global repertoire database world international property ......design team engaged & consulted,...

Global Repertoire Database

World International Property Organisation

Copyright Documentation and Infrastructure

13th October 2011

Private and confidential2

The Global Repertoire Database initiative was instigated

following a request from the European Commission

• In September 2008, then Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes launched a series of Roundtable meetings

• Brokering dialogue between industry stakeholders on legal and administrative barriers to the online distribution of

music

• General agreement on the need for a common framework for consolidating and maintaining accurate data

regarding musical works, their ownership and authority to license

• A potential solution was the development of a Global Repertoire Database (GRD)

• As an action from the work of the Roundtable a GRD Working Group was established to explore the possibilities of

a GRD further

• This Working Group was originally comprised of the following key stakeholders:

• The Working Group issued a Request for Information in April 2010 and subsequently a Request for Proposal in

July 2010, ultimately published a set of recommendations in December 2010 appointing ICE (the International

Copyright Enterprise) as the technology solution provider and Deloitte as project manager to support the delivery

of the GRD.

• The MIDEM conference in January underlined the criticality of effective stakeholder engagement in the successful

and timely delivery of the GRD solution

• The Scoping and Stakeholder Consultation Phase is seen as the preliminary phase in the delivery of the GRD

Global Repertoire Database: European Commission


The GRD will provide, for the first time, a single,

comprehensive and authoritative representation of the

global ownership and control of musical works

Overall GRD

Programme

Objectives

Scoping Phase

Objectives

• Develop a business and technical solution (based on ICE) to underpin a single,

consolidated database that the music industry can trust to provide authoritative,

multi-territorial information about the ownership and mandates to license musical

works for all kinds of uses

• Provide greater transparency of musical works, rights and mandate data to

relevant industry communities

• Help ensure that intellectual property rights are upheld, and that royalties are

directed to the rightful recipient

• Agree the scope of the GRD solution – business and technical

• Define how the GRD could work (process, people, technology, data, governance,

funding and location) with input from the key industry communities

• Define the business case for the GRD

• Engage the key industry communities and test/secure buy-in to the proposed

approach

• Agree the high level implementation roadmap for the design and build of the

proposed solution and secure funding for the next (Design) phase



We have a clear view of the approach we are going to take

to this phase

A • Understand how the key organisations currently interact

with each other within the industry to build the “big picture”

e.g. interaction between EMI, PRS and Amazon

• Consists of different views (data, money flow, end to end

processes and key challenges), e.g. how data is passed

between publishers, societies, MSPs, users, etc

B • Understand how ICE operates today (business & technology) in

relation to a future GRD

• Identify which of the following areas are to be developed for GRD

A

A

• Based on Discovery phase, agree scope

of GRD solution and the key challenges to

be addressed

• Show the new industry interactions based on proposed

solutions to the key challenges identified

STEP 1 - DISCOVERY STEP 2 – AGREE FOCUS AREAS STEP 3 – DEFINE FUTURE STATE

B • Agree the principles by which these key

challenges will be addressed across both

the industry and across the future GRD

solution (business and technical)

• Finally, define the implementation roadmap and

business caseD

Cumulative Costs and Benefits

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

£m

Cumulative Benefits Cumulative Investment Costs

Cumulative Net Value

Aligning initiatives to benefit levers:

Cost and benefit analysis example outputs:

Not based on actual data

Potential deviation from plan arising from CI Risk Review

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

£m

CI R isk Review Plan TOM Implementation

Impact on Cost Baseline

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2009

(Baseline)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

(Target)

Costs (£m)

Strategy & Leadership Operations & Support

P roduction C ommissioning

£18m

-

-

£18m

Leasin

g /

pro

perty

mainte

nance

costs

£35m

£2m

-

£32m

£1m

In-h

ouse

com

missio

nin

g

spend

£200m£54m£22m£41m£30mTotal Annual Value

£51m-£11m£20m£18mInitiative 4


£93m£44m-£12m£5mInitiative 2

£37m£10m£4m£4m-Initiative 1

TOTAL

Cost p

er

bro

adcast h

our

pro

duce

d

Indie

co

mmissio

nin

g

spend

Softw

are

licence

and m

ain

tenance

costs

Headcount c

osts

£18m

-

-

£18m

Leasin

g /

pro

perty

mainte

nance

costs

£35m

£2m

-

£32m

£1m

In-h

ouse

com

missio

nin

g

spend

£200m£54m£22m£41m£30mTotal Annual Value



£93m£44m-£12m£5mInitiative 2

£37m£10m£4m£4m-Initiative 1

TOTAL

Cost p

er

bro

adcast h

our

pro

duce

d

Indie

co

mmissio

nin

g

spend

Softw

are

licence

and m

ain

tenance

costs

Headcount c

osts

LEVER:

INITIATIVE:

Impact on Cost Baseline:

TOM Benefits

At Risk

• Agree top level view of proposed GRD solution across the

agreed dimensions, which could include:

GRD

Governance & Finance

Customer

Products

Organisation

Technology & Data

Channels

Processes

People

Physical sites

GRD

Governance

Customer

Products

Organisation

Technology & Data

Channels

Processes

People

Physical sites

C • Define proposed solutions to key

challenges/opportunities across the relevant agreed

dimensions of the GRD

ILLUSTRATIVE

ICE

Governance & Finance

Customers

Products

Organisation

Technology & Data

Channels

Processes

Physical sites

People

Music Industry

ICE

Publish-er

SocietiesAuthors/

Composers

MSPConsumers

Data

ICE

Publish-er

Societies

Authors/

Composer s

MSPConsumer s

Money

ICE

Publish-er

Societies

Authors/

Composer s

MSPConsumer s

Process

ICE

Publish-er

Societies

Authors/

Composer s

MSPConsumer s

Key challenges

ICE

Publish-er

Societies

Authors/

Composer s

MSPConsumer s

ILLUSTRATIVE

Music Industry

GRD

Publisher

Societies

Authors/

Composers

MSP

Consumers

B



The number of organisations involved in the GRD initiative

is now significantly increased and represents a much

broader section of the industry

Engagement

Level

Method of

EngagementAssociations Publishers Societies MSPs Other

Core Design

Team

(Working

Group)

Decision makers;

shape operating

model

Support weekly

operating model

design activities

• ICMP *

• CISAC **

• ECSA

• EMI Publishing

• Universal Music

Publishing

• PRS / STIM

• SACEM

• iTunes

• Google

• Omnifone

Extended

design team

Engaged &

consulted, provide

key input

Participate in 2

facilitated

operating model

design events,

plus ongoing

consultation

Major

• Sony ATV *

• Warner Chappell *

International Indie:

• Peer Music *

• Kobalt Music

• Imagem

• EMI Christian

Music

Sole-territory:

• Hal Leonard

• ASCAP **

• BMI **

• SGAE **

• GEMA

• KODA

• SADAIC

(LatinAutor) **

• APRA

• ARTISJUS

• Amazon

• Spotify

• Nokia

• WIPO

• FastTrack

• Soundmouse

Informed

organisations

Targeted

communication/

requests for

information

Direct

communications,

e.g. email

• TBD Associations

that are targeted

and/or ‘subscribe’

• TBD Publishers

that are targeted


(inc. BMG Rights

Management)

• TBD Societies

that are targeted


(inc. JASRAC,

CASH)

• TBD MSPs that

are targeted


(inc. TDC,

Gracenote)

• TBD Other

organisations that

are targeted


Everyone

else

Able to access key

information and

provide feedback

Indirect

communications,

e.g. website

• All other impacted

organisations


organisations


organisations


organisations


organisations

Depth of Engagement

* ICMP represented on the WG by Sony ATV, Warner Chappell, Peer Music, Kobalt. They will also be involved in the

major engagement events as Tier 2 organisations

** CISAC represented on the WG by ASCAP, BMI, SADAIC, SGAE. They will also be involved in the major

engagement events as Tier 2 organisations

Original members of the GRD WG shown in pink


Global Repertoire Database

World International Property Organisation

Roundtable on Music Databases: Current Landscape and Developments

Mark Isherwood

12th October 2011

RightscomRightscom

global repertoire database world international property ......design team engaged & consulted,...

Documents