Last week’s series of posts on Access Copyright ( transactional licensing future reforms , all three posts in single PDF ), which examined the astonishing lack of transparency behind the copyright collective and the small percentage of revenues that are ultimately distributed to Canadian authors, resulted in a large number of private emails from authors expressing gratitude for the posts and venting enormous frustration. The concerns with Access Copyright broke out into the open this weekend at the Writers’ Union of Canada annual general meeting as the TWUC passed a motion recognizing the lack of control over how licensing revenue is managed and the inability of Access Copyright to represent creator interests. As a result, the TWUC plans to investigate operational separation of creators’ and publishers’ interests in collective licensing.

The full motion passed at the plenary session of the TWUC AGM states:

RECOGNIZING that collective licensing of copyright is a vital interest of the creator community, but that creators receive an inadequate share of the revenues of Access Copyright and are unable to control how the copyright income raised in their name is managed



And RECOGNIZING that key differences in the copyright interests of publishers and creators will always prevent Access Copyright from fully and effectively representing creators’ copyright interests



MOVED that a solution is an operational separation of creators’ and publishers’ interests in collective licensing, for instance, by the British model of a creator-run distribution collective that controls and distributes the half of collective revenues that belong to creators.



And MOVED that National Council direct an investigation as to how this significant reform of collective licensing in Canada can be brought about at the earliest possible moment.

The motion apparently passed with one abstention and opposition from only three people, all Access Copyright board members.

The TWUC motion confirms that creators are justifiably frustrated with years of Access Copyright being run in a secretive manner, with basic information on distributions withheld from public scrutiny. Its board is too large, lacks any independent representation, and is the beneficiary of compensation far in excess of the norm for a non-profit. It has pursued questionable, expensive legal strategies that primarily benefit publishers (and lawyers), not authors.

While Access Copyright supporters – who are typically board members or former board members – invariably deride criticism as uniformed and critics as opponents of collective licensing, the reality is that many authors can see for themselves an organization that has failed to address years of transparency and accountability concerns. It took great courage for the TWUC to fight back yesterday with a motion that leaves no doubt that the current Access Copyright approach does not enjoy the backing of Canada’s creative community. The vote of non-confidence seems likely to set in motion dramatic changes that will force Access Copyright to finally address its critics with something other than silence or contempt.