SONGWRITERS SUE PRS FOR MUSIC IN LICENSING DISPUTE

British PRO PRS for Music has been sued by a group of U.K. songwriters and composers over what they claim is a lack of transparency, preventing writers from direct licensing and awarding preferential conditions to higher-earning members.

The court action was filed by songwriters including Robert Fripp of King Crimson and William Reid of The Jesus and Mary Chain. They were joined by PACE Rights Management, which facilitates rights management outside the PRO system in favor of direct licensing to promoters, venues and festivals.

There are three issues at the heart of the complaint. The first focuses on the right of music writers and publishers to efficiently direct-license their live-public-performance rights, on which the group says PRS has imposed a number of “unreasonable and unnecessary hurdles."

Secondly, the plaintiffs say PRS is deliberately withholding information from its members about the deductions imposed on royalty income when it licenses rights internationally.

The third complaint focuses on the implementation of the Major Live Concert Service, under which PRS has been accused of charging a lower administration fee—0.2%—on a songwriter’s cut of ticket sales for events where the capacity and face-value ticket fee are on the higher end. The wider PRS membership is said to be charged an admin fee of 23%. This, says the complaint, “has created a situation where, for instance, a songwriter whose works are performed at a concert selling just over 500 tickets with a face value of £30 is charged more administration fees by PRS than a songwriter whose works are performed at a concert selling 80,000 tickets with a face value of £150.”

In a collective statement, the claimants in the legal action said, “PRS has strayed significantly from the principles on which it was founded 110 years ago, to the point that the organization’s policies no longer appear to be operating in the best interests of its members. PRS members are treated as second-class citizens in their own organization. The ball is now firmly in PRS’s court. Either they constructively engage with much-needed reforms to empower and benefit writers and publishers, or they continue to resist these necessary changes and attempt to defend the indefensible by spending yet more of the members’ money on legal costs supporting policies that make the members less money."

Fripp added, “I am yet to be persuaded that the PRS operates on behalf of the membership's best interests.”