Music Collecting Societies in Zimbabwe

The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act [Chapter 26:05] provides for the registration and functions of collecting societies in Zimbabwe. Collecting societies are also known as Collective Management Organizations. Section 91 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act [Chapter 26:05] provides for the registration of collecting societies / collective management organisations in Zimbabwe.

There are music collecting societies in Zimbabwe. For the past two decades music collective societies in Zimbabwe have served as important collective management organisations due to their expertise and knowledge on copyright law and management, and an important source of income for members. see T Chari, ‘Performance Rights Organizations and Copyright Protection in Southern Africa: The Zimbabwe Case (2025) The International Communication Gazette 8(4): 361-375.

Section 14 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Regulations, 2006 requires a collecting society other than the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Collecting Society of Zimbabwe in its application for registration as a collecting society to indicate the class or classes or works that the society owns the copyright or whose copyright the society represents or intends to represent. The main functions of music collecting societies is to represent and defend the interests of its members in Zimbabwe and abroad, to maintain a register of works, productions and associations of authors and performers, and to collect royalties from the users of a work on behalf of any members as it is not practical for authors, artists, performers and producers to negotiate with various stakeholders and agree on licenses and remuneration.

In Performing Right Society Ltd v Berman & Another 1966 (2) SA 355 (R), Lewis J held that members of collecting societies include authors, composers and publishers of music, who cede their rights of copyright in their works and the right to collect royalties for the performance thereof to music collecting societies. The colleting societies then take control on their behalf, and track down infringements of copyright and collects royalties for distribution amongst its members.

The emergence of various collecting societies in Zimbabwe is a significant step. Music collecting societies are an important source of income for their members as music is played on a daily basis in different locations throughout the country and for different reasons, for instance at school events and in the background in hotels and retail stores.

The High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division in Foschini Retail Group (Pty) Ltd & 9 Others v South African Music Performance Rights Association 2013 BIP 368 (CT) para 7 held that:

“It is important to note that the Retailers play music in their stores in the background to create an ambience for the shoppers, clients or patrons on the one hand and SAMPRA, as a Collecting Society for copyright owners, demand payment from retailers. SAMPRA is statutorily obliged to collect the royalty in respect of playing, as background music, sound recordings in respect of which its members hold a copyright.”

Some local music collecting societies in the country also act as agents for foreign collecting societies in terms of international multilateral collecting societies agreements, which include the Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) whose members pledge to work as agents for each other in their respective countries for reciprocal enforcement of copyrights in their respect jurisdictions.

Where there has been an infringement of a copyright of one its members, a collecting society has a statutory mandate to track down the infringements and collect royalties from users of musical works for distribution amongst its members, the original owners of such works, after deducting their administrative costs.

The Harare High Court in Zimbabwe Music Rights Association v Simbisa Brands Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd & Another HH 515-25 para 51 – 52 held that:

“The rights of a victim of a copyright infringement are located within the four corners of the Act. As analysed above, the Act directs how such damages are computed. They are compensation for the prejudice suffered by the victim of copyright. For example, it must be shown what amount of royalties the victim would have been entitled to in the circumstances, taking into account the market value of the works, the extent of the copyright violation, and so on.

Works of music by different artists cannot possibility have the same value. The plaintiff has done nothing to assess the level of damages suffered by it on behalf of its musicians. All it has done in this suit is to purport to issue out the license that it would have issued had the first defendant continued to do business with it. It then claims amounts on the basis of the rates of royalties that would have been payable for the defendant’s outlets, taking into account, among other things, the nature of the outlets and the seating capacities. But that is not how it is done under the Act.”