A New Proposal by Two European Parliament Committees Reveals a Broadening Divide Amongst Stakeholders on How Best to Shape Copyright Laws Fit for the Digital Economy

by Reed Smith

Reed Smith

An amendment to the proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market (the ‘Proposal’) creating a fair remuneration for authors and performers administered by Collective Management Organisations (‘CMOs’) collected from digital service providers was introduced in the final opinion of two Committees in the European Parliament, CULT and ITRE.

The amendment creates the right to a proportional remuneration for all creators where their creations are made available to the public (i.e. used online), administered by CMOs, and endorses a fragmented understanding of the nature of copyright in an online environment. Creators not currently paid proportionally are poised to benefit, but the advantages of the mechanism created are less obvious for the others.

In Brussels, the narrative of technology companies making a living on the back of content is gaining ground. Actors working on both sides of the fence should get involved and make sure their voice is heard.


Last year, we set out some of the most significant and controversial aspects of the European Commission’s proposal for a new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (‘Proposal’). Since last September, stakeholders from all points on the policy spectrum have been engaged in intensive lobbying campaigns in an effort to influence the final shape of the Directive and ensure their business interests are not compromised. Almost one thousand opinions and draft amendments to the Proposal have been submitted from European Parliament Committees, including JURI, CULT, ITRE and IMCO, often reflecting the desires and concerns of certain pressure groups that have been engaging with them. With the final vote by the leading Committee1 fast approaching,2  stakeholders are preparing their sharpest arguments, which reveal a deep divide between them about how best to shape copyright laws fit for a continent in the digital age.

Reed Smith has been following the latest developments emanating from Brussels. Whilst the most vehemently debated issues remain the creation of filtering obligations for UGC platforms (Article 13), the creation of a new ancillary right for press publishers (Article 11), and the regulation of text and data mining when applied to copyright-protected content (Article 3), a more recent addition to the debate concerning the remuneration of authors and performers came as a surprise to many observers.

Background to fair remuneration

On 11 July 2017, two Committees in the European Parliament voted on their final Opinions on the Proposal: the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE).

Both Committees decided to include in their respective opinions a controversial proposition, supported and lobbied for by the Fair Internet Coalition (the ‘Coalition’), a group comprising 4 bodies representing film, TV, music performers and their Collective Management Organisations (CMOs): AEPO ARTIS (representing 36 European performers CMOs), EURO FIA (European Branch of the International Federation of Actors), FIM (International Federation of Musicians), and the IAO (International [featured] Artist Organisation).

The proposition, largely inspired by the Spanish statutory equitable remuneration right3, seeks to create a mechanism whereby the right of making available to the public (as defined by Directive 2001-29) of both authors and performers would become associated with the inalienable and unwaivable right to obtain ‘fair remuneration,’ administered by Collective Management Organisations (CMOs) and collected from Information Society Service Providers (ISSPs) i.e. digital services making works available to the public . The proposal put forward by ITRE reads as follows:

Amendment 55 

Article 14 a (new) Unwaivable right to fair remuneration for authors and performers

  1. Member States shall ensure that when authors and performers transfer or assign their right of making available to the public, they retain the right to obtain a fair remuneration derived from the exploitation of their work.
  2. The right of an author or performer to obtain a fair remuneration for the making available of their work is inalienable and cannot be waived.
  3. The administration of this right to fair remuneration for the making available of an authors’ or performers’ work shall be entrusted to their collective management organisations, unless other collective agreements, including voluntary collective management agreements, guarantee such remuneration to authors, audio-visual authors and performers for their making available right.
  4. Collective management organisations shall collect the fair remuneration from information society services making works available to the public.

From a legal point of view, this proposal raises a significant number of questions, some of which may well seal the fate of this amendment before the next parliamentary session. However, understanding the narrative that this proposal builds upon is equally interesting.

How would it work?

The text fails to give a definition of ‘fair remuneration,’ but it bears some striking resemblances with another mechanism under EU law: the right to obtain ‘equitable remuneration’ for the rental of a phonogram or a film as provided for by Article 54 of the Rental/Lending Directive adopted in 1992.
As per the terms of Article 5, the exercising of the rental right of an author or a performer assigned to a producer gives rise to the payment of an equitable remuneration, collected and distributed by CMOs.

In practice, this provision has had two main consequences: it replaced the remuneration that would have otherwise been owed to the creator under the provisions of its individual contract with a film or record producer; where the remuneration didn’t exist, it created a new revenue stream for performers, administered by CMOs.

By contrast, in Spain, most view the right to obtain statutory equitable remuneration from the ISSPs in relation to the exercising of the making available right as a “top-up,” a complement to the remuneration otherwise owed to the creators under the provisions of their contracts. Indeed, whilst the rental right introduced by the EU Rental/Lending Directive governs the entirety of the act of renting, the exploitation of content online generally triggers different sets of rights. A music stream, for example, is considered by rights holders as a combination of, on the one hand, an act of reproduction and, on the other hand, an act of communication or making available to the public. What proportion of a stream is considered reproduction and what proportion is considered making available or communication to the public varies throughout Europe, depending on which country or which category of rights holder is concerned. However, attempts by rights holders across Europe to limit the impact of such fragmentation by offering digital licences covering all three aspects of the rights involved remains a constant.

At a time where certain observers and stakeholders are questioning the relevance and the adequacy of such fragmentation and advocating for a more drastic recasting of copyright laws to reflect the way content is disseminated online, the Coalition seems to be willing, on the contrary, to embrace it; their campaign material suggesting that “it [the remuneration] would be paid independent of and in addition to any contractual payments that are made by producers in respect of performers’ exclusive making available rights.”

But whether this provision would actually achieve this aim from a legal perspective is debatable. As we see it, three situations must be considered: i) where creators of existing works are paid royalties; ii) where creators of existing works are compensated on a ‘flat-fee’ basis; and iii) where creators are to produce works in the future.

i) For existing works and creators who are compensated on a ‘flat-fee’ basis (session musicians, supporting actors as opposed to featured artists or leading roles) this ‘fair remuneration’ mechanism would undoubtedly improve their situation. This amendment is evidently intended to create the right to a proportional share of the revenues generated for each creator who participated in a piece of copyright protected content, exploited digitally.

ii) For existing works and creators to whom royalties are paid, the mechanism would have to interface with existing contractual provisions (including those relating to remuneration). Again, we see two situations unfolding: on the one hand, in contracts where the event of remuneration becoming governed by a legal compulsory mechanism has been stipulated, the creator would most likely lose its right to claim royalties under the contract (its CMOS becoming its sole debtor in relation to this payment); on the other hand, in contracts where the event has not been stipulated, the question would most likely revolve around whether the assignee is entitled to deduct monies paid by CMOs from the payment owed to the creator with regards the same. In both scenarios, determining what percentage of a digital use is ‘making available’ and what percentage is reproduction or communication to the public may prove a complex and highly controversial procedure that could result in even further fragmentation in Europe if stakeholders or member states decide to adopt different views on the subject, locally.

iii) For future works, it seems inevitable that assignees will seek to adapt their contractual instruments to acknowledge the fact that they no longer need to compensate creators for the making available of their works directly, as that payment will be administered by CMOs. This position will likely proliferate as ISSPs start deducting payments made to CMOs against the monies they owe to the rights holders from whom they acquired the rights regarding the content they sell.

Could these downsides be addressed by raising the price of content, to compensate for the new payments made? This seems to be the general opinion held by the Coalition, who believes that prices may increase as a result of the implementation of their proposal but that, overall, “consumers may feel a degree of satisfaction that their money is not only going to what they may perceive to be “greedy corporate entities,” but to the actual individual performer(s) involved.” An opinion that will undoubtedly not be shared by everyone across the spectrum.

While certain stakeholders seem poised to benefit from this new compulsory mechanism (namely, the creators to whom royalties aren’t currently paid and their CMOs), the benefits are less obvious for others, as it seems likely that any monies royalties-earning creators might gain from their CMOs would end-up being deducted from their royalty statements. Furthermore, where CMOs charge administration fees or other type of deductions, the creators concerned may possibly realise a lower proportion of the revenues they would otherwise have been entitled to receive.

What this proposal is telling us

It is interesting to consider how the amendments proposed by ITRE and CULT expose the way certain stakeholders are picturing the current state of the digital media industry. Campaign documents such as the one drafted by the Coalition perpetuates a broader narrative according to which digital services are responsible for the poor remuneration of creators where economic analysis (evident in the music industry, for example) is signalling the exact opposite. Yet the image of wealthy technology companies abusing hard-pressed creators is gaining ground in Brussels.

ITRE and CULT only have advisory roles regarding the leading Committee (JURI), but it is nonetheless important to stress that their influence on this text is far from negligible. Years of conversations about the value gap will undoubtedly have left their mark on the debate and nurtured a wide-spread picture of the side of tech and the side of content as divided and irreconcilable parties. For services which aren’t relying on user generated content, and for all actors working on both sides of the fence, this image will be hard to uproot.

Following the debate, being part of the conversation

Copyright has always been a topic fiercely fought over in Brussels. Already in 2001, when the Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (n° 2001-29) was debated, MEPs reported unprecedented levels of lobbying.

With so much at stake for the creative and digital industries, a high level of engagement is to be expected. It is now down to each member of the digital media ecosystem to ensure that all sides are properly educated on the issues at stake and the consequences of the proposals they support, especially where the whole European digital licensing landscape stands to be affected.

Our team will be monitoring closely developments coming from Brussels on this topic and will be preparing monthly updates on the Proposal’s status and other texts forming part of the ‘copyright package’ released in 2016. Meanwhile, we would encourage all parties to engage in the conversation and make sure their voice is heard.

  1. The Committee for Legal Affairs (JURI) is the leading Committee. Their final report, drafted with input from other Committees involved, will be submitted to the vote of the European Parliament, in plenary session.
  2. The final vote has been scheduled for October 9 & 10, 2017.
  3. Art 108 3. Texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y armonizando las Disposiciones Legales Vigentes sobre la Materia (aprobado por el Real Decreto legislativo Nº 1/1996 de 12 de abril, y modificado hasta la Ley N° 12/2017, de 3 de julio de 2017) wipo.in
  4. Article 5 Unwaivable right to equitable remuneration
    1. Where an author or performer has transferred or assigned his rental right concerning a phonogram or an original or copy of a film to a phonogram or film producer, that author or performer shall retain the right to obtain an equitable remuneration for the rental.
    2. The right to obtain an equitable remuneration for rental cannot be waived by authors or performers.
    3. The administration of this right to obtain an equitable remuneration may be entrusted to collecting societies representing authors or performers.
    4. Member States may regulate whether and to what extent administration by collecting societies of the right to obtain an equitable remuneration may be imposed, as well as the question from whom this remuneration may be claimed or collected.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Reed Smith | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Reed Smith

Reed Smith on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.