A DISPUTE over the alleged failure by several cinemas across the country to pay music royalties as calculated by the Irish Music Rights Organisation (Imro) has come before the Commercial Court.
Imro has brought the proceedings against 17 cinema companies, all members of the Ward Anderson group, over the companies’ alleged failure to pay licence fees to Imro under a new tariff system implemented over the years 2005 to 2008.
Following the defendants’ alleged failure by October last to discharge outstanding royalties, Imro said it terminated the defendants Copyright Music Licences. Despite the termination, it claims the defendants are continuing to perform and/or authorise the performance of copyright music within the repertoire controlled by Imro.
When the proceedings came before Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan in the Commercial Court yesterday, she was told by Brian O’Moore SC, for Imro, the case could be admitted to that court’s list on consent and adjourned to facilitate discussions between the sides as to how to progress the matter.
In correspondence from their solicitors, the defendants say they wish to have the matter referred to the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to assess the reasonableness of the royalty tariff sanctioned by Imro in 2005. They claim Imro sought in 2005 to unilaterally introduce a 150 per cent increase in the royalty rate and that the increased rate was unjustified.
Imro says the previous version of the tariff, which was in place for 11 years up to 2005, contained a different method of calculating royalties. Since 2005, royalties are payable annually in advance at the beginning of the licence year and are later subject to an adjustment at the end of that licence year to reflect annual box office receipts.
Imro claims the tariff operating since 2005 was determined following a review process and consideration of submissions from cinema operators and others. It says it has received various payments on behalf of Ward Anderson for royalties since 2005 which it accepted pending the outcome of negotiations between the sides.
The payments received were calculated on the basis of the previous lower tariff and further amounts are due and owing, Imro claims.
It claims it was evident by August 2008 the defendants had little interest in meaningful discussions on the matter. From September 2008, it warned the defendants they were in breach of their licence obligations and they faced having their licences terminated. The licences were terminated on October 13th last.