The post AI Music Faces Growing Legal Pressure: GEMA Takes on Suno appeared first on Copyright Power.

The ruling of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal on 7 April 2026 cannot easily be labelled as either a victory or a defeat for creators. On paper, the court appears to strike a middle ground: the obligation to pay remuneration for music used in audiovisual productions does not disappear, but it no longer applies automatically either.

The real impact, however, lies not in this legal balancing act itself, but in how it will work in practice.

At the heart of the ruling is the principle that rights holders (creators and producers) are entitled to a single remuneration for their contribution to a synchronization, the pairing of music with visual content. In other words, double payment must be avoided. If remuneration has already been paid or agreed upon when music is synchronized with visuals, no additional payment is due upon later broadcast. If no such remuneration exists, payment may still be owed.

On paper, this reasoning is understandable. In practice, however, the court unfortunately shifts the burden of the problem elsewhere.

The key question now becomes who must prove whether payment has already been made, and that question remains unanswered.

This is not without consequences. To determine whether remuneration is still payable, parties must revisit the agreements made during the creation of an audiovisual work. In practice, that information is often difficult to trace. Contracts are not always clear, agreements may date back many years, and particularly in international productions, the relevant information is frequently scattered across multiple parties.

Fortunately, we have always advised our clients and partners to include clear licensing language in every assignment. This helps avoid uncertainty regarding the fact that public performance and broadcasting rights still need to be handled separately through Sena.

The result is a system that may appear workable on paper, but proves difficult to implement in reality.

In fact, in our view, the practical realities of the industry were not sufficiently taken into account in this ruling.

As a consequence, the discussion shifts. The issue is no longer solely whether remuneration is due, but 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. It is therefore essential that synchronization licenses clearly specify exactly what rights and uses they cover. The right to remuneration still exists, but its application becomes less uniform and increasingly dependent on prior contractual arrangements.

The ruling therefore does not mark the end of the discussion, but rather the beginning of a new phase. While the legal framework has been sharpened, its practical application remains unclear. Given the questions raised by this decision, further proceedings before a higher court seem inevitable. During the recent Sena Members’ Meeting, it was announced that an appeal in cassation will indeed be filed before the Dutch Supreme Court.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court can often take years. We hope the industry will be able to arrive at a fair interim solution, one that does justice to all creators, including those working in music for media, as well as their producers.

To be continued.

The post The Sena/Ziggo Ruling: An Uneasy Compromise appeared first on Copyright Power.

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: legal@copyrightpower.com

The post When Big Becomes Small (column) appeared first on Copyright Power.

Legal Keynotes | 01
Universal Disagreement

There’s nothing like being signed!! A healthy relationship between you and your publisher, label, and manager is essential for peace of mind. A strained relationship leaves marks on your career, and nothing strains relationships like money. That’s why three artists, Henk Westbroek, Arriën Molema (Room Eleven) and Marinus de Goederen (a balladeer), took their case to court. Their complaint? Their recording contracts didn’t mention anything about revenue from streams and downloads.

These days, it’s almost unthinkable for anything not to be connected to streams and downloads (I’m just about one step away from downloading a cup of coffee every morning). Many record contracts were signed in a time when streaming didn’t yet exist. Naturally, this leaves all parties scratching their heads: what should we do now? Do we renegotiate? Introduce a standard rate for all our artists? Wherever revenue flows, cracks begin to widen.

Universal chose the latter option. The three artists received a standard portion of streaming royalties, based on the remuneration for reproduction rights (which you might know better as “mechanical rights”). This remuneration is based on a clause that sets out the rate for “other exploitation.” The artists disagreed: they believed a different rate should apply and that the contracts were being interpreted incorrectly. Spoiler alert: the court sided against the artists.

There are quite a few legal intricacies tied to this ruling. For instance, it’s not entirely clear how streaming should be classified (is it a license? Is it mechanical?). What is clear is that the court doesn’t want to make a ruling on this point. Lobbying and debate about the precise qualification of streams has been ongoing for years, and a definitive ruling would have major consequences for the practice. But that issue stands apart from the question of whether the contract was applied correctly. Here, the artists come up empty-handed. Based on what the creator knew, could have known, or could have expected at the time of signing, the contract was neither unreasonably burdensome nor incorrectly applied. The artists also argued that they no longer perform and have therefore become more dependent on streaming.

When dealing with contracts like these, the court looks carefully at the artist’s position, weighing all relevant circumstances and reasoning from what is fair and reasonable. It may not always feel like it, but judges do take into account the vulnerable position of artists, who are often the weaker party. We saw something similar not too long ago in the Martin Garrix case. In this case, the court concluded that the contract was not misinterpreted and that the remuneration was not unreasonable. Even though the parties did not explicitly make a deal about streaming, the agreement was not unreasonable at the time it was signed. The streaming rate the artists receive is also in line with market standards. So while the artists do not necessarily benefit from these rates, they are not harmed either. The fact that the artists might have a stronger bargaining position today, and could perhaps negotiate a better deal, does not change the fact that the deal, with the knowledge available at the time, was a fair one.

This highlights a few important lessons: contracts are not assessed based on present-day circumstances, but on the standards that applied at the time of negotiation and signing (there are, of course, exceptions).

What have we learned?

• A new exploitation technique on the horizon can be a good reason to call your manager and ask whether it’s time to renegotiate;
• The fact that an artist is considered the weaker party does not mean every case will swing in your favor;
• Contracts are (almost) always evaluated based on what applied at the time of signing, not what the situation looks like today.

Link: Universal doesn’t have to increase royalty payout to three artists (Dutch)

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: legal@copyrightpower.com

The post Universal Disagreement (column) appeared first on Copyright Power.

Together with Earforce, we’re hosting an exciting writerscamp on the 22nd of October. Join us afterwards for drinks, the perfect moment to meet fellow music creatives, exchange ideas and toast to new music! 🥂

📅 Date: Wednesday October 22nd
⏰ Time: 17:00 – 19:00
📍 Location: Earforce, Duivendrechtsekade 85, Amsterdam

RSVP now, see you there! 🙌

The post You’re invited for ADE drinks after our writerscamp with Earforce! appeared first on Copyright Power.

This is not a complaint against technology, it is a reality check. AI generated tracks can be produced at scale without the years of practice, late nights, and emotional labour that real creators pour into their work. When those tracks enter the same ecosystems as human made music, without clear labels or provenance, listeners and platforms cannot tell the difference. Writers, performers and producers risk being sidelined, and the market for human creativity becomes harder to sustain.

At Copyright Power International we welcome innovation, but innovation must be responsible. That means platforms, developers and labels must be transparent about what is AI generated, and AI systems that learn from existing music should be licensed, so creators receive proper compensation. We also believe royalties should reflect the difference between human made and AI generated works, so real people keep a reason to keep creating.

This moment also underlines why industry conversations matter. We will be at the Buma ‘AI and the music industry’ conference this December, joining publishers, societies, platforms and artists to push for clear rules, better labelling and fair payment models. If you care about a future where creative voices can thrive, join the discussion, speak up, and demand transparency.

Real music deserves a fair shot, and real creators deserve to be paid. Let us protect the human heart of music, while exploring what AI can offer in ways that respect those who make the songs we love.

The post The Velvet Sundown is a fake band appeared first on Copyright Power.

Corry Konings brings her unmistakable voice to the song, Bram Krikke adds his contemporary touch, and together they created a catchy, feel good tune that clearly resonates with listeners. As the distributor for the track we are proud to support its rise, helping it reach playlists and new audiences fast.

If it is stuck in your head already, you are not alone. Tune in on Spotify and see why Klinkt Als Weekend is turning a commercial moment into a streaming success.

Stream it here: https://open.spotify.com/track/55X2MlGpyiTXboueWO8F1a?si=80e4e342f92b476d

The post Klinkt Als Weekend is a hit appeared first on Copyright Power.

Listening is the first step, action must follow. The campaign highlights that speaking up only matters when someone will hear you, and when there are clear, trusted channels to report and resolve issues. That means having a visible code of conduct, simple reporting routes, and open conversations across teams.

Our own founder Edith is active in Taskforce GO! and she works every day to build the kind of sector the Mores campaign describes. Taskforce GO! has developed practical toolkits and a code of conduct to help organisations make concrete changes. Real culture change does not happen overnight, and it does not happen alone, it happens when organisations commit to routines that protect people and restore trust.

If you run a team or work with creatives, start small and act consistently. Hold conversations, map your reporting options, train managers to respond, and make sure everyone knows where to turn for help. Visibility and clarity reduce the friction people face when they decide to raise concerns.

We encourage everyone in the music industry to get behind the “I hear you” message. Share the toolkit, join the conversation, and help make our workplaces safer and more inclusive. Real change needs all of us to listen, to act, and to keep listening.

The post “Ik hoor je” Mores campaign urges the industry to listen and act appeared first on Copyright Power.

When (co-)writing a song, all collaborators must agree on how royalties are divided. These splits need to total 100%. For members of a PRO like Buma/Stemra, this ensures proper payout and catalog control. It’s best to agree on splits as early as the songwriting session. A written agreement is not only wise, it’s a safeguard against disputes. Once your song is created, accurate registration with your PRO is essential. Do you also take in account who claims (part of) the neighbouring rights? And what about the music royalty split?

Proper registration keeps the creative process healthy and sustainable. We support songwriters and publishers in handling these details so they can focus on the music. Need help with your registrations or splits? Get in touch. We’ve got your back.

The post Why registering songwriting splits matters (more than ever!) appeared first on Copyright Power.

This is a major development for both Italian and international rightsholders. Until now, royalties collected by SIAE focused on traditional sources such as concerts, radio, TV, and digital uses. Including advertising revenue opens the door to a significant new income stream for composers, songwriters, and publishers whose music is used in commercial content.

Importantly, this change benefits not only Italian members of SIAE. Music created outside Italy but used in Italian advertisements or on platforms monetized with ads will now generate income. That means international composers whose works are licensed or played in Italy will also start receiving compensation through this system.

SIAE’s move also sends a strong signal to other collecting societies around the world. As advertising continues to play a major role in how music is used online, more societies are expected to follow Italy’s lead and expand their royalty distributions to include this important revenue stream.

At Copyright Power International, we fully support this shift. We see it as a step toward greater transparency, fairness, and alignment with how music is actually consumed and monetized in the modern landscape. We will continue to follow this development closely and keep our partners informed on how it will affect their rights and income.

The post SIAE Will Start Paying Advertising Royalties to Rightsholders in 2026 appeared first on Copyright Power.