Organisation seeks R600k in fees
The Southern African Music Rights Organisation (Samro) has filed a R600 000 lawsuit against Soweto TV over non-payment of music licence agreements.
The collecting rights organisation filed court papers at the Joburg High Court on Monday, stating that the community TV station had failed to settle the debt that had been accumulating since 2018.
According to the papers, Samro had entered into an agreement with Soweto TV on October 19 2018, represented by its then CEO Bridget Nkuno, to broadcast music content. The agreement shows that Soweto TV was expected to pay 1% of its gross income for using 10% of Samro’s copyrighted music content.
The TV station was to pay 6% for 70% of Samro’s music content. Soweto TV had also agreed to pay the licence fees annually.
However, Samro said the station failed to comply with its obligations despite it having complied with its obligations by providing musical content.
“The plaintiff assessed the amounts due in terms of the licence based on information provided by the defendant in terms of the agree ment and invoiced accordingly,” read the papers.
According to the papers, Samro said Soweto TV was indebted to it for R941,86 as of January 2018 30, and the amount grew to R630 852 as per the invoice dated July 31 2019.
“The total balance outstanding due is the sum of R631 793.86, which amount is now due, owing and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff,” show the papers.
Samro said it had written several letters of demand to Soweto TV, but despite the station acknowledging the letters in writing, it had failed and/or neglected to pay.
The collecting rights organisation said it was seeking a judgment against Soweto TV and a payment of the debt in full with 10% interest.
Soweto TV CEO T-bo Touch said: “The Samro bill is six years old and only recently, when new management and board came into office, an arrangement to pay was initiated.
“I’ve instructed our lawyers to collect R8-million that is also owed to Soweto TV by various clients. I’m shocked that Samro has served our organisation via your newspaper, because my office has no possession of the application you’re referring to.”
