Copyright at concerts: Greater clarity thanks to a new initiative | HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte

In future, anyone organising concerts in Switzerland should have a clearer understanding of to whom copyright royalties are to be paid. A parliamentary initiative aims to significantly restrict direct licensing for concerts, thereby safeguarding the collective management system operated by SUISA. For organisers, musicians, agencies and festivals, this is about far more than just administration. It is about legal certainty, predictable costs and the question of how music creators can be fairly remunerated in an increasingly fragmented market.

6. August 2026

On 6 March 2026, the consultation on parliamentary initiative 25.434, ‘Copyright: Towards clear rights management for concerts’, was opened. The deadline was 14 June 2026. The subject of the proposal is an amendment to Article 40(3) of the Swiss Copyright Act. The Council of States’ Committee on Science, Education and Culture wishes to clarify when authors may personally manage their performance rights at concerts and when these rights must be managed collectively through the relevant collecting society.

A practical problem in the concert industry

The immediate catalyst is a practical problem facing the concert industry. Public performances of musical works often involve numerous rights. It is not uncommon for a concert to consist of original songs, cover versions, arrangements, co-authorship and works by third parties. It would be virtually impracticable for organisers to identify, contact and negotiate individual licence agreements with every composer, lyricist, heir, publisher or other rights holder. It is precisely for this reason that the Swiss system for non-theatrical musical works has long provided for collective rights management. In practice, this is carried out by SUISA.

The statutory exception for personal exploitation

The draft bill builds on an exception in current law. Article 40(3) of the Copyright Act (URG) exempts personal exploitation by authors or their heirs from federal supervision. This exception is objectively understandable where a musician performs exclusively their own works and the remuneration for the performance, as well as the copyright royalties, can be settled directly with the organiser. However, problems arise when this exemption is used as a loophole by intermediaries who directly licence the repertoires of individual rights holders outside the collective management system.

The rise of direct licensors

The parliamentary initiative is thus responding to the growing importance of so-called direct licensors. These service providers are commissioned by individual authors to assert performance rights directly against organisers. For particularly well-known rights holders, this may be financially attractive in individual cases, as direct licensors are not bound by a standard tariff and may, under certain circumstances, be able to negotiate higher royalties. For the concert industry as a whole, however, this creates a significant coordination problem. In addition to SUISA, organisers must reckon with an indefinite number of other licensors. This increases the risk that rights will not be fully clarified, that costs will be difficult to calculate, or that conflicting claims will be made for the same repertoire.

Planned restriction on direct licensing

The proposed amendment therefore does not seek to abolish direct licensing entirely, but rather to restrict it to cases where it can actually be handled in a simple and transparent manner. In future, the personal management of performance rights at concerts will only be permitted if the author themselves participates in the performance as a performer and the performance consists exclusively of works for which that person holds the exclusive performance rights. In cases of co-authorship, the bill stipulates that personal management of rights shall remain possible only if all co-authors participate in the performance as performers.

Legal classification

From a legal perspective, this concerns the distinction between the personal exercise of rights and collective management. The exclusive right of performance remains in force as such. The bill does not address the question of whether authors are protected, but rather who is entitled to exploit the rights in a concert context. This distinction is crucial. This is because copyright protects creative works not only in intellectual terms but also economically. It is intended to ensure that musicians are remunerated for the use of their works. At the same time, the system must remain manageable for users. In the concert sector in particular, collective licensing is only efficient if organisers can rely on clear lines of responsibility.

Compatibility with international law

Nor should the draft bill be viewed in isolation from international treaties. Of particular relevance is Article 11(1) of the Berne Convention, under which authors of musical works have the exclusive right to authorise the public performance of their works. A brief expert opinion commissioned by SUISA and the Swiss Music Promoters Association from Prof. Florent Thouvenin and Prof. Thomas Burri, commissioned by SUISA and the Swiss Music Promoters Association, concludes that the Swiss system of collective management is compatible with the provisions of the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, as it essentially organises the exercise of rights and does not abolish the exclusive right as such. The report also notes that the activities of collecting societies are not exhaustively regulated by international treaties and that Member States therefore retain a degree of regulatory discretion in this regard.

Implications for event organisers

For concert organisers, the bill is primarily a matter of planning certainty. Anyone organising a festival, a club show, a town festival or a cultural programme needs to know at an early stage what licence fees will be incurred and what rights clearances are required. In its tariff overview, SUISA points out that authors receive remuneration for the use of their works, whilst performers receive a fee for their performance. This distinction is important in practice because the payment of an artist’s fee does not automatically replace the copyright licence for the works performed.

Practical implications for contract drafting

The proposed clarification is therefore likely to be particularly relevant for professional organisers, local authorities, cultural centres and agencies. Whilst it does not eliminate every aspect of copyright complexity, it does establish a clearer basic rule. As soon as the programme includes works other than those exclusively written by the performing authors, the settlement of performance rights should be handled through collective management organisations. This reduces the risk of parallel claims and subsequent uncertainties. In terms of contract drafting, this means that organisers should specify more precisely in artists’ contracts which repertoire is to be performed, whether it comprises the artists’ own works or those of third parties, and whether the conditions for direct management can be met at all.

Implications for musicians

For musicians, the assessment is more nuanced. Singer-songwriters who perform only their own works and hold the rights themselves should continue to be able to manage their rights personally. For the vast majority of music creators, however, collective management can be an advantage, as it enables remuneration even when individual authors do not know when and where their works are being performed. Less well-known rights holders in particular benefit from a system that pools uses, distributes revenue and does not leave enforcement to each individual.

Impact on direct licensors

Direct licensors will be most affected by the bill. Their business model is not expressly prohibited, but is restricted to a narrower set of cases in the concert sector. From a competition perspective, this can be seen as an intervention in new market models. From the perspective of the draft legislation, however, the focus is on the functionality of a collective system based on transparency, uniform tariffs and administrative efficiency. The legislator must strike a balance between freedom of contract, efficient rights clearance and the protection of those rights holders who rely on collective management.

Economic context

The economic significance of this issue should not be underestimated, even if the bill is not expected to have a major impact on the economy as a whole. The cultural sector is a significant economic factor for Switzerland. According to figures from the Federal Statistical Office, the cultural sector generated gross value added of 16.3 billion Swiss francs in 2022. At the same time, cultural enterprises are tending to become smaller, which makes efficient and legally certain standard processes for events all the more important.

Recommendations for practice

In practice, event organisers should review their procedures even before the bill comes into force. It is crucial that rights clearance does not take place only after the concert. Programme details, set lists, contracts with artists and settlement processes should be structured in such a way that it is immediately apparent whether only the organiser’s own works are being performed or whether third-party works are involved. In the case of mixed programmes, collective management is likely to become even more clearly the norm in future. Artists, for their part, should check whether they actually hold all the rights to the works performed, particularly in the case of collaborations, co-authorship, publishing agreements or arrangements.

Conclusion

For businesses in the live entertainment sector, the most significant consequence is a return to clearer lines of responsibility. The planned amendment to Section 40(3) of the Copyright Act is not a technical detail, but a decision that sets the course for licensing practice at concerts. It is intended to prevent a collectively organised system from being fragmented by sporadic direct exploitation. The price to be paid for this is a restriction on individual licensing models in those cases where they can no longer be handled simply and transparently.

The conclusion is therefore a pragmatic one. The bill does not primarily strengthen SUISA as an institution, but rather the model of collective rights management as the infrastructure of the concert market. It is intended to ensure that organisers can count on predictable costs, that authors are remunerated, and that concerts do not fall through due to convoluted licensing chains. It remains to be seen whether the proposed scope will remain unchanged during the parliamentary process. In practical terms, however, it is already clear that direct licensing for concerts will have to be scrutinised more closely and documented in greater detail in future.