The Current GEMA Reform Doesn’t Work for Either U or E! Status, Criticism, Reset to Zero, Solution Approach
Do you know what worries me most about the GEMA reform project? That for both the E-Music and U-Music sectors, it is almost impossible to predict the extent of the losses that will occur. That there will be losses is not in question; every reform brings changes. Of course, the existing system of collective, solidarity-based distribution and funding can be improved and modernized. But when one gets the impression that in the future, in the distribution of classical and contemporary music, money will only flow towards deceased composers, then one has every reason to be concerned. This will happen if the current standard in the E sector—where every performance, regardless of location, receives the same royalty—ceases to exist and no compensation remains within an inkasso-oriented (collection-oriented) system.
If I remember correctly, there were similar thoughts about an inkasso-oriented system 10 to 15 years ago. However, at that time, there were even proposals to deduct a mid-double-digit percentage from very high collections and redistribute it as a surcharge on lower collections. Even with a lower percentage, high collections would still receive more income than today. By „high collections,“ I mean major orchestras, expensive high-profile festivals, etc. But such a measure is not planned now. Additionally, no calculations have been presented on what this change would mean in terms of losses for the average composer in the E sector. If the current system is dismantled and a new system is introduced without compensation, one can expect losses of approximately 70% to 90% in distribution, depending on the repertoire and type of ensemble.
One wonders: Why must distribution be entirely inkasso-oriented without any surcharge? No real answer is given. Well, a small one perhaps. There are now breakdowns available. Under the new KUK tariff (Kunstmusik Konzert), which is set to replace E, royalties for protected works in a concert will only be calculated based on the portion of the evening box office revenue allocated to GEMA. If there is only one protected work, all the money (after deducting costs and social-cultural allocations) goes to the rights holders. Previously, a portion of this went into a large collective pool, from which funds were redistributed so that every work received the same royalty regardless of the venue. Now, the „winner takes all“ principle applies—the very principle often criticized as a hallmark of Trumpism in Europe. Even if the protected work is merely an arrangement, under the new rules, the rights holder of the arrangement could receive everything if the original work is no longer protected—unless specific regulations prevent this.
If there are multiple protected works in the program, the longest work will receive the highest royalties. For example, if a young composer’s new orchestral work lasts five minutes, but a soloist then performs a seven-minute encore of a protected solo violin piece, the solo work will earn more than the orchestral piece. In the funding process, the instrumentation and cultural context (venue, organizer, performers) will later be weighted with points. Young composers—up to about 30 or 35 years old—will have their points doubled. However, this system is not truly a form of funding; it is merely a new surcharge model, labeled „NPA surcharge“ in GEMA terminology. This is essentially just a secondary calculation for the complete inkasso-based system. GEMA claims that this surcharge system will be independent of total revenue, but by linking it to instrumentation, venue, etc., it clearly is not.
Another problematic issue is that the valuation system for U-Music is now supposed to become a general valuation system for all. Participation in KUK (formerly E) is expected, but this means that former E composers will be even more directly involved in the U system than before. Previously, the E valuation received its funding through the 10% deduction for social-cultural purposes, which was primarily financed by the larger U sector but also applied to all E composers.
With the new KUK tariff, it is also unclear what will happen to U-works that were previously classified as E by the work committee or those that fell into the gray area between U and E but still benefited from E’s minimum point system. This particularly affects jazz, which has remained relatively quiet on the issue, as well as electroacoustic music.
Of course, one could eliminate debates about classification by simply stating that works performed under the E tariff are E, and everything else is U. But the problem is that as a composer, I have personally experienced cases where the organizer listed a work under the E tariff, yet GEMA processed it as U. With the new KUK tariff, who guarantees that GEMA will not make similar misclassifications? That other organizers will not mistakenly select the wrong category and land in U instead of KUK? Currently, one can protest and, if necessary, submit the work to the work committee. This committee is expected to continue existing, but it will now be responsible for assigning appropriate points to former E works used in U contexts.
At present, E points are strictly tied to instrumentation and duration. If there is uncertainty about whether a work belongs to E or U, at least minimum points are guaranteed. But if E is abolished, U could theoretically grant maximum points. Would points then be determined by instrumentation and duration, or will aesthetic criteria dictate whether a work receives the highest possible score? If the ability to dispute classifications is minimized, future conflicts over how to categorize former E works in U could be avoided.
This could be addressed by implementing a slightly AI-supported online tool during the work registration process. Metadata could be analyzed automatically, and plausibility checks could ensure correct classification, with the work committee only intervening in cases of doubt.
But what lies ahead under the new inkasso-oriented, compensation-free model? The existing E valuation, like the E tariff, balanced out the reality that E works are typically performed only one to three times and require significant effort to create—effort that a U-style accounting model does not acknowledge. The current narrative suggests that E composers have been „getting rich“ through redistribution and valuation, but this is simply not the case. The system provides reliability and accurately reflects the working reality of contemporary E composers.
The new KUK „funding“ will be so limited that it cannot truly be considered funding. Instead, it will merely function as a compensation mechanism for the loss of the current distribution system. Since KUK distribution will only account for duration and not instrumentation, the logic follows that solo works will fall into low-revenue categories, while large ensemble pieces will be classified under high-revenue categories. The only place where instrumentation will still play a role is in this „funding“ system, which young composers will benefit from. However, after approximately five performances, a work will receive no further funding points.
The larger funding pool is currently the U valuation, which receives more than double the resources allocated to E valuation. This will remain as a surcharge, just as it is now. However, this system also carries historical factors like age points, membership duration, and total work points—criteria that have been criticized in E but remain intact in U. The barriers to accessing U valuation are also higher than those for E valuation.
I would have no issue with a reform that brought distribution and valuation figures back to 2020 levels. Reforms can bring losses. But what is being proposed here—without even calculating the losses, but with a strong suspicion of their scale—can only be rejected. It must be postponed and restarted from scratch.
But How?
Here are some thoughts on this. In the end, it’s not about E (serious music) and U (entertainment music), but rather about the complexity of a work itself and the effort required for its interpretation and production. This is particularly relevant when a work cannot be endlessly reproduced but instead requires a new production through interpretation each time. If the work itself is highly complex, this might happen only rarely.
Basing funding solely on tariffs and performance venues is insufficient. The same venue—whether a philharmonic hall or a club—may host U-music artists one night and a quartet or the city’s philharmonic orchestra another night, both in the concert hall and the club. Deciding based on venue and tariff alone may simplify administrative processes, but it does not always make sense, as the complexity of works varies regardless of location or ensemble.
If criteria such as instrumentation are shifted into the funding process, the question arises: Who decides what is worthy of funding? How can fairness in resource distribution be ensured? Who defines what is „culturally valuable“?
Therefore, the tariff system should remain as it is known by its users. Funding, however, should be based on questions of higher complexity. Instrumentation, duration, and arrangement effort should be the key factors. A work for solo violin would receive fewer points than an orchestral composition—regardless of whether it is jazz, contemporary music, or sound art. Venue can be a factor but not the main criterion. A performance in a philharmonic hall should not automatically be paid more than one in a club—the work itself should be the determining factor.
GEMA, take note: The tariff alone is not enough. The work itself must still be assessed, possibly supported by online tools to facilitate classification with plausibility control mechanisms—without even needing AI! A fair solution would be a combination of tariff, usage, and work analysis, paired with transparent funding for particularly complex works.
To measure the complexity of a work and its interpretation and production, the following approach could be used:
At the top of the list is instrumentation. An orchestral or ensemble composition is generally more demanding than a song for guitar and vocals. Electronic music can involve highly complex sound design processes. Thus, relevant factors should include the number of instruments or voices in the score, the complexity of the notation, and the need for specialized performance practices (e.g., live ensemble, conductor, ensemble size, required expertise of performers, live electronics).
Duration and performance format must also be considered. More complex and/or longer works often require more rehearsal time, higher material costs, and greater production efforts. Relevant criteria here would be work duration, number of movements or sections, and performance type—just as before: a solo work earns fewer points than chamber music, which in turn earns fewer than ensemble or orchestral pieces.
Additionally, the need for specialists and the high production effort required for performance must be taken into account. Some works demand (highly) specialized musicians, rehearsal directors, well-trained amateurs, technicians, or conductors, leading to higher costs. This could be measured by factors such as the use of experimental or unusual instruments, the necessity of a conductor, professional or semi-professional training levels, the use of sound design, live electronics, or interactive technology.
Finally, a crucial dividing line: commercial viability. Some works are culturally valuable but have no significant commercial market and could not exist without funding. This applies, for example, to the broad field of classical and contemporary music, whose funding spans from music schools to opera houses and conservatories. These are precisely the areas that train personnel and develop ideas for the commercial sector, which operates without subsidies.
Of course, film music is also funded, even though it would not achieve commercial success without financial support. Similarly, pop music—typically performed by bands or jazz ensembles—receives significant municipal, state, and federal funding. Unlike classical/contemporary music, pop music funding often explicitly supports recording productions, whereas classical/contemporary music funding frequently excludes them.
Regardless of the genre, the following criteria could be considered: no or very limited commercial viability (e.g., niche works), premiere performances within an innovative or experimental festival, independence from major labels and large production companies. A contemporary chamber opera featuring atonal music or an interactive sound installation in public space could receive more funding than a radio-friendly pop song.
If the goal is to support „cultural added value“—which GEMA’s current plans do not achieve, as they primarily integrate funding into the tariff and collection system rather than allowing it to thrive—the approach should be as follows:
Clear and objective criteria should be the sole deciding factors. These could include: instrumentation and complexity, length and performance format, the necessity of specialists and technical effort, and most importantly, low commercial viability.
Komponist*in
