Sayco and eight directors were sanctioned by the SIC with a million-dollar fine: this was the reason

Sayco and eight directors were sanctioned by the SIC with a million-dollar fine: this was the reason

A financial penalty greater than $5.3 billion was imposed on the Society of Authors and Composers of Colombia (Sayco) and eight of its managers, after an investigation that determined abusive practices in the management of copyright.

The decision, communicated by the Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (SIC)responds to the obstruction of the individual management of copyright economic rights and the abuse of a dominant position in the administration of public communication rights.

You can now follow us on Facebook and in our WhatsApp Channel

This measure directly affects thousands of affiliated authors and composers, who until now faced difficulties in autonomously managing their works.

The sanction, which exceeds $5.3 billion, was imposed after the SIC concluded that Sayco, as the only company authorized in Colombia for the collective management of public communication rights, prevented the holders from exercising individual management of their property rights.

The administrative investigation showed that the entity and its directors implemented mechanisms that limited the freedom of authors and composers to decide how to manage their creations, affecting their access to fair remuneration.

Among the reasons that supported the sanction, the SIC identified an abuse of a dominant position by Sayco. The entity conditioned the provision of the collective management service on a modality of public communication – such as rights derived from commercial establishments – to the obligation to also entrust it with the management of all other forms of public communication, including television, radio and concerts. This practice restricted the possibility for members to choose to individually manage any of the modes of exploitation of their works.

The SIC’s analysis detailed several specific practices considered restrictive. Sayco imposed limitations on affiliates who wanted to reserve individual management of some form of public communication, classifying them as “managed owners” and which the regulator considered unjustified.

These holders were denied the status of partners, which prevented them from participating in the governing bodies of the entity and accessing the social and economic benefits that partners did receive. Besides, They had to pay an additional 10% on the fee charged to members for the management of their rights, without being able to enjoy the programs financed with those resources. These conditions generated clear disincentives for those seeking to exercise individual management.

The SIC also pointed out that Sayco designed mandate contracts that prevented authors and composers from reserving certain forms of public communication for individual management, to which was added the discovery of maneuvers aimed at hindering the modification of existing contracts with authors and composers, which made it difficult for affiliates to recover individual management of some modalities.

The SIC concluded that despite having the technical capacity to facilitate the individual management of rights by its members, Sayco did not implement the adjustments that the SIC required in November 2016product of an inspection carried out then.

As a consequence of the sanction and the ordered measures, the SIC determined that authors and composers will be able to directly manage their public communication rights. This opens the door to fairer and more real remuneration for the owners, by eliminating the barriers that until now limited their autonomy and participation in the management of their works.

It is not the first time that Sayco has been involved in this type of controversy. To the complaints of artists such as Jean Carlos Centeno or Juan Galeano of Diamante Eléctrico denouncing non-payments by the entity, was added the fall of the project promoted in 2024 by the representatives to the Chamber Daniel Carvalho and Juan Carlos Losada, called the “Music Law”, because it was not discussed in the Senate Plenary due to lack of time.

As Losada denounced at the time, the reason the bill collapsed was a lobby organized by the president of Sayco, Rafael Manjarrez.