For or against new structure: unsure about the crossroads for Koda's GF?

The association for music creators and composers, Koda, collects and distributes approximately DKK 1 billion annually in royalty fees to rights holders at home and abroad, including music publishers and record labels with assigned rights. From this money, a form of tax of up to DKK 100 million per year, called cultural funds, is deducted. These are given back to Danish musical life through grants, scholarships, political work for the sector, songwriting camps, and much more. The amount corresponds to one-fifth of the sum the state distributes to music via the Arts Foundation. 

Following a longer process, a majority on Koda's board has put forward a proposal for the establishment of a new pool structure for a vote at the general meeting. The proposal has generated a lot of debate among Koda's members, including on social media. But what exactly is being voted on, and where does the disagreement lie? We try to enlighten you before you cast your vote.  

The Danish Artist Federation has no stake in Koda's funds, receives no support from Koda, and has no particular interests in the proposal (ed.).  
 
Author fears large gap between artists and funding

The debate centres particularly on the fact that Koda's board will henceforth have to approve the pooling structure proposed by the pooling council, and that the board, in addition to selecting three out of nine members of the pooling council itself, will have to approve the proposed members elected by the associations. The remaining two members are selected at Koda's general meeting by vote.

It is also the board of directors that must draw up the strategy under which the council works. The new structure has been presented as Proposal for amendment of articles of association, and a change to the articles of association is therefore also required to change the structure again. Today, four interest organisations under Koda distribute the vast majority of the funds. See the fact box at the bottom of the article.

Lasse Matthiessen, chairman of one of the four associations, Autor, fears that the new structure will create a greater distance between the applicant and the funding. He stated in a lookupon Facebook strongly advised voting ’no’ to the proposal. He believes that the new amendment gives too much decision-making power to Koda's board, and that this will lead to a centralisation of power over the funds, as opposed to today, where the distribution is delegated to the four member associations.

“The proposal effectively consolidates power over cultural funding with Koda's board, creating a democratic deficit. While the grant committees may consist of competent individuals, the decisive power does not lie with them. The power lies in deciding how much money goes to the individual funds – and with this proposal, that decision-making scope moves very close to Koda's board. This makes me concerned about the consequences.” Lasse Matthiessen's cigar.  

Centralisation can make distribution simpler and more transparent

We have asked Morten Rosenmeier, Professor of Copyright Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, who has extensive knowledge of management companies, to assess Koda's proposal for a scholarship office.

He believes that there are generally clear advantages to having a single decision-making body within an administrative company like Koda, if the goal is otherwise affordable and transparent administration.

“The advantages of centralisation are that decisions become more transparent because you only need to look at one financial statement to see what has happened with the money. Experience shows that when there is misuse of entitlement funds, it is difficult to detect when many intermediaries obscure the process of applications and allocations of money,” says Morten Rosenmeier.

His general assessment is that centralisation generally eases resource consumption, and he gives this example:

“In theory, it becomes cheaper to administer funds when there are no multiple layers of administration,” he says.

Critics raise concerns about skewed representation

The proposal for a new joint scholarship office is prepared by a working group appointed by Koda's board of directors. In the proposed structure, the pool council establishes the criteria in the support structure, and the council members are approved by the board: 2 elected by the general meeting, 4 appointed by associations, and 3 external members.

Annika Aakjær, a long-standing member of Autor, was nominated by the same association to sit on the working group. She agrees that changes need to be made but has subsequently withdrawn her support for the proposal. She justifies this by stating that the proposal is not fully developed and that the representation of composers is insufficient.

“The cultural funds are generated by the work of composers, and therefore composers should have a greater say in how the funds should be distributed and what is needed in the music community. That decision-making power should not predominantly lie with a board that has its own interests in how the money is distributed,” says Annika Aakjær.

Annika Aakjær has put forward a number of proposals, including on how long one can sit on the board, which are also up for vote at the general meeting.
Find the proposed amendments to the articles of association to be voted on at the general meeting on 29 April,her. 

Kodak's deputy chairman sees value in centralisation

Just like Annika Aakjær, Bjørn Christiansen has also been part of the working group behind the new proposal. Bjørn Christiansen, who is the second deputy chair of Koda and a member of the Danish Composers' Society, supports the proposal.  He believes that the proposal gives more influence to the Koda members who are not members of one of the associations, and thus a more democratic management of Koda's cultural funds.

“Currently, the boards of the associations are each designing pools to stimulate the purposes and areas that the associations each find most relevant. The members of the associations have direct influence on this work, while a Koda member who is not a member of an association is excluded from influence,” says Bjørn Christiansen.

“The current structure of the grant system thus favours the interests of member organisations at the expense of reflecting a diverse musical life,” says Bjørn, adding:

“The strength of the proposal is that different, relevant professional disciplines have the opportunity to make some disinterested decisions about how the pool structure and the distribution of funds should be.”

Bjørn Christiansen is not afraid to call the proposal a centralisation of power. He believes that there is a lack of a common, central decision-making space for cultural funds, and that the proposal for a combined funding council under the board creates precisely that:

”From my point of view, the Pool Council is a centralisation of power in the right place. Power is moved from Koda's board and the associations into a pool council, where all associations are represented. The Pool Council makes overarching decisions about the overall pool design, as well as about the distribution of funds between the pools, he says.

In the new proposal, the pool council will be the decisive decision-making body, and from there the council will appoint who will sit on the individual scholarship committees and distribute the funds. For Bjørn Christiansen, this is a better model than the current one.

“A central decision-making room is necessary to avoid overlap between pools. Each individual pool will have its own grant committee, which the pool council will appoint. Grant committees will work decentrally, and the committees will consist of members with the professional insight that is relevant within the purpose of each individual pool.”

The proposal is just the first step

Koda published in early 2025 a study, prepared by Epinion, which mapped the cultural assets and their significance for the members. It was also the basis for the working group's work and showed, among other things, that some members had an impression that their chances of receiving support increased if they applied to the pools within their own member organisation.

Lasse Matthiessen takes the mistrust in current principles for the distribution of grant funds seriously and believes that Koda's board should investigate the problems highlighted in the report further.

“If there is mistrust in how the money is distributed now, we must look into it thoroughly, but making the biggest change to this system that has happened in the last perhaps 40 years – without knowing if it solves it – is not the solution.” Lasse Matthiessen's cigar.

He believes that the proposal does not take into account the work that the associations carry out, and which he is concerned will disappear when part of the administrative funding is moved from the associations to a grant committee.

“At Autor, we work to create networks, residencies, and mental well-being for individual composers. I don't see that the restructuring proposed here takes into account what has already been built up, and the competencies that already exist within the associations for that work,” he says.

Proximity to music scenes is important for a healthy democracy.

According to law professor Morten Rosenmeier at the University of Copenhagen, it is crucial that those with influence in the new structure possess the necessary professional knowledge of the specific environments they are to support. The criteria for who sits in the decision-making room must reflect this.

“Care should be taken to ensure that decision-making powers do not move too far away from the local environments that are to benefit from the funds, and that those making decisions have the necessary knowledge of the environments, which is typically found more at a decentralised level.”

Morten Rosenmeier therefore believes it is a good idea for member organisations to retain influence in a new structure.

“The ideal situation should be arranged so that member organisations, even if decision-making is centralised, still have sufficient political influence via their representation in their relevant administrative organisations (in this case Koda, red.” says Morten Rosenmeier and adds:

“If there are democratic problems with centralising power, one should adjust the criteria that govern who decides, rather than taking the more drastic step of abandoning centralisation,” says Morten Rosenmeier, professor of copyright law at the University of Copenhagen.

The proposal needs to be worked through more thoroughly.

The proposed structure with a foundation office, pool council, and various foundation committees beneath it is up for a vote through amendments to the articles of association at the general meeting.

The proposal makes it possible to introduce the changes, but offers no certainty about what changes will be made, according to criticism from Lasse Matthiessen. He calls for a more developed proposal:

“This is not a technical overhaul of a system, it is a political change of a system. There is a very big difference, because the vote is about who will decide how the funds are to be distributed,” he says, adding:

“You can't vote on a new pool structure at the general meeting, because it's not on the table at all. We don't even know what it will look like yet. Lasse Matthiessen, as spokesperson for the Author.

The Koda general meeting will take place on 29 April 2026. The board of directors will also be elected at the general meeting. The nominated candidates are among the authors Andreas Hemmeth, Anne Linnet, Arne Würgler, Bjørn Christiansen, Ilanguaq Lumholt and Jesper Hansen.

Among the music publishers Lasse Lindorff and Søren Winding.