Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

Appropriate and proportionate remuneration for the use of an author’s creative work is a cornerstone of the EU authors’ rights regime, as reflected in Article 18 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive.

This principle is being seriously challenged by the coercive market practices of non-EU-based video-on-demand platforms that impose so-called work-for-hire or buy-out contracts on songwriters and composers.

Such contracts, which are often subject to US law and jurisdiction, typically offer a one-off upfront payment that barely covers the actual creation and production costs of the work, let alone provides remuneration for its use. In most cases, the payment is presented as a ‘take it or leave it’ condition for being on a project.

Given that the French presidency of the Council of the European Union has taken the initiative to put this issue on the agenda of the Council Working Party on Intellectual Property for further discussion, what concrete action does the Commission plan to take in this area?

Answer given by Commissioner Breton on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission is following closely the discussions initiated by the French Presidency of the Council of the EU on the effectiveness of the EU copyright legislative framework, aimed at mapping the practices of global platforms and the measures taken at national level.

The Commission is also closely monitoring the implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the digital single market (the DSM Copyright Directive) in the Member States, including the new rules on the remuneration of creators.

As indicated in Recital 73 of the DSM Copyright Directive, Member States can transpose the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration throught different mechanisms as long as these are compliant with EC law.

Whether work-for-hire or buy-out contracts ensure appropriate and proportionate remuneration under Article 18 has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Recital 81 indicates that the parties’ choice of applicable law other than that of a Member State does not prejudice the application of the provisions regarding transparency, contract adjustment mechanisms and alternative dispute resolution procedures laid down in the directive, which are of a mandatory nature.

The Commission will continue discussing this matter with interested parties in the context of the implementation of the DSM Copyright Directive, taking into account the outcome of the discussions in the Copyright Council Working Party.