Neighbouring Rights and Performer Royalties: The Complete Reference

What is a neighbouring right, and am I owed one?

This page is a reference, not legal advice. It describes what the statutes, treaties and the named societies' own publications say; it does not tell you what to do about your situation.

A neighbouring right is the right to be paid when a sound recording is broadcast or played in public. Not the song — the recording. When a radio station plays a track, a shop pipes it through a ceiling speaker, a television programme uses it under a scene, or a non-interactive streaming service transmits it, most countries require the user to pay a fee, and that fee is divided between the people who made the recording: the performers on it and whoever owns the master.

It is a separate stream from anything a distributor pays and from anything a songwriting society pays. It is collected by a different set of organisations, on different data, on a different schedule, and — this is the part that costs independent artists money — it is almost never paid to you automatically. In most territories somebody has to claim the performance, and that somebody is you.

The sum involved is not small. IFPI reports that performance rights revenues — its term for this category — reached US$2.9 billion in 2025, growing 0.3% year on year, out of US$31.7 billion in total recorded music revenue (IFPI, Global Music Report 2026). That is the money this page is about.

---

Three income streams, three different things

Confusing these three is the most common reason an artist believes they are collecting everything when they are collecting perhaps two thirds of it.

Publishing income attaches to the composition — the melody, chords and lyrics as written. It is collected by performing rights organisations and mechanical rights societies and owed to songwriters and publishers. If you did not write the song, you are owed none of it. IAFAR, the trade body for artist-side rights administrators, puts it in one sentence: "Neighbouring Rights apply to the sound recording whereas publishing applies to the composition" (IAFAR).

Neighbouring rights income attaches to the recording, and is triggered by broadcast and public performance. It is collected by a separate class of body — a performers' or producers' collective management organisation — and owed to the performers on the recording and to the master owner. If you did not write the song but you sang on it, this is the stream that pays you.

Streaming royalties from your distributor also attach to the recording, but arise from a different legal act: an on-demand licence granted by the master owner to the service. A distributor is not a collecting society, does not hold a neighbouring-rights mandate for you, and in ordinary circumstances does not claim your performer share. Money reaching your distributor dashboard is not evidence that your neighbouring rights are being collected.

A useful test: neighbouring rights pay people for performing; publishing pays people for writing.

---

Who is entitled, and in what shares

Three classes of claimant share the money, and the vocabulary matters because it decides which pool you are paid from.

The featured performer is the artist credited on the release — the name on the sleeve, the lead vocalist, the named soloist, the credited band members. Terminology varies by society: PPL distinguishes "contracted featured artist" from "other featured artist," and IAFAR warns performers to learn the difference before claiming (IAFAR).

The non-featured performer is everyone else audible on the master: session musicians, backing vocalists, the string section, the horn player who came in for one afternoon. In most jurisdictions they hold a statutory entitlement that does not depend on their session contract, and it goes unclaimed at scale, because session players frequently do not know they are owed it.

The master rights holder — the label, or the artist who released the record themselves — holds the producer-of-phonograms share.

How the split works

Two structures dominate. In the European model, the statutory basis is a single equitable remuneration payable by the user and divided between performers and producers. The EU's Rental and Lending Directive requires Member States to provide that where a commercially published phonogram is broadcast or communicated to the public, "a single equitable remuneration is paid by the user" and shared between performers and phonogram producers (Directive 2006/115/EC, Article 8(2) — EUR-Lex). In practice most implementing countries split it evenly. SENA states plainly that in the Netherlands, "for each track, 50% of the fee goes to the musician(s) and 50% to the producer(s)" (SENA). France's SPRE says the amount collected is, "conforming to the law, returned to these collective management organizations equally between producers and performers" (SPRE). Canada's Re:Sound divides revenue equally between performers and makers (Re:Sound).

In the US statutory model, the split is fixed in the Copyright Act rather than by a society's distribution rules. Under 17 U.S.C. §114(g)(2), receipts from the statutory digital licence are allocated 50% to the sound recording copyright owner, 45% to the featured recording artist or artists, 2.5% to an escrow account for non-featured musicians administered by an independent administrator jointly appointed by copyright owners and the American Federation of Musicians, and 2.5% to an equivalent account for non-featured vocalists (17 U.S.C. §114). Those two escrowed 2.5% shares are what the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund exists to pay out (AFM & SAG-AFTRA Fund).

Two cautions. First, the performer share is then subdivided between featured and non-featured performers by each society's own rules, and those rules are not uniform — weighting may be by role, by number of performers, or by a points system. Second, if you released the record yourself, you are both a performer and a master rights holder, and must register in both capacities to be paid both shares. SENA says so explicitly: a self-releasing artist qualifies as both musician and producer and receives both remunerations by keeping two accounts and registering the repertoire under each (SENA).

---

The main collecting societies, by territory

The bodies below are the ones an independent artist is most likely to need. Coverage is uneven: a society that pays performers generously in one country may have no counterpart at all in a neighbouring one, and several large recorded-music markets have no functioning performer collection at all.

United States — SoundExchange

SoundExchange is "the only organization designated by the U.S. government to administer the Section 114 sound recording license" (SoundExchange). It collects from more than 3,600 services — satellite radio, webcasters, digital cable — and not from over-the-air radio, a point it makes itself: "Currently, there is no performance right for over-the-air broadcasts" (SoundExchange FAQ). Registration is free. It distributed $991.5 million in 2025 and passed $13 billion cumulatively in March 2026 (SoundExchange).

United Kingdom — PPL

PPL licenses recorded music used in UK broadcasts, online services, workplaces and venues; membership is free for performers and recording rightsholders alike (PPL). In 2025 its revenue was £315.3 million, of which £94.0 million was international (up 16%), £122.9 million public performance and £98.5 million broadcast and online; it paid over 182,000 members and reported 117 agreements with CMOs across 55 countries (PPL). PPL's own "what we do" page cites a lower figure of "more than 110 agreements"; 117 is the more recent statement.

A performer claims a specific recording through the myPPL portal by submitting evidence of their contribution and selecting a role; PPL notes that "roles are split into a number of types, not all of which are eligible for payment" (PPL).

Germany — GVL

GVL administers neighbouring rights for performers, producers and event organisers, reports over 180,000 rightsholders, and collects from radio and television, web radio, in-store radio, music video, direct reproduction and international sources; signing a rights administration agreement is free (GVL). It reports "more than 70 international representation agreements for performers and producers" (GVL).

Netherlands — SENA

SENA licenses businesses and organisations and distributes to musicians and producers, reporting more than 53,000 rightsholders. It describes itself as a non-profit paying out "as quickly as possible and at the lowest possible cost," but publishes no commission percentage (SENA).

France — SPRE, ADAMI, SPEDIDAM

France separates collection from distribution. SPRE collects the rémunération équitable, which originates in the 1985 "Lang Law" and is governed by Article L.214-1 of the Intellectual Property Code, and passes it to the member societies split equally between producers and performers (SPRE). The performer share is distributed by ADAMI, a collective management organisation for the rights of performers (ADAMI), and by SPEDIDAM, which collects equitable remuneration and private copying remuneration and is open to performing artists "regardless of nationality" and whether principal or accompanying; joining requires an adhesion act with a €16 membership share and evidence of professional activity (SPEDIDAM).

Which of the two an artist should approach is described differently by different sources, and neither society's public pages state a bright-line rule. Treat "ADAMI for principal artists, SPEDIDAM for musicians and accompanying artists" as a rule of thumb, not a legal test, and ask both.

Italy — Nuovo IMAIE and SCF

Italy also separates the two sides. SCF represents music producers and licenses commercial premises, radio, television and web broadcasts, describing a repertoire of more than 20 million tracks (SCF). Nuovo IMAIE is the performers' body, covering music and audiovisual performers, with online registration through its artist portal; its site reports 473,000 performing artists in its database as at December 2024 (Nuovo IMAIE). Neither publishes a membership fee or commission rate on the pages surveyed. A third performer society, ITSRIGHT, also operates: Italy is not a single-society market, so establish which body holds your mandate rather than assuming.

Canada — Re:Sound

Re:Sound licenses the "equitable remuneration" right in section 19 of the Copyright Act, covering public performance and broadcast, new media, streaming, satellite radio, background music in commercial venues, live events and fitness facilities. Revenue is split equally between performers and makers, less actual costs of collection and distribution. Artists cannot be paid directly by Re:Sound; they must join a member collective — its FAQ names ACTRA RACS, Artisti and Panorama (Re:Sound).

Australia — PPCA

PPCA licenses the broadcast, communication and public playing of recorded music and music videos across more than 55,000 venues plus radio and television (PPCA). For Australian recordings, "featured Australian artists who register can access their share of 50% of the income allocated to each track"; for non-Australian recordings the money goes to the controlling label. Distributions are calculated after the end of the financial year and paid in December (PPCA).

Eligibility is narrow: an Australian citizen, protected person or resident, a featured performer (not session, contract or DJ), on a protected, eligible recording. Registration must be completed by 31 August to be paid in that year's distribution, and "no funds are held in reserve" for unregistered artists (PPCA). An independent artist who owns the copyright registers as a Licensor instead.

Australia is also the clearest case of a statutory cap on this income: section 152(8) of the Copyright Act 1968 limits what commercial radio pays for sound recordings to 1% of gross annual revenue, and PPCA states the rate actually paid had been around 0.4% (PPCA). On 14 January 2026 the Copyright Tribunal set a new rate of 0.55% of gross industry revenue, backdated to 1 July 2023 (PPCA).

Everywhere else — a realistic note

SCAPR, the worldwide federation of performers' CMOs, represents 69 CMOs across 51 countries and territories (SCAPR). There are close to 200 countries. In much of the world there is no performer society, or one whose distributions are so small or so delayed that registration is not worth the effort. Where a society exists but you have no local presence, your route in is a reciprocal agreement between your home society and that one — which is why choosing a home society matters more than chasing individual territories.

---

Why the United States is the exception

US copyright law contains no general public performance right in sound recordings. The right that exists is narrower and newer: the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 created an exclusive right under section 106(6) to "perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission" — and expressly exempted terrestrial broadcast transmissions, protecting non-subscription broadcast transmissions and certain retransmissions (U.S. Copyright Office). The exemption for a "nonsubscription broadcast transmission" sits in 17 U.S.C. §114(d)(1).

In practice, for a US artist: terrestrial radio pays nothing to performers or master owners — a song played a thousand times a day on FM generates performance income for its songwriters and publishers and nothing for the singer or the label; non-interactive digital transmission does pay, through the statutory licence SoundExchange administers, at the 50/45/2.5/2.5 split above; and bars, shops, gyms and other public premises pay nothing for the recording, though they do pay for the composition.

Legislation to change this has been introduced repeatedly. The American Music Fairness Act of 2025, H.R. 861, was introduced on 31 January 2025 by Rep. Darrell Issa to "provide fair treatment of radio stations and artists for the use of sound recordings," amending sections 101, 106, 114, 118 and 804 of title 17 (GovInfo). The American Federation of Musicians describes it as compensating performers for terrestrial airplay while exempting small stations at $500 a year and noncommercial and college stations at $100 (AFM). As of this page's publication date the bill has not been enacted, and comparable bills have been introduced in successive Congresses for years without becoming law. Do not plan around it.

---

Reciprocity, and why money is left uncollected

This is the part of the subject where an artist's nationality, rather than their music, determines what they are paid — and it is currently in flux.

The two treaties

The Rome Convention (1961) protects performers and producers of phonograms. Its Article 12 provides that where a commercially published phonogram is used for broadcasting or any communication to the public, "a single equitable remuneration must be paid by the user to the performers, to the producers of the phonograms, or to both" — while allowing contracting states to decline or limit that requirement, and permitting reservations under Article 16 (WIPO). It has 100 contracting parties, and the United States is not among them (WIPO Lex).

The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT, 1996) contains an equivalent Article 15 remuneration right, and Article 15(3) permits a Contracting Party to restrict or deny it — with the consequence that other parties may reciprocally deny national treatment to that country (WIPO). The United States is a party, and used exactly that provision: on ratification it declared it would apply Article 15(1) only to certain acts of broadcasting and digital communication for which fees are charged, and to certain retransmissions and digital phonorecord deliveries, as permitted under US law (WIPO Lex).

That declaration is the hinge of the whole problem.

National treatment versus material reciprocity

National treatment means a country pays foreign performers on the same terms as its own. Material reciprocity means it pays them only to the extent their country pays its performers. Because the US grants no general public-performance right, a material-reciprocity country can lawfully pay a US performer nothing for radio and public-premises use while still paying the master owner.

The position in Europe was disrupted in 2020. In Case C-265/19, Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd v Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Member States may not confine the single equitable remuneration under Article 8(2) to EEA nationals, reasoning that the provision "lays down no condition under which the performer or phonogram producer should be a national of an EEA Member State" and must be read consistently with the WPPT — and that if a reciprocity-based limitation were to be introduced, "it is for the EU legislature alone" to decide it by express provision (EUR-Lex, C-265/19). The European Commission subsequently published a study on the international dimension of the right and the judgment's economic effects on royalty flows into and out of the EU, on 13 April 2023 (European Commission).

Implementation has been slow and is contested. In March 2026 Ireland enacted a national treatment law extending equal treatment to American performers and producers; SoundExchange, announcing it, stated that approximately 78% of EU member states then provided such protection and named Belgium, Croatia, Finland, France, Slovakia and Slovenia as those that did not (SoundExchange via PR Newswire). In July 2026 thirteen US music organisations wrote to the US Trade Representative opposing a European Commission proposal to replace national treatment with a material-reciprocity framework, asserting that nearly $300 million in annual royalties to American artists and rights holders was at stake (SoundExchange). That proposal's outcome was unresolved at the time of writing.

The United Kingdom has moved the other way. The Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024 ties qualification for performers' rights to Rome Convention and WPPT membership (legislation.gov.uk), preserving material reciprocity: US performers can receive equitable remuneration only for uses equivalent to those the US grants UK nationals — in substance, digital transmissions rather than general public performance. A challenge brought by US performers' unions was dismissed, an English court holding that unincorporated treaties are not enforceable in English law (Wiggin LLP, February 2026).

SoundExchange names the United Kingdom, France and Japan as countries that discriminate against American creators and puts the loss at "an estimated $300 million a year" (SoundExchange) — an advocacy estimate from an interested party, not an audited number, to be treated as an order of magnitude.

How administrators fill the gap

Two mechanisms exist.

The first is reciprocal agreements between societies. SoundExchange's international service requires members to complete an International Mandate, and covers what it describes as approximately 93% of the global neighbouring rights market through more than 100 agreements with 75+ CMOs (SoundExchange). Its February 2026 announcement of 17 new agreements gave the figures as "over 90 agreements" and "more than 91%" (SoundExchange) — the two published figures do not agree, and neither is broken down by territory. A new agreement can unlock a market that previously paid nothing: the SoundExchange–SAMPRA agreement, announced 18 November 2024 and retroactive to the 2022 distribution period, marked "the first time U.S. performers will be paid neighboring rights when their music is used in South Africa" (SoundExchange).

The second is a commercial neighbouring-rights administrator — a company that takes a mandate from you, registers your repertoire directly with multiple societies, chases claims, and takes a commission. It addresses a real defect: society-to-society reciprocity does not reach everything, and claims must frequently be made by hand.

That last point is the commonest reason an artist with a live registration still gets paid nothing. IAFAR's guidance is blunt: "Just because you are a member of PPL (or another CMO) does not mean your discography is up-to-date. You need to manually make your own claims, which is time-consuming but totally worthwhile" (IAFAR). Asked how much is lost this way, IAFAR's Naomi Asher said: "It is very hard to estimate, but it is likely to be in the tens of millions," citing the absence of standard data formats between CMOs, lump-sum payments without line-level statements, and legislation that varies country by country (Music Business Worldwide).

---

ISRC, IPN, and why bad metadata loses this money specifically

Every other royalty stream has a fallback. A stream on a service is matched to a track the service itself ingested from a delivery you controlled; if the metadata is wrong, the money still arrives, just under the wrong label. Neighbouring rights have no such fallback: the matching happens downstream of you, inside societies you have never dealt with, against play logs generated by broadcasters who report an ISRC and a title and little else.

The ISRC is the join key. PPL's mandatory data for registering a recording includes the ISRC, recording title, band/artist name, content type, (P) date, (P) name, country of recording and country of commissioning, plus rightsholder details — and a full performer line-up including at least one featured performer and at least one non-featured performer, or a positive indication that none contributed. PPL will withhold rightsholder revenue from recordings lacking this information until it is supplied (PPL). That is an unusually explicit statement of a general truth: an incomplete registration is not paid late, it is not paid.

The failure modes are specific. Two recordings sharing one ISRC: play data merges and cannot be attributed to the right line-up, so someone is paid for a performance they did not give. A new ISRC minted for an unchanged master on re-release: society registrations and claim history built under the old code do not follow. An ISRC in your delivery metadata that differs from the one registered with your society: the broadcaster reports one code, the society holds the other, and the play sits unmatched in suspense. A missing non-featured line-up: the performer pool cannot be distributed, and in the UK the rightsholder share is withheld too.

Performers also have their own identifier. The International Performer Number (IPN) is "a unique number assigned to performers registered with a CMO," issued through SCAPR's International Performer Database, which holds more than a million performers globally; you obtain one by registering with a performers' CMO that is a SCAPR member or has an agreement with SCAPR (CLIP). SCAPR describes the IPD as built around the IPN as "a unique identifier that allows unequivocal and easier identification of the performers," alongside the Virtual Recording Database (VRDB), which identifies recordings and lets CMOs share playlist data (SCAPR). In October 2024 SoundExchange became the first non-SCAPR-member organisation authorised to create and issue IPNs (SoundExchange).

You do not apply for an IPN directly; it is assigned when you join a society. If you have joined more than one and been assigned more than one IPN, tell them — duplicate performer identities fragment your claims across territories.

---

What an independent artist should actually do, in order

1. Establish which capacities you hold. If you sang or played on the record you are a performer; if you own the master you are also a rights holder. Most self-releasing artists are both, and both must be registered, usually separately.

2. Join your home-territory society first. SoundExchange for a US-domiciled artist, free to join (SoundExchange); PPL in the UK, free (PPL); GVL in Germany, where the rights administration agreement is free (GVL); SPEDIDAM in France at €16 (SPEDIDAM). Your home society is the route by which foreign reciprocal money reaches you.

3. Register your recordings with the full mandatory data set, ISRC first, including the non-featured line-up. The fields PPL lists are broadly what other societies need.

4. Claim your own performances, recording by recording. Registering as a member and claiming a performance are two different acts in most systems. IAFAR's advice is to submit claims manually and watch for evidence requests; do not assume your contributions were added correctly at registration (IAFAR).

5. Complete the international mandate if your society offers one. SoundExchange requires an International Mandate to use its international collection service (SoundExchange).

6. Tell the session players on your record to register. Their money is a separate pool they must claim themselves. In the US it is the two escrowed 2.5% shares, administered by the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Fund (AFM & SAG-AFTRA Fund).

7. Check the local deadline before you assume you are covered. PPCA requires registration by 31 August to be included in that year's distribution, and holds no reserve for late registrants (PPCA).

8. Only then consider a commercial administrator, for the territories your own society's reciprocal network does not reach.

Realistic timeframes

Neighbouring rights are slow, and the delay is structural: a use has to happen, be logged, reported, matched, distributed to a foreign society, and distributed again to you. PPCA calculates after the end of the financial year and pays in December (PPCA). SoundExchange distributes quarterly, announcing Q4 2025 and full-year 2025 figures in March 2026 (SoundExchange). The SoundExchange–SAMPRA agreement announced in November 2024 was retroactive to the 2022 distribution period (SoundExchange) — a two-year lag between the use and the arrangement that paid for it.

No society surveyed publishes a guaranteed interval between a broadcast and the payment for it. IAFAR cites "extended delays in income receipt from various territories" without quantifying them. Treat the first meaningful payment from a foreign territory as arriving one to three years after the airplay — a range inferred from published distribution cycles and retroactivity statements, not stated by any society as policy.

---

What it costs

Two figures are genuinely published. SoundExchange states an administrative fee of "between 4-6%," describing it as the lowest of any major collective management organisation (SoundExchange FAQ) — a claim by the organisation about itself, not an independently verified ranking. PPL publishes a cost-to-income ratio, which rose slightly to 13.2% in 2024 on revenue of £301.0 million, from which it paid £284.6 million to more than 172,000 members (PPL Annual Review 2024). A cost-to-income ratio is not identical to a commission rate, but it is the closest published equivalent.

Beyond those: GVL states that signing a rights administration agreement is free but does not publish its administrative deduction (GVL). SENA says it pays out "at the lowest possible cost" without a percentage (SENA). Re:Sound says it distributes "less only our actual costs of collection and distribution" without a figure (Re:Sound). Nuovo IMAIE, SCF, ADAMI and PPCA do not publish a commission rate on the pages surveyed.

As for commercial neighbouring-rights administrators — the companies that take a mandate and register your repertoire across multiple societies for a share of what they recover — no published rate card was found for any administrator surveyed for this page. Rates are quoted on enquiry and vary by catalogue, territory scope and whether the administrator handles both the performer and the master share. Any percentage stated as an industry norm in an article that does not name and link its source should be treated as invented. Ask for the number in writing; ask whether it is charged on gross or net receipts; ask whether it applies to money your home society would have collected anyway through reciprocity; ask what happens to the mandate if you terminate.

---

What is not known, or not published

Stated plainly, because the rest of this page is stated as fact:

• No society publishes a per-play rate, or how the performer pool is subdivided between featured and non-featured performers in enough detail to model an outcome.
• The two SoundExchange figures for international coverage disagree — "93% … more than 100 agreements with 75+ CMOs" on one page, "more than 91% … over 90 agreements" on another. Neither is territory-by-territory.
• The $300 million annual figure for US losses abroad is a SoundExchange advocacy estimate; the IAFAR "tens of millions" figure is explicitly a rough one.
• The outcome of the European Commission's proposal to move from national treatment to material reciprocity was unresolved as at September 2026.
• The dividing line between ADAMI and SPEDIDAM is not stated as a rule on either society's public pages.
• Commercial administrator commissions are not published by any administrator surveyed.
• Payment latency is not published as a service level by any society surveyed.

---

Quick reference

---

Sources

• 17 U.S.C. §114, Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings (U.S. House, Office of the Law Revision Counsel) — the 50% / 45% / 2.5% / 2.5% statutory allocation in §114(g)(2); the §114(d)(1) exemption for non-subscription broadcast transmissions.
• U.S. Copyright Office, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 — creation of the §106(6) digital audio transmission right; exemption of terrestrial broadcast; statutory licence structure.
• GovInfo, H.R. 861 (119th Congress), American Music Fairness Act of 2025 — introduction date, sponsor, and the title 17 sections the bill would amend.
• American Federation of Musicians, American Music Fairness Act — what the bill would do; the $500 and $100 small-station and noncommercial fee levels.
• SoundExchange, Frequently Asked Questions — more than 3,600 services; free registration; the 4–6% administrative fee; the statement that there is no performance right for over-the-air broadcasts.
• SoundExchange, For Artists, Labels and Producers — designation as sole administrator of the §114 licence; the non-interactive services covered.
• SoundExchange, Register — registration is free; the ISRC search and repertoire-claiming tools.
• SoundExchange, International Partners — the International Mandate requirement; ~93% coverage via 100+ agreements with 75+ CMOs.
• SoundExchange, Expands International CMO Agreements (Feb 2026) — 17 new agreements; the alternative figures of over 90 agreements and 91% coverage.
• SoundExchange, Tops $13B Distribution Milestone (Mar 2026) — $991.5m distributed in 2025; $13bn cumulative; quarterly distribution cadence.
• SoundExchange–SAMPRA reciprocal agreement — first payment of US performers in South Africa; retroactivity to the 2022 distribution period.
• SoundExchange, National Treatment — the $300m annual estimate; the UK, France and Japan named as discriminating territories.
• SoundExchange, industry letter to USTR on the EU proposal (Jul 2026) — the proposed move from national treatment to material reciprocity and the amount said to be at risk.
• SoundExchange becomes first non-SCAPR-member organisation to issue IPNs — October 2024 agreement with SCAPR.
• AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund — the body that administers the escrowed non-featured performer shares.
• WIPO, Summary of the Rome Convention (1961) — Article 12 single equitable remuneration for secondary uses; Article 16 reservations.
• WIPO Lex, Rome Convention contracting parties — 100 contracting parties; the United States is not among them.
• WIPO, Summary of the WPPT — Article 15 remuneration right; the Article 15(3) power to restrict or deny it and the reciprocal denial of national treatment that follows.
• WIPO Lex, notification of US ratification of the WPPT — the US declaration under Article 15(3) limiting application of Article 15(1).
• EUR-Lex, Case C-265/19, RAAP v PPI (CJEU, 8 September 2020) — Member States may not confine Article 8(2) remuneration to EEA nationals; only the EU legislature may introduce a reciprocity limitation.
• EUR-Lex, Directive 2006/115/EC (Rental and Lending Directive) — Article 8(2), single equitable remuneration shared between performers and phonogram producers.
• European Commission, Study on the international dimension of the single equitable remuneration right (13 April 2023) — analysis of the RAAP judgment's effect on royalty flows into and out of the EU.
• SoundExchange / PR Newswire, Ireland national treatment law (March 2026) — Ireland's law; the ~78% of EU member states figure; the six named states without comparable legislation.
• PPL, What we do — free membership; over 150,000 members; 28m recordings; the international collections network.
• PPL, 2025 results — £315.3m revenue, £94.0m international, £122.9m public performance, £98.5m broadcast and online; 182,000+ paid; 117 agreements across 55 countries.
• PPL Annual Review 2024 (PDF) — 13.2% cost-to-income ratio; £301.0m revenue; £284.6m distributed to 172,000+ members.
• PPL, What data is mandatory when I register a recording? — the mandatory field list including ISRC and the full performer line-up; withholding of rightsholder revenue where it is missing.
• PPL, Performers — claiming performances via myPPL; role selection; roles that are not payable.
• The Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024 — qualification for UK performers' rights tied to Rome Convention and WPPT membership.
• Wiggin LLP, Court dismisses challenge from US performers on public performance rights (Feb 2026) — the material-reciprocity effect of the 2024 Orders and the dismissal of the US performers' challenge.
• GVL — performers, producers and event organisers; over 180,000 rightsholders; the uses GVL collects from.
• GVL, How much does membership cost? — the rights administration agreement is free.
• GVL, International representation agreements — more than 70 agreements for performers and producers.
• SENA — 50/50 split between musicians and producers; dual registration for self-releasing artists; more than 53,000 rightsholders; non-profit, lowest-possible-cost statement.
• SPRE, La rémunération équitable — Article L.214-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code; the 1985 origin; collection by SPRE and equal division between producers and performers.
• SPEDIDAM, FAQ artiste-interprète — equitable remuneration and private copying; open to performers of any nationality, principal or accompanying; €16 membership share.
• ADAMI — collective management for the rights of performing artists; private copying and equitable remuneration.
• SCF Italia — representation of Italian music producers; licensing of commercial premises, radio, TV and web.
• Nuovo IMAIE — the Italian performers' body; music and audiovisual performers; 473,000 performers in database as at December 2024.
• Re:Sound, FAQ — section 19 equitable remuneration; the uses licensed; equal split between performers and makers; payment only through member collectives.
• Copyright Act (Canada), section 19 — the statutory right to equitable remuneration for performers and makers.
• PPCA, What we do — what PPCA licenses; 55,000+ venues plus radio and TV; the two copyrights in a recording.
• PPCA, Artist registration information — eligibility criteria; the 31 August cut-off; no reserve held for unregistered artists; Licensor registration for self-owned copyright.
• PPCA, Labels FAQs — track-by-track allocation; registered featured Australian artists share 50% of income allocated to each track; December distribution.
• PPCA, Radio cap — the 1% statutory cap in section 152(8) of the Copyright Act 1968 and the ~0.4% rate historically paid.
• PPCA, Copyright Tribunal ruling on the radio broadcast licence rate (Jan 2026) — the 0.55% rate, backdated to 1 July 2023.
• SCAPR — 69 performer CMOs across 51 countries and territories.
• SCAPR, About us — the IPD built around the IPN; the VRDB for recording identification and playlist sharing.
• CLIP, What is an IPN? — definition of the International Performer Number; issuance via a SCAPR-member CMO; over 1,000,000 performers in the IPD.
• IFPI, Global Music Report 2026 — US$2.9bn performance rights revenue in 2025, +0.3%, against US$31.7bn total.
• IAFAR, Performers / Artists — the requirement to claim manually; featured, other featured and non-featured distinctions; separation from songwriting income.
• IAFAR, The difference between neighbouring rights and publishing — recording versus composition; registration routes for signed and unsigned artists and writers.
• Music Business Worldwide, Artists are missing out on tens of millions of dollars from neighbouring rights — IAFAR's estimate of uncollected income and the structural reasons for it.