Actually there are two proposal and both are different. Let’s take a look at the first of them. The draft law proposed certain amendments to regulation of collective rights management. These amendments concern collecting societies received state accreditation. First of all under new proposal such CMO must be non-profit organisation.
This draft law intends to regulate the activity of major CMO, it does not take into account a CMO with a small repertoire. For last CMOs it will be much harder to operate and work in Russian marketplace because provisions in draft law more favorable for such CMO like Russian authors society, VOIS or RSP. The one and the same person is not permitted to hold position in more than one management department or body of CMO or to hold management position in more than one CMO.
It is also prohibited to hold position in management body of CMO more than 4 years in a row. After the expiration of 4-years term such person cannot be reelected again for this position during four years following the expiration of 4-years term. The one and the same person is not permitted to hold different positions in management bodies of CMO more than four years in row. After the expiration that term such person cannot be reelected for position in management body of CMO during four years following the expiration of 4-years term. It is also prohibited for person, being a director of rightholder-legal entity (or his/her deputies), to hold CEO-position in CMO.
The ground of authority for any CMO is only written agreement providing authority to manage certain copyright and concluded between CMO and right holder. Such agreement can be concluded between right holder who is a member of CMO or who is not a member of CMO. The ground of authority for CMO to manage certain copyright is also reciprocal agreement with sister society, including foreign sister society.
CMO also must provide equal and same conditions for all right holders in relation to conclusion of collective management agreement. CMO does not have a right to exploit objects of copyright if it has authority to manage rights therein. The quantity of founders of CMO must be more than 50 under proposed rules. CMO can conclude only non-exclusive licence agreements with its users. CMO also must provide equal and same conditions for all users it has concluded agreements with. CMO does not have a right to refuse to give a licence to any user without reasonable grounds.
If the licence agreement is concluded between user and right holder, the CMO has a right to collect royalties for exploitation of rights only if it is provided in agreement. The users must provide a CMO with all information and/or documents necessary to collect, count, allocate and distribute royalties to right holders. CMO also can create registries containing information about right holders, their rights and objects of copyright. Information from such registry is to be provided to anyone interested in a way prescribed by CMO, excluding information which is not be disclosed without right holder’s consent. Certain information about commissioned works must be published by CMO, including title of copyright object and right holder’s name.
Draft proposal included also provisions concerning state accreditation. Under these provisions the right holder can refuse whether in whole or in part from CMO services. In order to do it right holder must notify CMO in writing. CMO does not have a right to require any formalities or documents, except notification, in order to allow a right holder to withdraw certain rights from accredited CMO. If right holder intends to withdraw right in part, it must specify copyright objects and rights. After the month following the receiving by CMO of right holder’s notification CMO must exclude mentioned rights and/or copyright objects from its repertoire and agreements with users and publish relevant information.