Newsletter
Copyright Infringement Risks Despite Obtaining License from Copyright Collective Management Organizations - A Case Study on Karaoke Jukeboxes
I. The System of Copyright Collective Management Organizations in Taiwan
According to Article 3 of the Copyright Collective Management Organizations Act, copyright collective management organizations (CMOs) are composed of copyright owners and are established with approval under this Act. They are responsible for: (1) managing copyright property rights on behalf of multiple copyright owners; (2) setting unified royalty rates and methods for royalty distribution; and (3) entering into licensing contracts with users in the name of the management organization, among other collective management tasks.
It is important to note that the types of copyrights that current Taiwanese CMOs can license are limited to the rights of "public transmission, public screening, public broadcasting, and public performance." Therefore, copyright users should be aware that rights such as reproduction, public recitation, adaptation, distribution, public display, distribution of copies, and public presentation may be licensed by CMOs under current law in Taiwan. Moreover, the scope of license varies depending on the "different works." If a user exceeds the license scope, it may lead to copyright infringement disputes.
In the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court's Civil Judgment 113-Ming-Zhe-Su-Zi-74 dated September 16, 2025, the court ruled that the defendant's operation of karaoke machines infringed the plaintiff company's reproduction right and public transmission right of "audiovisual works." The court also rejected the defendant's defense that the karaoke machine manufacturer had obtained license from the China Audio-Video Copyright Collective Management Association and that the defendant had obtained music copyright license from the Music Copyright Society of Chinese Taipei (MÜST), holding that these could not exempt the defendant from copyright infringement liability.
II. Case Background
The disputed karaoke machines were manufactured by Company A and imported into Taiwan by Company B. The defendant company leased the karaoke machines from Company B and placed them in business premises for consumers to select and play audiovisual works. The plaintiff company claimed to be the exclusive licensee of the disputed audiovisual works. Upon learning of the defendant's actions, the plaintiff sent a certified letter requesting the defendant to obtain license from the plaintiff. However, the defendant refused to cooperate and continued using the karaoke machines. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit under Articles 88(1) and the latter part of Article 84 of the Copyright Act, alleging infringement of reproduction rights, public transmission rights, and public screening rights, and sought damages.
III. The Grounds for Judgement
1. The plaintiff company is the exclusive licensee of the disputed audiovisual works
The plaintiff submitted the following evidence, which the court accepted:
(1) "Exclusive License Certificates" issued by multiple record companies, specifying the licensed region as "the territory Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu," licensed copyright types as "reproduction rights, public screening rights, and public transmission rights," with license valid until December 31, 2025.
(2) Screenshots of audiovisual work distribution interfaces, album covers, and official YouTube channel pages showing record company names, English abbreviations, or trademarks.
(3) Statements from record companies indicating that other record companies had previously entrusted them to distribute audiovisual works, but distribution is now handled directly by the plaintiff company.
Although the defendant argued that Company A had obtained license from the China Audio-Video Copyright Collective Management Association for the disputed audiovisual works and that the defendant had obtained music copyright license from MÜST, the court held that the former's license scope was limited to mainland China and did not cover Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu; the latter only licensed "musical works" and did not include "audiovisual works."
2. The defendant objectively infringed the plaintiff's reproduction and public transmission rights but did not infringe the public screening right
(1) Reproduction and Public Transmission Rights
The karaoke machines connect to Company A's cloud music library server via the internet and "download" the disputed audiovisual works onto the machines, which is not merely "temporary reproduction," thus constituting reproduction right infringement.
The karaoke machines and Company A's cloud server use wired, wireless, or other communication methods to provide or transmit sound or images to users at their selected times and locations, enabling the public to receive audiovisual content in this manner, constituting public transmission infringement.
Notably, the court pointed out that the audiovisual works downloaded by the plaintiff's evidence-gathering personnel from the karaoke machines were done with the plaintiff's consent and therefore did not constitute copyright infringement.
(2) Public Screening Right
The plaintiff's evidence-gathering personnel selected songs at the business premises for evidence collection purposes and did not transmit the songs to an unspecified or large number of people, so this did not constitute public screening. The plaintiff also failed to provide evidence that anyone other than the evidence-gathering personnel publicly screened the disputed audiovisual works. Therefore, the court found no infringement of the public screening right.
3. The defendant subjectively acted with intent to infringe the plaintiff's reproduction and public transmission rights
The defendant had received the plaintiff's certified letter clearly stating that Company A's license for the disputed audiovisual works was limited to mainland China and did not cover Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, and that the plaintiff was the exclusive karaoke licensee in these regions. The defendant was also aware of how the karaoke machines operated. Thus, the court found that the defendant deliberately ignored and failed to act, constituting "knowing" intent.
4. The plaintiff is entitled to claim joint and several damages of NT$1 million and request the defendant to refrain from publicly screening the disputed audiovisual works in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matzu during the exclusive license period
Since the plaintiff granted a blanket license covering the total number of songs rather than individual song licenses, the court found it difficult for the plaintiff to prove actual damages. Therefore, pursuant to Paragraph 3, Article 88 of the Copyright Act, considering that the defendant continued to use the karaoke machines for about one year after receiving the plaintiff's certified letter, the court awarded damages of NT$1 million.
Additionally, because the disputed audiovisual works in Company A's cloud music database linked to the karaoke machines were always available for consumer selection, the plaintiff's public screening rights were at high risk of being infringed at any time. Therefore, the court allowed the plaintiff to request, under the latter part of Article 84 of the Copyright Act, that the defendant refrain from publicly screening the disputed audiovisual works in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu during the exclusive license period.
IV. Key Points to Note When Obtaining License from CMO
Paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 10 of the Copyright Collective Management Organizations Act stipulate: "Any organization not established and approved as a CMO under this Act shall not perform collective management business or engage in legal acts in the name of a CMO." "Any individual or entity violating the preceding paragraph shall have their individual or blanket license contracts declared invalid; if damages are caused to others, the violators shall be liable for compensation jointly and severally if more than one."
Therefore, since copyright follows the territorial principle, any collective management business conducted by an organization not approved by the competent authority in Taiwan is invalid in Taiwan.
1. The type of works licensed (e.g., musical works, sound recordings, music video audiovisual works);
2. The type of copyright licensed (e.g., public transmission rights, public screening rights, public broadcasting rights, public performance rights);
3. The territorial scope of the license;
4. Whether the CMO is legally established and recognized in Taiwan.
V. Conclusion
In summary, obtaining license from CMOs does not completely eliminate the risk of copyright infringement. We recommend that copyright users pay close attention to the scope of license and whether the licensor is a legally approved CMO in Taiwan to avoid legal risks.
This case is currently under second-instance review at the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, and its subsequent developments are worth monitoring.