BSCAP Chairperson Heather Cunningham hits back
On the Phone: Heather Cunningham
Late this evening, BSCAP’s chairwoman, attorney Heather Cunningham, responded to claims being made by Shyne during a press conference earlier today. Those statements cast a negative light on Cunningham, as well as the organization because she is, for all intents and purposes, being accused of financial mismanagement during her term as C.E.O. While Shyne provided documentation to support his allegations, Cunningham refuted many of the assertions without reluctance. The entertainment lawyer even went as far as defending her board-approved salary, despite the glaring disparity in what artists collectively stand to make this year in royalties.
On the Phone: Heather Cunningham, Chairperson, BSCAP
“These accusations are extremely inaccurate and actually harmful to the artist community. I would like to be very clear that as far as positioning is concerned within the organization, the C.E.O. reports to the BSCAP board of director and the board approves all royalty distributions. Distribution can only be approved is licensing fees are paid by businesses and today we have approximately 15 businesses including Plus TV as the only broadcast licensee that has actually paid a license fee. Compare this to the approximate 2000 or more users that BSCAP estimates uses music without paying the licensing fee in contravention of the Belize Copyright act. Secondly the board also approves all salaries and expenses which include annual payments to CSAC and access. All of which are organizations that aid BCAP in international copyright royalty collections. As an international organization we submit an annual report to our affiliates which include financials. Lastly, BSCAP has rules and policies that were in place long before Shyne took the post of C.E.O. Distribution rules governing distribution process and is available to all of our members and international affiliates. To be clear the upcoming distribution that has been approved by the board was based solely on the monies received from since 2014 – 2016 and it is important to note that during this period and in accordance with the financial report that was allegedly leaked to the public, it is clear that only a nominal amount was collected. I think it is somewhere between or about $13,000 so we are not even sure were the figure that is about $600,000 that is floating around came from.”
