Broadcasting and neighbouring rights in Kenya’s music sector have been governed, in practice, by a collective management landscape that has been anything but stable, and the current position is different from what many broadcasters and venues still assume. Knowing which collecting society can actually issue a valid licence today is not a settled question with a fixed answer; it is a live regulatory dispute.

Broadcasting and Neighbouring Rights: How Collective Management Is Supposed to Work

Under the Copyright Act, a collective management organisation (CMO) is licensed by the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) to collect and distribute royalties on behalf of a category of rights holders, such as composers and publishers, performers, or producers, rather than each rights holder negotiating individually with every bar, radio station, or event venue that plays their music. A business using music commercially, such as a broadcaster, restaurant, or matatu operator, is expected to hold a valid licence from the relevant CMO or CMOs, and paying an unlicensed or improperly licensed body does not discharge that obligation.

Three Societies, a Decade of Disputes

For years, three organisations operated in this space: the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) for composers and publishers, the Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP) for producers, and the Performers Rights Society of Kenya (PRISK, later renamed PAVRISK) for performers. KECOBO deregistered all three as far back as 2021 over governance failures, including shared staff and offices between organisations that were supposed to be independent, and a documented pattern of under-distributing collected royalties to the artists the CMOs existed to serve. What followed was years of provisional licences, court injunctions, and a 2023 attempt by KECOBO to license PAVRISK alone as a single CMO covering all three functions, which was itself challenged in court by the sidelined organisations.

Where Things Actually Stand Now

The most recent licensing round has left MCSK outside the licensed system entirely. For the 2025-2026 licensing period, KECOBO renewed licences for KAMP and PAVRISK following a public participation process, but declined to renew MCSK’s licence, citing the same transparency and governance concerns that led to the 2021 deregistration. MCSK challenged the decision before the Copyright Tribunal, which issued a temporary injunction allowing MCSK to continue collecting and distributing royalties pending the outcome of its appeal, so as of this writing MCSK is operating under interim tribunal protection rather than a fresh KECOBO licence. This is exactly the kind of live, unsettled position that should be re-verified immediately before any business relies on a specific CMO’s licensing status, since the underlying dispute could resolve in either direction and has already moved through several distinct phases in the past eighteen months.

Why This Matters for Broadcasters and Venues

Broadcasting and neighbouring rights exposure for a broadcaster or venue operator turns on which CMOs currently hold valid authority to license the specific rights being used. Playing music without a valid licence from the CMO actually entitled to grant it is copyright infringement regardless of good faith, and paying an entity whose licensing status is under active legal challenge does not necessarily provide the same protection a licence from an uncontested CMO would. Given the current uncertainty around MCSK specifically, businesses should confirm directly with KECOBO which CMOs hold current, unchallenged licences for composer, producer, and performer rights respectively, rather than relying on historical practice or a CMO’s own assertion of its status.

The Underlying Governance Problem

What makes this dispute persistent rather than a one-off is that the same governance concerns, cost inflation from overlapping functions, and distribution transparency, have recurred across multiple licensing cycles since at least 2021. KECOBO’s own public statements have repeatedly cited failure to honour coordination agreements between the CMOs and inadequate royalty distribution as the reasons for non-renewal, suggesting the underlying sector problem is institutional rather than a dispute that will resolve cleanly once the current tribunal appeal is decided.

A distribution rule worth knowing sits underneath much of this dispute: KECOBO’s licensing conditions have generally required CMOs to distribute at least 70 percent of collected royalties to members, with no more than 30 percent retained for administrative costs. Past non-compliance with that ratio, rather than any single dramatic failure, is what shows up repeatedly in KECOBO’s own explanations for licensing action against the three organisations, and it is a useful benchmark for any rights holder or business trying to assess how seriously to take a CMO’s own account of its compliance.

The Bottom Line for Now

Broadcasting and neighbouring rights compliance in Kenya cannot be reduced to a single checklist item, because the licensed side of the market has moved twice in under two years and could move again before this dispute is finally resolved. A broadcaster or venue that built its royalty compliance process around a single assumed CMO relationship should treat that assumption as due for a refresh, not a settled fact, and should build a habit of checking KECOBO’s current licensing position periodically rather than relying on a one-time confirmation from years ago.

How We Can Help

Clay & Associates Advocates advises broadcasters, venues, and rights holders on collective management licensing compliance and royalty disputes in Kenya’s music sector. Our piece on the Kenya Intellectual Property Authority Bill covers the wider institutional reform KECOBO itself sits within. Contact our Intellectual Property practice to confirm current CMO licensing status before a broadcast, event, or venue licensing decision.

Sources: Copyright Act, Cap 130, Part VII; Kenya Copyright Board, KECOBO Deregisters KAMP, PRISK and MCSK; Daily Nation, High Court: MCSK Allowed to Collect Royalties Without KECOBO Licence.

Frequently asked questions

Does MCSK currently hold a valid KECOBO licence?
No. KECOBO declined to renew MCSK’s licence for the 2025-2026 period; MCSK is currently operating under a temporary Copyright Tribunal injunction pending its appeal, not a fresh licence.

Which CMOs are currently licensed in Kenya’s music sector?
KAMP and PAVRISK (formerly PRISK) hold current KECOBO licences for the 2025-2026 period; MCSK’s position is under active legal challenge.

Is paying an unlicensed CMO a defence to a copyright infringement claim?
No. A business needs a licence from the CMO actually entitled to grant it; paying the wrong or improperly licensed body does not discharge the underlying obligation to rights holders.

Why were all three CMOs originally deregistered?
KECOBO cited governance failures including shared staff and offices between organisations meant to be independent, and a pattern of under-distributing collected royalties to artists.