The 'Measures to Ensure Transparency of Copyright Collective Management Organizations' academic seminar, co-hosted by the Korea Copyright Commission and the Korean Copyright Law Association and sponsored by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, was held on the 5th at the Seoul office of the Korea Copyright Commission in Jung-gu, Seoul. This seminar was organized to explore ways to improve the transparency of the copyright trust management system.
However, the rights holder organizations actually performing copyright collective management were excluded from the list of presenters and discussants. Rights holders and stakeholders attending the seminar expressed deep disappointment over this and voiced strong concerns that the discussions were leaning towards a regulatory focus, such as strengthening oversight and budget intervention.
In particular, stakeholders strongly opposed the proposal by Professor Park Seong-ho of Hanyang University to mandate budget preparation guidelines for collective management organizations under copyright law and to establish a budget approval authority for the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism. They pointed out that such measures could seriously infringe upon the autonomy and independence of private non-profit organizations that do not receive financial support from the state, and that the approach of directly controlling private budgets under the guise of transparency and democratic governance contradicts the fundamental purpose of the 'K-Collective Management System', which aims to maintain and expand the global competitiveness of K-content. They also stated that excessive state intervention in the private arts and culture ecosystem could threaten creative freedom and the competitiveness of the industry, which is not appropriate for the policy direction of a free democratic country.
Meanwhile, creators and representatives of collective management organizations present at the event also expressed various opinions. In particular, there were significant concerns regarding some of the proposed institutional improvements raised during the seminar, especially the introduction of budget approval authority and other regulatory approaches.
Composer A stated, "It is very regrettable that the voices of rights holders and collective management organizations were absent from the seminar," and pointed out that "discussions on such topics are incomplete without the participation of the parties involved." He emphasized, "The association already has a transparent system in place, including the disclosure of payment statements and general account expenditures, and the factors that actually hinder transparency are rather the lack of cooperation from users, such as broadcasters not providing cue sheets."
Lyricist B criticized, "The establishment of budget approval authority is a very dangerous idea," stating, "Having the state approve a budget that has already been approved by a private organization's general meeting is an infringement on the autonomy of the private sector and an excessive intervention of public power." He further expressed concern that "additional legislative regulations could weaken the trust in the system, especially when creators are already suffering practical damages due to the current approval system for collection regulations."
(C) of the Korean Broadcasting Performers Rights Association also emphasized, "Improving the copyright ecosystem is not possible solely through the efforts of collective management organizations, and the obligation for users to provide information must also be discussed." He added, "The approach of uniformly regulating each trust organization, despite their different operational structures and characteristics, does not reflect reality."
(A representative of the Korean Music Copyright Association stated, "Transparency is not achieved by strengthening regulations on organizations, but is naturally realized when a systemic foundation is established to protect creators' rights and fairly distribute profits." They believe that a system where collective management organizations and users autonomously negotiate usage fees, as seen in France and Japan, and institutionalizing mutual information provision obligations could be a practical alternative.
Additionally, they stated, "To enhance the effectiveness of the collective management system, the responsibilities and roles of both rights holder organizations and users must be balanced, and discussions on institutional improvements should also take place with the substantial participation of the parties involved." They added that unilateral discussions excluding the opinions of rights holders could undermine the trust in the system and expressed their intention to actively voice their opinions for the sustainable design of a creator-centered system in the future.
[Ji Seung-hoon, Star Today Reporter]
