the writers – claimed that PRS has put in place “unreasonable and unnecessary hurdles” to make it more difficult for writers to go the direct licensing route. Those hurdles, it added, were designed to “prevent writers from direct licensing their rights”. PRS has issued a statement strongly denying those claims.
The open letter is lengthy and breaks down PRS’s statement clause by clause. Among other things, it disputes claims by PRS that its policies around the licensing of live music have been subject to a “thorough and extensive approval and review process”, and that it has “consistently sought constructive dialogue” with Pace Rights Management.
The letter also repeatedly criticises PRS over the lack of transparency around its policies and the fees charged by foreign societies which represent its members’ rights in other countries.
With live music, the industry has traditionally relied on the collective licensing system. Songwriters join a collecting society – PRS in the UK – which then issues blanket licences to promoters which are staging live performances of music. Promoters pay royalties to the society, which then passes the money on to writers and their publishers minus it administration fees.
Because societies usually only issue licences in their home country, PRS allows other societies to issue licences covering its members’ works in other markets. The local society collects the money from promoters, passes it to PRS, which then pays the writers and publishers. In that scenario, both societies usually charge admin fees as royalties flow through the system.
Although collective licensing is the usual approach with live music, it is not the only approach. Some writers opt to do direct licensing deals around live music, most commonly in relation to their own shows and tours.
In that scenario, the writer withdraws their live performance rights from their collecting society and negotiates a licence directly with each promoter, often hiring a company like Pace to manage that process. Direct licensing usually means the writer gets paid quicker and pays fewer admin fees.
In its response to the lawsuit, PRS said its policies and rules regarding things like the withdrawal of live rights had been through a “thorough and extensive approval and review process” involving its board and members council, and “were approved by members at the PRS AGM”.
The new letter challenges PRS “to support that claim” and “provide the membership with transparency” about the approval and review process, including minutes from all relevant meetings. Because, it adds, “PRS has to date chosen not to share with its members details of the decision making process about policies that are imposed on the membership”.
The PRS statement also said that the society has “consistently sought constructive dialogue with Pace for many years”, adding that it has proposed and implemented solutions to issues raised around the withdrawal of rights. “We have worked extremely hard to simplify our processes in the interest of our members, which Pace has consistently failed to comply or engage with”, it added.
The letter says that those claims present “a false narrative”, adding that PRS has “refused to engage or discuss any matter with Pace for more than seven years now”. There have been two meetings, in October 2022 and February 2023, they explain, but neither provided an opportunity to properly discuss and address the issues.
One topic of discussion at the second meeting was the lack of transparency about the fees charged by foreign collecting societies as they process royalties due to PRS members. PRS declares the fees it charges on that income in its annual transparency report, which it is obliged to publish under copyright law. However, that report does not declare what fees the other societies charge, on live or any other income stream.
None of the PRS representatives in that meeting wanted to comment on whether or not that lack of transparency was in the interest of PRS members, the letter states.
It then addresses PRS Chair Julian Nott, a songwriter, and asks him to “publicly confirm that it is indeed in the best interests of PRS members to have transparency on the administration fees and deductions from overseas [collecting societies] that members are suffering when they license their rights internationally through PRS”.
“Presumably PRS has this information”, it adds, “and can easily publish it on its website within the month – not just for live, but also for radio, TV, general, online, etc, for all usages”.
