20 April 2026

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.