[ad_1]
The Federated Hospitality Association of Southern Africa (Fedhasa) has taken the South African Music Rights Organisation (Samro) to court over the latter’s 2023 changes to the way public establishments including restaurants and hotels are charged music licensing fees.
According to a statement by Fedhasa, restaurants and hotels were previously charged for music played in public spaces only, but the changes made extend these fees to music played from individual TV sets in private hotel rooms.
“We are not disputing the usual fees that we have paying for over 30 years. What we are wanting clarification on from the court is the new fee where they are charging per TV set per hotel room,” said Rosemary Anderson, national chair for South Africa at Fedhasa.
“Our members feel they shouldn’t be paying these additional fees and that is why we have approached the court.”
Anderson said Fedhasa and Samro have a good working relationship, which is why the two entities tried to resolve the dispute between themselves before Fedhasa went to court. The key point of contention in the debate between hospitality industry stakeholders and Samro is the definition of what constitutes a public performance.
Fedhasa members believe music played in the common areas of a hotel including pools, foyers and lobbies fits the definition of a public performance and that they ought to pay fees to Samro for this, but that music played from a TV in a private room does not. Samro disagrees.
In response to a query from TechCentral, Samro retorted by saying music played through a TV set in a private hotel room fits the definition of a performance under the Copyright Act. It further argued that commercial entities like hotels benefit from music being played through TVs, which represent work administered by Samro that attracts fees.
‘Double dipping’
Another bone of contention relates to what Fedhasa members have referred to as “double dipping” by Samro. Hotels and other public establishments pay subscription or licensing fees to broadcasters like the SABC and DStv for the packages guests enjoy in the privacy of their hotel rooms. The fees Samro collects from these broadcasters for the music played through their various channels is assumed to be baked into the subscription fees charged to hotels. Samro charging hotels additional fees is excessive, said Fedhasa.
But Samro rebuffed the double-dipping argument, saying the fees charged by broadcasters for access to their channels are a separate concern.
Read: Spotify to launch new high-end Music Pro tier in 2025
“Samro is not double dipping, as Fedhasa is conflating the matter. The SABC and DStv are regulated under the Broadcasting Act, and the obligation to obtain a mandate or a licence for using someone else’s musical works is regulated by the Copyright Act. It is irrelevant that accommodation providers are already paying the SABC and MultiChoice subscription fees,” it said. “These subscription fees are for a separate, distinct and different purpose and do not cover the public performance of compositions synchronised to various programmes.”
The third argument brought forward by Fedhasa members questions the legitimacy of the new fees based on history. According to Anderson, some Fedhasa members questioned why music played through individual TV sets in private hotel rooms suddenly came to fit the definition of a public performance after 30 years. “A lot of members feel they shouldn’t be paying it because they haven’t in the past, so why now?” said Anderson.
Read: Spotify says it paid South African artists R400-million last year
She said there is a mix of attitudes among Fedhasa members when it comes to complying with Samro’s new fee structure. Some members have paid their fees for compliance sake but then came to Fedhasa to express their unhappiness. Others are so forthright in their stance that Samro is acting unlawfully that they have refused to pay any additional fees resulting from the new rule until the courts have clarified the matter.
Samro, meanwhile, has improved its fee collection capacity in recent years. According to a February statement by the organisation, Samro had a bumper 2024, growing total licence fee revenue by 15% year on year to R684-million. Samro attributed the growth to “diversified licensing” that has “unlocked new revenue streams”.
When queried about the impact the court’s decision could have on its finances, Samro did not give any figures. “The impact is material to Samro as composers and authors depend on royalty income. Individual creators will be highly affected if corporations are allowed to use their creations without compensation,” it said. – © 2025 NewsCentral Media
Get breaking news from TechCentral on WhatsApp. Sign up here.
Don’t miss:
[ad_2]
Source link
