Decree 611/2025 rejects SADAIC’s claim against the reform of the collective management system of copyright
Department of Intellectual Property Report | Decree 611/2025 rejects SADAIC’s claim against the reform of the collective management system of copyright
On August 27, 2025, Decree No. 611/2025 (the “Decree”) was published, rejecting the improper administrative claim filed by the Argentine Society of Authors and Composers of Music (“SADAIC” by its Spanish acronym) against Decrees No. 138/2025 and 150/2025. These regulations had introduced substantial changes in the collective management system of copyright and related rights, abandoning the exclusive representation model and establishing the free choice of rightsholders to manage their rights individually or through one or more authorized entities.
SADAIC argued that the decrees were null and void because they disregarded the exclusivity of representation conferred by Law No. 17,648 and Decree No. 5146/69. It further contended that the obligation imposed on SADAIC to negotiate fees with users undermined the principle of equality in relation to authors who choose to manage their rights individually by unilaterally setting the fees. Finally, it maintained that the regulatory amendment also violated the separation of powers and the right to be heard.
In its analysis, the National Copyright Office (“DNDA” by its Spanish acronym) concluded that neither Law No. 17,648 nor its regulations granted SADAIC an exclusive mandate. It emphasized that the law recognizes authors’ exclusive rights over their works but allows for the management of such rights to be carried out individually or through authorized associations. It also stated that the challenged regulation falls within the regulatory powers provided under Section 99, paragraph 2 of the National Constitution.
The Decree reaffirms that the Executive Power, in issuing Decrees No. 138/2025 and 150/2025, acted within its regulatory authority, seeking to adapt the collective management framework to new forms of exploitation of works arising from technological advances. It holds that the reform preserves authors’ exclusive rights, fosters free choice and competition among entities, and clarifies that SADAIC’s exclusivity was never recognized as immutable. The Decree further emphasizes the Supreme Court’s doctrine that no rights are absolute and that regulatory authority may set reasonable limits.
Finally, the Decree rejected SADAIC’s claim, declared the administrative process exhausted, and left the judicial remedy available to the entity.
Sincerely,