Music, Choreography, Performing Rights & Viral Trends

Part 8(1) of AudreyGrey’s IP Series

Introduction

Let’s start with a brief story. If it hits too close to home, it is simply because it happens more often than we would like to admit.

Konsa wrote and recorded an original piece of music titled “Qi”. It instantly went viral on social media. Anna, an up-and-coming dancer, choreographed the music with her crew and posted on Instagram. She got only 10 views. Then Step Up, a popular dance crew saw it, liked it, and recreated the choreography. They posted on TikTok. Within days, everyone was recording themselves dancing to Qi using Anna’s moves. No one credited her in any of the videos. Those who credited anyone, credited Step Up. Anna’s timeline is filled with people jumping on her trending choreography. Someone shared a screenshot of how much money TikTok had paid them for their video. Anna was fuming when she saw this. Other people were benefiting from her ideas while she got nothing.

Konsa was having her own issues. At first, she was happy that her music was trending. She started getting gigs to perform at events. The organisers of Beach Rave, one of the biggest events in Accra asked her to perform Qi. In the middle of the negotiations for payment, the event organisers simply went silent. Konsa attended the event anyway… out of curiosity. There, on stage, for the opening act, was Ayekoo Band performing Qi! It turned out Ayekoo Band had been performing Qi at live bands and it had become their signature song. They were willing to perform Qi for half the price that Konsa was demanding. Konsa is livid but has no idea what to do.

We can help. But first, let’s decouple each of the matters touching on rights in music, and choreography performing rights.

Music Rights

Music, at least in the form that we consume it commercially, is made up of many different parts, each with its own rights. Most of us only focus on the lead vocalist but there are several others involved. There is a songwriter who owns the copyright in the lyrics. There is a composer who wrote the sheet music and owns the copyright in the structure of the music as written. There are the instrumentalists and sound engineers who own the copyright in the “beat” or “rhythm” but which the technical people call “masters”. The law does not forget the producer who bankrolls the entire production. If the music comes with a video, then we have to consider the rights of the director, actors, photographer and videographer, screenwriter, and several others who come together to make the music. More often than not, the people mentioned above would sell their rights in the music to the producer.

When you own copyright in music, beyond the broader classes of moral and economic rights discussed in Part 8 of this series, you own 5 types of economic rights:

1. The right to reproduce the music in a fixed medium
2. The right to sell, rent or distribute copies of the music, or otherwise control its distribution,
3. The exclusive right to create derivative works such as covers, remixes, translations, new arrangements, or sampling,
4. The right to license or assign your rights, and
5. The right to perform the music live, have the recordings broadcast, or earn royalties on every broadcast or live performance of your music[1].

Choreography as Protected IP:

In Ghana, choreographic work is eligible for copyright protection provided it is original, captured in a fixed medium like a notation, video recording, or detailed staging script, and is made by a citizen, person resident in Ghana, or first published in Ghana. Choreographies that originated outside Ghana but are protected by international treaties that Ghana has assented to are also protected in Ghana.

Against this backdrop, viral dance routines, if they are an original routine and not merely generic dance steps are protected. And the creator should be entitled to royalties from everyone who uses the recording commercially or chooses to perform the routine commercially. For the avoidance of doubt, if you perform someone’s recorded routine online, go viral, and get paid by the social media platform for views, you are exploiting protected work, and you should be paying royalties.

Refusing to give credit is also another type of infringement. This attacks the performer’s moral rights. To avoid getting drawn into a lawsuit where the social media platform is targeted for its deeper pockets, most platforms will mute or block your video if you fail to credit the original creator.

What are Performing Rights?

Performing rights refer to the right to perform the recorded music, a choreography, or oratory piece to a live audience or in a public place or to otherwise broadcast it. This right is held by the performer (musician/ singer/dancer/actor/ orator) and the producer (or the people they choose to transfer the right to). And they are entitled to royalties for every broadcast or live performance of the music.

So, a restaurant playing background music through a speaker system to entertain its guests[2], a radio station broadcasting a track, a streaming platform for music,  a TV channel using music as a jingle must all pay royalties to the owners of the performing rights. The key feature in all these scenarios is public performance. Hence, singing in your own home is not a public performance and requires no licence. But performing the same song at a paid event, even for an audience of one, is.

It is important to draw a distinction between performing rights and performer’s rights. The former, as we have discussed, constitutes the rights to publicly perform a musical work or sound recording. The latter, on the other hand, refers to the rights of actors, singers, musicians, and dancers in their performances, usually of works owned by another.

Covers, Remixes, and Sampling: Navigating Derivative Works

A derivative work is a piece that comes from adapting, translating or otherwise transforming an original work in a way that makes the result an independent creation. For the purposes of our discussion, we will look at covers, remixes, and samples. When an artist takes an original song and performs it again in their own style, that is a cover. The lyrics and basic structure are the same, but the tempo and some of the instrumentals may change. A remix takes the original recording and alters or mixes it electronically. When you sample, you take a portion of the music and add it to someone else entirely.

Under section 24 of Ghana’s Copyright Act, you require the permission of the original owner to create a derivative musical work. This is given through a mechanical license. The license specifies the extent to which you can make the changes. In addition to that license, the owner of the original work is entitled to royalties from the cover, remix, sample, reimagination, translation, or other derivative work.

So, what happens when an unauthorised work overtakes the original in popularity and revenue generation? The original owner can sue for the revenues for that derivative work. That is precisely what happened in the US case of Pharrell Williams v Marvin Gaye[3]. In 2013, Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams released “Blurred Lines,”. It became a global mega-hit, grossing over $16 million in revenue. The family of Marvin Gaye sued for copyright infringement claiming that it used the core groove Marvin Gaye’s 1977 classic “Got to Give It U”. The US Court of Appeal agreed and ordered Mr. Williams to pay 50% of all royalties from that song to the Gaye Family.

Earlier in 1977, a similar dispute had arisen between two popular bands, Verve and the Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones accused Verve of exceeding the sampling rights given to use portions of Rolling Stone’s “The Last Time,” in Verve’s “Bittersweet Symphony”. Facing the threat of an injunction, Verve allowed The Rolling Stones to take 100% of all the revenues from that song for up to 20 years. In recent times, Sony Music, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and several others have filed a lawsuit against Suno AI for copyright infringement because the AI tool admitted to scraping copyrighted work to train its AI models. These music rights companies are ultimately hoping to get a portion of the revenues from the AI generated music.

To avoid these costly disputes, as a creator of derivative work, you should take these simple steps: (1) Find out who the original owner is. (2) Reach out to them and negotiate a licensing arrangement ensuring that the rights you receive correspond with all the liberties you need to create your derivative work. (3) Ensure that all the legal procedures have been followed. (4) Always document composition, master, and performance credits with all collaborators (session singers, instrumentalists, featured dancers, producers) before leaving the studio. (5) Finally, after production, ensure that the agreed royalties are paid to the original owner.

Monetizing and Enforcing Performing Rights

CMOs

The problem with monetizing and enforcing music and performing rights in this global economy is that it requires a worldwide network and resources that many individual creators cannot generate on their own. To tackle this challenge, many national copyright laws, including Ghana’s Act 690 permit authors, producers, performers and publishers to form collective administration societies (CMOs) to protect their interests.[4] CMOs are sometimes called Performing Rights Organisations (PROs), Music Licensing Companies (MLC), or Related Rights Organisations. These CMOs act on the authority of the owner of a right, collect and distribute royalties and other remuneration accrued to the owner, after taking a cut.[5]

The Ghana Music Rights Organisation (GHAMRO) is the CMO responsible for administering the rights of music creators in Ghana. Unfortunately, GHAMRO has been unable to renew its license since 2023[6]. This development raises serious concerns about whether Ghanaian creators’ rights are currently being protected, and whether they are able to access their royalties.

Streaming Platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, Boomplay:

Digital Streaming Platforms (DSPs) like Spotify, Apple Music, and Boomplay are where fans go to stream full-length tracks on repeat. Prior to streaming, we used CDs, records and cassettes. The problem with the traditional music distribution was that the owner could not participate any further in the revenues from the resale. There were also numerous cases of bootlegging. Streaming platforms solve both problems.

Artists who want to upload their music on any streaming platform first have to upload the song onto a digital distribution platform such as DistroKid or Dapstream. These platforms then create an International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) for the masters and an International Standard Musical Work Code (ISWC) to link the songwriters and composers to the song. Distribution platforms ensure that all other accompanying art and metadata for the music meet each streaming platform’s requirements.

Revenue from streaming is split into two: (1) Master Royalties for the sound recording are paid to the distributor, who then passes the money directly to the artist. (2) Publishing and performing rights royalties on the underlying songwriting and lyrics are paid out to the songwriter or composer, irrespective of who is singing it. These go to the distributors, then to CMOs before they get to the rights owner. If you write your own music, you must register your work in both ecosystems to capture 100% of your earnings.

As a creator using distributors or streaming platforms, it is imperative that you ensure that the metadata on your work is captured accurately. If the metadata is mismatched, misspelled, or missing during distribution, DSPs cannot match the streams to the right creator, leaving royalties trapped while the platforms retain the unclaimed funds. Millions of dollars in streaming royalties go unclaimed every year into “black box” accounts due to poor metadata hygiene.

The TikTok & Social Media Landscape

Social media has completely upended traditional music economics. It has turned passive listeners into active creators and changed how music and videos are consumed. This change has created a legal grey area for ownership and attribution.Royalties from traditional streaming platforms are typically calculated per play after a 30-second threshold. TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts operate on an entirely different ecosystem driven by pool-licensing agreements. These platforms negotiate blanket master and publishing licenses directly with major labels, publishers, and collective management organizations (CMOs). They pool funds into a central distribution pot. And from there, the labels and CMOs handle distribution.

Just as on streaming apps, metadata hygiene is extremely important. On social media, viral soundtracks are often chopped into 15 to 30-second loops used across millions of distinct videos. So, the royalties are also broken down into micro-fractions to match the proportion of the music used. This bite-sized revenue accrual system makes metadata tracking and pre-cleared publishing rights critical for ensuring that independent artists like Konsa actually see the revenue generated by a trending sound.

Unfortunately for choreographers like Anna, social media platforms currently prioritise audio rights over visual or choreographic rights. TikTok and Instagram use automated content recognition (ACR) tools to match original audio files instantly. However, choreography lacks an equivalent automated visual registry on most consumer apps.

To bridge this gap, choreographers can register their signature moves as audio-visual works where applicable, use pinned comments or official audio naming conventions to cement attribution, and utilize platform reporting mechanisms for unauthorized commercial exploitation. By linking a custom dance trend to an original sound via formal platform audio matching, choreographers can partner with the audio owner (e.g., Konsa) to negotiate split-revenue models or sponsored content deals, turning a viral dance challenge into a protected asset.

CONCLUSION

The dispute between Konsa, Anna, Step Up, and the Ayekoo Band demonstrates the legal realities of modern IP enforcement. Anna holds the copyright and performing rights in her viral choreography. Under the law, anyone performing that routine commercially, such as Step Up, must have her permission to use it, credit her, and pay royalties to her. But alas, the technology currently does not favour her. 

Meanwhile, Konsa’s frustration with the Ayekoo Band boils down to performing rights and public performance licensing. Ayekoo Band’s unsanctioned live performances of “Qi” constitute a clear infringement of Konsa’s exclusive performing rights. Konsa is well within her rights to demand royalties from Ayekoo band and the concert organisers. But the question is, how many other performances of “Qi” have been done on her blind side? Without registering with any CMOs, she may struggle to collect all her just revenues.

Performing rights play a crucial role in ensuring that creators benefit economically from the public use of their works, especially in an era where music can easily be shared and performed across multiple platforms. What are you doing as a creator, publisher, or producer to protect your rights?

---

[1] Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690)

[2] Copyright Society of Ghana v Afreh [1999-2000] 1 GLR 135

[3] D.C. No. 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR (9th Cir 2018).

[4] Act 690, sec, 49(1)

[5] Act 690, sec. 49(2)

[6] “My government is in power and GHAMRO still doesn’t have its license – Rex Omar”, GhanaWeb, 11 February 2026, accessed on 3 November 2026.

Authors:  Audrey Naa Dei Kotey, Clara Mettle-Nunoo & Lordina Abena Oduma Atingane