20 April 2026

The ruling of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal on 7 April 2026 cannot easily be classified as a win or a loss for creators. On paper, the court adopts a middle-ground approach: the obligation to pay remuneration for music used in audiovisual productions does not disappear entirely, but neither does it apply automatically anymore.

However, the real impact lies not in this legal balance, but in how it plays out in practice.

At the core of the judgment is the principle that rights holders are entitled to a single remuneration for their performance in a synchronization. In other words, double payment must be avoided. If a fee has already been paid or agreed upon at the moment music is synchronized with visuals, any additional remuneration upon later broadcast is no longer due. If no such fee exists, remuneration may still be payable.

On paper, this reasoning is clear. In practice, however, the court effectively shifts the problem.

The key question now becomes: who must prove whether payment has already been made? This issue is crucial in determining whether a remuneration obligation exists, yet it remains unanswered in the ruling.

This lack of clarity has significant consequences. To establish whether a fee is still due, one must revisit the agreements made at the time the audiovisual work was created. In reality, such information is often difficult to obtain. Contracts are not always clear, agreements may have been made long ago, and—especially in international productions—the relevant information is often scattered across multiple parties.

As a result, a system emerges that is logically coherent on paper but proves difficult to implement in practice.

The consequence is a shift in the discussion. It is no longer solely about whether remuneration is due, but about whether it can be demonstrated that the obligation has already been fulfilled. This places greater emphasis on the factual substantiation of claims.

For creators, this means that remuneration becomes less self-evident. The right to payment remains, but it is less uniformly applicable and more dependent on prior agreements.

The ruling therefore does not mark the end of the debate, but rather the beginning of a new phase. While the legal framework has been refined, its practical application remains unclear. Given the questions raised by this decision, further proceedings in a higher court seem likely.

To be continued.