Newly introduced streaming rights for authors and performing artists in Belgium are under fire

Via the law of 19 June 2022 that implemented the DSM Directive, Belgium also adopted a non-waivable remuneration right in addition to the exclusive rights for streaming. This means that authors can retain a remuneration at all times vis-à-vis streaming platforms, even if they have transferred or licensed their rights to a producer, label, etc. 

Artists welcomed this valuable provision that represents an important measure to actually ensure appropriate and proportionate remuneration to authors and performers for the exploitation of their works by streaming platforms.

It was being considered as not only necessary but essentiel to secure sustainability to a market whose rules are dictated by the labels and the platforms. 

However, several stakeholders (Google, Spotify, META, Streamz, Universal Music, etc.) filed subsequently a request for annulment with the Belgian Constitutional Court. This Court has now issued its long-awaited judgment which decided neither to reject the requests nor to grant them. Instead, the Court referred no fewer than 13 preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

All these questions come down to the following: Does the DSM Directive, the 2001 Infosoc directive, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the TFEU and even the 2015 TRIS-directive prohibits member states (and thus Belgium) from introducing a remuneration right that provides authors and performers (and journalists) with a guaranteed and non-transferable right to receive a remuneration when their works are being exploited by streaming and UGC-matforms? 

For an extensive report on the ruling, including a summary of the precedents, the arguments for annulment and the preliminary references, AEPO ARTIS (CMO that defend performers’ rights), please have a look here.

As always, I’m also here to help and navigate you further through your rights, so don’t hesitate to contact me.