Nothing stands still, and time keeps ticking like a metronome. New musicians arrive with new ideas, new plug-ins, and new instruments. Technology marches on as well, making it possible for every small bedroom-pop artist to suddenly upload an entire catalogue to Spotify. Some of those artists are even picked up by major labels and end up paying their mortgage with their royalties (in the immortal words of Connor Price, “Used to say I didn’t care for dollar signs, now I pay my mortgage off of Spotify”). It may surprise you, but the law doesn’t stand still either. That’s why we’re telling you about an important development in music law in this column.

Legal Keynotes | 02
When Big Becomes Small

Good news for fans of tongue-twisters: recently, the Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców SAWP, a Polish collective management organization, submitted preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice. The defendant, E. spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością, takes the position that it does not need to share information about which broadcasts containing musical works it has aired, nor how much money was earned from them. Aside from the fact that Europe’s supply of vowels and consonants is steadily declining, this dispute is indicative of a larger problem within the European Union. Let me explain what’s going on by giving you a little context:

You may have already heard about the Atresmedia and Sena vs. Ziggo cases (and if you haven’t, you can conveniently find information about these cases on this website). These rulings are of great importance when it comes to collecting money earned from media music broadcasts. Media music is, of course, meant to be synched. The cunning lawyers at Spanish television giant Atresmedia argued that, because of this editing, no related right remains in the music, and that therefore no remuneration is owed for playing that music. The Atresmedia case made it all the way to the European Court of Justice, whose judgements carry great weight in Europe. It didn’t help that the judgment leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity.

Ziggo saw a perfect opportunity to secure a payout for their shareholders. Their position was that, based on the Atresmedia ruling, they were not obliged to pay Sena, the Dutch PRO, for synched music. Since 2024, Ziggo and Sena have been fighting like tigers over the right to claim remuneration.

Here you may start to see a trend: it is becoming increasingly difficult to retrieve the money you are owed from the administrative jungle. In the Netherlands, we feel it in the still-raging battle between Ziggo and Sena; in Poland it is felt by the collective management organizations; and in Spain it is felt by Atresmedia. No matter how large Europe is, the case law of the Court of Justice is felt in every corner. I’m willing to bet that, right now, some very clever lawyers are searching for reasons to avoid sharing information with collective management organizations.

Of course, I should mention that this story involves quite a bit of nuance (strictly speaking, it concerns interpreting European legislation alongside national legislation, and the interplay of EU law including case law within the national sphere), but as an artist, that nuance doesn’t help you very much. What matters to you is the money that gets collected. Fortunately, at Copyrightpower International, we have a small task force of tireless administrative tigers. Interested? Get in touch with us, and we can explore what we can achieve together!

Thanks for reading this article! The legal nuances run much deeper and unfortunately don’t all fit here, but luckily, that’s what legally inclined sharp minds are for. Questions? Comments? Panic? Send them my way: [email protected]