The Ghana Hotel Association (GHA) has filed a lawsuit against the Ghana Music Rights Organisation (GHAMRO) and Audiovisual Rights Society Of Ghana (ARSOG) for arbitrary imposition of royalties.
Dr. Edward Ackah-Nyamike Jnr., President of GHA, who is a witness in the case in a cross-examination, told the Court that the decision to come to court was borne out of the National Executive Committee meeting.
He said the decision also supported 34 resolutions from its membership, so he disagreed with the defendants, who said it was for their parochial interest that they came to court.
The Plaintiff (GHA) wants a declaration that per section 37 of the Copyright Act, 2006 (Act 690) as amended by Copyright act 2009 (Act 788) and regulations 36 and 37 of L.I 1962, copyright royalties were determined on the basis of usage and or public performance (use of copyrighted material) and not on the basis of the number of rooms and or grade/stars/hospitality industry ratings of Plaintiff’s members.
It also sought an order restraining defendants from continuing to arbitrarily assess, demand and collect copyright from Plaintiff based on the number of rooms and or grade/stars/hospitality industry ratings of Plaintiff’s members and cost (including legal fees).
It said the suit was instituted by the Plaintiff by virtue of having been granted the mandate by its members to do so.
The Plaintiff said sometime in 2014, defendants purporting to act pursuant to section 37 of the Copyright Act, 2006 (Act 690) as amended by Copyright act 2009 (Act 788) and, regulations 36 and 37 of the Copyright Regulation, 2010 (L.I 1962), sought to collect various sums as royalties and license fees from some of Plaintiff’s members.
The plaintiff’s members were dissatisfied with the basis on which defendants had unilaterally and arbitrarily imposed various sums on them as royalties and licence fees objected to the said impositions and lodged complaints with plaintiff.
It said upon receiving numerous complaints from its members, plaintiff engaged defendants in a bid to understand the basis for the purported impositions and the factors used in computing and arriving at the different sums which plaintiff’s members were being required to pay as royalties and license fees to defendants.
It said the engagements were subsequently expanded to include the Ghana Tourism Authority and the Parliamentary Select Committee on Trade, Industry and Tourism.
It contended that GHAMRO’s actions were in clear breach of the fundamental basis by which copyright royalties were assessed and collected.
The plaintiff said payment of copyright royalties and license fees was based on usage and or public performance of copyrighted material hence, GHAMRO’s attempt to revise copyright royalties, license fees and or rates based on the number of rooms or grade of plaintiff’s members was untenable and a breach of section 37 of the Copyright Act, 2006 (Act 690) as amended by Copyright act 2009 (Act 788) and regulations 36 & 37 of L.I 1962.
It said without due recourse to the provisions of section 37 of the Copyright Act, 2006 (Act 690) as amended by Copyright act 2009 (Act 788) and regulation 36 and 37 of L.I 1962 (regarding usage and or public performance of copyrighted material), ARSOG had also arbitrarily and unilaterally imposed its own levies, royalties and fees on Plaintiff’s members for their supposed use of audiovisual works.
The plaintiff contended that ARSOG’s arbitrary and unilateral imposition of levies, royalties and fees on plaintiff’s members without due recourse to section 37 of the Copyright Act, 2006 (Act 690) as amended by Copyright act 2009 (Act 788) and regulation 36 and 37 of L.I 1962 was a clear breach of the fundamental principles on which copyright royalties, licenses and fees are assessed.
The plaintiff’s members have resisted defendant’s unlawful acts and as a result, Defendants have proceeded to harass them.
Consequently, defendants continue to threaten plaintiff’s members with legal action.
It said ARSOG had indeed taken legal action against some of Plaintiff’s members for their alleged non-payment of copyright royalties and license fees arbitrarily declared and imposed by 2nd Defendant without due recourse to the relevant statues.
ARSOG had also issued various arbitrary demand notices to Plaintiff’s members, requesting the payment of copyright royalties for use of audiovisual works without any lawful means of assessment of said royalties, fees and or licenses.
It said the royalties being claimed as accrued to Defendants from Plaintiff’s members were sums arbitrarily assessed and computed by Defendants.
The said arbitrary impositions by Defendants were in clear breach of the fundamental principles for assessing and computing royalties under the Copyright Act and its Legislative Instrument (usage and or public performance).
“We reiterate that the arbitrary imposition of royalties by Defendants on the activities of Plaintiff’s members without due recourse to the Copyright Act and its accompanying Legislative Instrument is capricious and without any lawful justification considering the underlying principles for assessment and collection of royalties is contained in the Copyright Act,” it said.
It contended that the conduct of defendants was not only contrary to section 37 of Act 690 and regulations 36 and 37 of L.I 1962 but also inconsistent with Articles 23 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
