News – AEPO-ARTIS

European Parliament adopts INI-report “Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges”

AEPO-ARTIS — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 14:55:27 +0000

On 10 March the European Parliament adopted with a large majority the INI-report “Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges” as approved by the JURI Committee earlier this year.

The report demonstrates a good understanding of the issues at hand and provides a strong but balanced signal to the Commission that copyright dependent sectors require additional action to guarantee that their contribution to the development of AI results in a sharing of added value.

The report recognises the key role our creative and cultural sector plays in the EU and the great diversity in contractual practices that exists in our sector. It condemns the widespread violation of copyright rules by GenAI providers and acknowledges that current copyright law is insufficient to address the challenge of licensing copyrighted material for GenAI.

With this in mind, it calls on the Commission to facilitate a working licensing market that ensures the fair remuneration of rights holders. And in this regard, Parliament expresses itself particularly positively regarding collective management and sends a clear signal to the Commission through a multitude of references that collective management of rights is part of the solution.

However, that role remains limited to being “voluntary”. AEPO-ARTIS remains critical of the fact that a presumption of collective management – as included in Paragraph 6 for journalists – was not granted to performers.

It should be noted here that the notion of “voluntary” primarily refers to the choice not to opt for a levy system under which rights holders would be obliged to grant a license whose price is determined by the government. The voluntary nature lies primarily in the freedom to choose whether or not to offer a license and to determine the price oneself. This could just as easily occur within a system where collective management would be mandatory for certain categories of rights holders—such as journalists and performers. In that case, the mandatory nature would safeguard the freedom to determine the price oneself (as a collective) rather than jeopardise it.

The report also instructs the Commission to examine whether there is a possible solution for the immediate, fair and proportionate remuneration for past uses of copyright-protected works by providers of general-purpose AI models.

Furthermore, the resolution places strong emphasis on transparency. It calls for the strengthening of the transparency obligations for AI developers and proposes the establishment of a rebuttable presumption of use where full transparency obligations have not been fully complied with. It should be noted here that in France, the Conseil d’État expressed a positive opinion last week regarding the Senate’s proposal to introduce such a presumption.

Finally, the issues surrounding digital avatars are also mentioned by the report that instructs the Commission to investigate measures to protect artists against the dissemination of manipulated and AI-generated digital image, audio or video content, imitating their personal characteristics without consent.

You can read the full resolution following this link. While the resolution has no legislative force whatsoever, the Commission is nevertheless obliged to respond to it. In this way, Parliamentary resolutions are of great value for adjusting the Commission’s work plan. If the Commission does not wish to act on the matters raised by Parliament, it will have to provide sound reasons for this.

AEPO-ARTIS has thanked rapporteur Axel Voss (EPP) and his shadow rapporteurs for the enormous work put into getting this balanced text adopted by the Parliament.

The post European Parliament adopts INI-report “Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges” first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.

Music360 at the European Parliament: A 360-Degree Perspective on the Value of Music

AEPO-ARTIS — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 13:10:26 +0000

On 25 February 2026, AEPO-ARTIS organised an event at the European Parliament, hosted by MEP Hélder Sousa Silva, presenting the results of the Horizon Europe Music360 project.

Music360 is a project that aims to examine the value of the public performance of music and brings together a number of partners, including AEPO-ARTIS members, GDA, SENA and Gramex Finland (via music licensing body GTM).

The meeting, hosted in collaboration with MEP Hélder Sousa Silva — member of the Budget (BUDG) and Culture and Education (CULT) Committees was the final event of the Music360 project, at which its findings and recommendations were presented, in the presence of a delegation of the Commission, led by Mr. Patrico Ortiz De La Torre, head of sector at the European Research Executive Agency (REA).

A significant part of the event focused on the Living Labs carried out in the Netherlands and Spain. The Dutch experiments, presented by representatives from SENA and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, explored the impact of music tempo on retail environments. Results indicated that while music tempo did not directly increase turnover, it had measurable effects on employee mood and job satisfaction.

The Spanish Living Lab, led by Professor Conrado Carrascosa López (Universitat Politècnica de València) looked at the therapeutic use of music during chemotherapy sessions. Data collected showed music improved patient wellbeing and was greatly appreciated by staff.

The meeting also included a demonstration of the Music360 digital dashboard by Bruno Gaminha of GDA. The dashboard shows how data on music use can be aggregated and analysed to the benefit of both rightsholders and policymakers.

AEPO-ARTIS’ Head of Legal, Nick Yule presented policy recommendations arising from the project, notably the creation of a dedicated music section within a future EU Cultural Data Hub and the establishment of a stakeholder group to continue work done, but to also encompass the impact of generative AI, especially on the public performance of music.

The session concluded with reflections from MEP Hannes Heide who expressed positive views on several elements of the project, including the importance of reliable data for future cultural policy initiatives and the creation of an EU Cultural Data Hub.

Sincere thanks go to MEP Hélder Sousa Silva who has shown himself in recent months to be a true fighter for the cultural sector, and particularly for his statement that his “door is always open for AEPO-ARTIS”.

The post Music360 at the European Parliament: A 360-Degree Perspective on the Value of Music first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.

Commission states that GPAI models trained without respecting rights reservations cannot be deployed within the EU

AEPO-ARTIS — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:10:15 +0000

On Friday 20 February, Commissioner Henna Virkkunen responded to a written question on the respect of EU based opt-outs by non-EU Generative AI developers that deploy their models within the EU market. For the Commission, the EU legislation is clear. AI providers need to respect rights reservations made in accordance with article 4 of the CDSM directive and this applies regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underpinning the training of those GPAI models take place.

The clarification comes in response to a written question tabled by MEPs Emma Rafowicz, Laurence Farreng (Renew), Sabine Verheyen (PPE), Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE), Hannes Heide (S&D), Sandro Ruotolo (S&D) and David Cormand (Verts/ALE). Taking France as an example of a country where all collective management organisations (CMOs) representing performers and authors in the music sector have made use of the rights reservation possibility under article 4 of the CDSM (also know as the opt-out), they asked whether services such as UDIO and SUNO could be offered to EU citizens.

The question arises after the recent series of legal proceedings, settlements, and agreements between these services and the US divisions of the three major labels, Sony, Warner, and Universal. The deals drew fierce criticism from musicians who felt unrepresented in these agreements. Not only was there no transparency on the amounts received, nor clarity on how (or whether) the money paid by SUNO and UDIO would be shared with the recording artists, musicians were particularly upset that their explicit choice to reserve their rights was not taken into account.

It is especially the latter where musicians can count on the Commission’s clear support. In no uncertain terms Virkkunen states that when collective management organisations have appropriately exercised the rights reservation in accordance with the criteria established in Article 4(3) of the CDSM directive, “TDM processing would henceforth require prior authorisation from the concerned rightsholders, including when it is used for the training of AI models.”

In addition, she adds that “This obligation applies regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underpinning the training of those GPAI models take place.” In doing so, she makes it undeniably clear that the EU copyright rules do indeed have an international effect and apply to anyone who wants to offer products or services within the EU. The Commission thus endorses the position prepared by the JURI Committee in the so-called Voss Report, which will be submitted to the Plenary next month.

The answer comes at a timely moment also with regard to the assessment of the 2019 CDSM Directive currently being prepared by the Commission, which will specifically examine the effectiveness of the highly contested Article 4.

The demand is no longer limited to France, as authors and performers in more and more countries are reserving their rights through their CMOs. It is also no longer limited to the music sector, as authors and performers in other sectors are also making themselves heard. For example, last week, British actors announced their decision to only allow AI training with explicit consent.

The strong statement in defense of our European rights holders, however, does not offer a solution to an ongoing problem, the problem of inaccessible protocols. Individual authors and performers have the right to not authorise the use of their work for AI purposes by means of a rights reservation. But they face a very practical impracticality. Once their performance has been incorporated in a phonogram or videogram, they have no control of whether any metadata or other means of identification will be attached. This problem is not solved by collectively announcing a rights reservation via a CMO.

In her response, Virkkunen refers to the current Code of Practice on GPAI and the Commission’s recent initiatives into identifying opt-out protocols that can be considered as state-of-the-art, technically implementable, and widely adopted by rightsholders across different cultural and creative sectors. The Commission’s further work on this matter should therefore focus on how collectively expressed rights reservations are better respected by producers and distributors who control the assets and locations through which the work of our creatives is accessible.

The full question and answer can be consulted on the EP website.

The post Commission states that GPAI models trained without respecting rights reservations cannot be deployed within the EU first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.

BECS Acts to Protect Audiovisual Performers’ Rights from Unauthorised AI Training

AEPO-ARTIS — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 11:17:37 +0000

The British Equity Collecting Society (BECS) today announced decisive action to safeguard the rights of its members, audiovisual performers, whose recorded performances are used without consent or payment to train artificial intelligence systems.

AI developers have used performers’ recorded work to train their systems and generate new content. In the UK, this practice infringes performers’ exclusive rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Across the European Union, it similarly breaches performers’ exclusive rights. Despite this, some AI developers have attempted to justify such use under the EU text and data mining exception set out in Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 and its national implementations.

At BECS’ recent Annual General Meeting, members voted overwhelmingly to grant the organisation a clear mandate to defend their rights in relation to AI training. As part of this mandate, BECS has formally exercised an opt out from the EU Article 4 text and data mining exception on behalf of its members.

The BECS opt out can be found here.

This opt out unequivocally asserts that audiovisual performers reserve the exclusive right to authorise or refuse the reproduction of their performances for text and data mining within the EU. This sends a clear message that: AI developers may not use BECS members’ performances for training or incorporate them into AI-generated outputs without explicit permission.

This is an essential and timely step towards ensuring that performers retain control over their work in the face of rapidly advancing technologies. Nonetheless, BECS stresses that further urgent political action is required to ensure a fair and sustainable balance between the rights of human creators and performers, and the commercial interests of the technology companies whose systems rely on their work – often to produce content that may ultimately compete with them.

Tayyiba Nasser, BECS CEO stated: “Our performers pour their craft, their voice, and often a part of their identity into the work they create. That work should never be taken for granted. This opt‑out makes our position unequivocal: our members’ performances cannot be reproduced or repurposed without clear authorisation, fair remuneration, and full transparency.

We support innovation, but it must respect the people whose creativity fuels it. We urge policymakers and developers to work with us to put those principles at the heart of how AI is built and deployed.”

BECS Members Sanjeev Bhashkar O.B.E. and Meera Syal D.B.E. added: “In the rapidly changing technology of AI, it’s essential that we have the legal and moral right to choose if and how our voice, likeness and works are used to create, train or further any AI models. We totally support the BECS mandate to safeguard all its members.”

AEPO-ARTIS would like to congratulate BECS for this essential and timely step towards ensuring that performers retain control over their work in the face of rapidly advancing technologies. Nevertheless, BECS stresses that further urgent political action is required to ensure a fair and sustainable balance between the rights of human creators and performers, and the commercial interests of the technology companies whose systems rely on their work – often to produce content that may ultimately compete with them.

The post BECS Acts to Protect Audiovisual Performers’ Rights from Unauthorised AI Training first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.

Joint call for a strong budget and an ambitious sectoral approach for music within the future AgoraEU programme

AEPO-ARTIS — Mon, 09 Feb 2026 13:31:53 +0000

Joint call for a strong budget and an ambitious sectoral approach for music within the future AgoraEU programme

9 February 2025

We, the undersigned organisations from across Europe’s music ecosystem, call on the EU institutions to adopt a sector-specific strategic approach for European music, with increased funding, alongside the horizontal actions in the future AgoraEU programme 2028-2034.

Echoing the statement published in September 2025 by 21 European music organisations, we strongly welcome the European Commission’s proposal to establish AgoraEU and the proposed increased budget allocated to the programme, which should be regarded as an absolute minimum. A strong budget for culture would be in line with the European Commission’s ambition, with its Culture Compass, “to ensure culture is central to European unity, diversity and excellence”.

While artistic freedom, fair working conditions, and cultural diversity are under increasing pressure and should remain central to the programme, the proposed increased budget offers a unique opportunity to develop a sectoral approach to address the specific and concrete challenges faced by the European music sector. As it stands, the AgoraEU proposal fails to mention any dedicated measures for music or follow-up to the Music Moves Europe (MME) initiatives, even though the current Creative Europe regulation (2021-2027) explicitly includes a sectoral action for music (1) .

Why music requires dedicated attention in AgoraEU

The economic importance of the music sector in Europe is undeniable: it contributes €81.9 billion in gross value added to the GDP of the EU27 and UK, provides direct employment for more than 1.3 million people across the EU and generates €9.7 billion in export revenue (2) . Micro, small and medium-sized businesses account for most of the European music sector’s jobs and generate most of its added value.

At the crossroads of social, economic, and cultural policies, music is also one of Europe’s most accessible and influential cultural forms and remains at the very core of what Europeans value and experience together. It fosters inclusion, strengthens democratic values, and enhances Europe’s global cultural presence and international collaboration.

Yet, the sector is confronted with significant challenges and major disruption:

● Generative AI is accelerating at unprecedented speed, reshaping music creation, distribution, and business models, putting at risk creators’ and rights holders’ revenues, as well as the integrity of musical works.

● Market concentration across the sector is a growing issue, further exacerbating power imbalances along the value chain, limiting market access for small actors and jeopardising Europe’s competitiveness, cultural diversity and capacity to thrive internationally.

● European repertoire essentially struggles to travel across borders due to fragmented markets, double taxation, complex administrative frameworks, and cultural barriers, all of which hinder cross‑border mobility and limit Europe’s musical diversity.

● Music streaming has become the main avenue for listening to music but fraudulent practices as well as the lack of transparency of algorithms and playlists have a detrimental impact on discoverability and on the economic sustainability of the European music sector, as identified by the European Parliament in its resolution on music streaming in 2024. (3) Payment thresholds have led to revenue shifts and even complete demonetisation, harming in particular emerging artists and repertoire from smaller countries and languages or even more established artists in more niche genres.

AgoraEU should play an important role in helping the European music sector to address these challenges. Sector specific support for music would contribute to increasing the competitiveness, diversity and sustainability of Europe’s music sector, in line with the general objectives of AgoraEU.

In 2024, the European Parliament called on the Commission to “further improve the Creative Europe programme, in particular through comprehensive action on music” and supported a “European industrial strategy for music”, In January 2025, in a letter to the European Commission (4) , the EU’s 27 Ministers for

Culture underlined the need for sector-tailored incentives, stressing that EU strategies and funding must be flexible and responsive to the rapidly evolving needs of the cultural and creative ecosystem. At the end of 2025, the interim evaluation of the Creative Europe programme 2021-2027 (5) found that “the dual (horizontal and sectorial) approach introduced in the Culture strand is successful and both approaches are complementary”, and “it is advised to keep a similar approach in the next programming period”.

AgoraEU now offers a unique opportunity to finally deliver a meaningful strategic sector-specific support for the European music sector.

Our recommendations for AgoraEU 2028-2034

In line with the EU’s ambition to enhance the competitiveness and innovation potential of the music sector6 , we call for the inclusion of the following measures in the AgoraEU regulation:

– Secure earmarked funding for music in the AgoraEU regulation (as a minimum budget), alongside the horizontal actions.

– Reintroduce in AgoraEU a dedicated sectoral action for music with meaningful, structural and strategic sectoral actions tailored to the sector’s specific needs.

– Ensure a structured and regular dialogue between the European Commission and the music sector on the future annual work programmes as well as the calls and programme dedicated to music, to guarantee they align with the needs of the sector across the entire value chain.

– Support sector-specific studies and enhanced data collection to monitor and analyse the music sector’s trends and challenges, providing policy makers and stakeholders with the evidence and data they need to inform the right policies and programmes. The establishment of a European Music Observatory (or equivalent monitoring body) – as called for by the European Parliament and building on the insights of the 2018-2020 Music Moves Europe preparatory action – would play a key role to achieve those objectives.

We count on the European Parliament and the Council to support the introduction of a comprehensive strategy for music, along with an appropriate dedicated budget, to give the music sector the visibility, investment, and policy recognition it deserves.

We stand ready to engage constructively and provide our expertise throughout the entire legislative process.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2021/818 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013

(2) “The Economic Impact of Music in Europe” study by Oxford Economics, commissioned by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) (2020)

(3) European Parliament resolution of 17 January 2024 on cultural diversity and the conditions for authors in the European music streaming market

(4) https://cultureactioneurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Letter_CreativeEurope_final.pdf

(5) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025SC0418

(6) Culture Compass for Europe from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, November 2025

The post Joint call for a strong budget and an ambitious sectoral approach for music within the future AgoraEU programme first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.

VOSS REPORT: AEPO-ARTIS welcomes the growing political support to change the balance between Copyright and AI but warns against ineffective action.

AEPO-ARTIS — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:40:53 +0000

Today, the JURI Committee approved an amended version of its own initiative report on Copyright and GenAI – Opportunities and Challenges, led by MEP Axel Voss. Performers and their collective management organisations throughout Europe welcome the increased political support to instruct the Commission to find a better working environment for the human creators who face increasing competition from Generative AI content providers. Nevertheless, while softening the tone of certain positions in the original draft will increase the chances of approval by the plenary in March, the question remains whether this will result in an effective solution for the creative sector.

Compared to its original draft, the amended version of the Voss report shows that the many meetings held between the rapporteurs and different stakeholders have led to a better understanding of both the functioning of the copyright sector and the technicalities of the AI industry. The improved and therefore less contestable description of the context in which the recommendations should be interpreted contributes to the credibility of the entire document.

One thing is clear. The Parliament is not accepting of the way performers and other rightsholders are confronted with the continued unworkability of the so-called TDM exception. Although there is no longer an explicit reference to the article, it is clear that it is covered when the report “Notes the ambiguities thus far in the application of the CDSM in the context of Gen AI training and recommends the swift clarification on its application and implementation.” The solution is however not in working towards the listing of possible tools by the EUIPO (whereas N), as such would increase the risk of further lock-in. In addition, the lack of accessible protocols for performers and authors to have their personal choice recognised and respected by AI crawlers and those who distribute their work online requires the urgent attention of the Commission.

In contrast to the strong message to respect rights reservations, on what to do once an opt-out is respected, the report stays vague. It makes it clear that “existing copyright law is insufficient to address the challenge of licensing copyrighted material for Generative AI” and “calls for an additional legal framework to clarify licensing rules for Generative AI and to address potential infringements of existing copyright law” (Par.7).

If recent news on deals struck between AI companies and rightsholders have proven anything, it is that it has become a game for moguls. It is therefore disappointing, that on the one hand the report calls for an additional legal framework to restore the bargaining power of rightsholders (Par.7), but on the other hand “Calls on the Commission to facilitate, through the consultation of collective management societies, the establishment of voluntary collective licensing agreements per sector” (Par.8a). When confronted with global big tech and media companies, voluntary collective licensing will not restore the bargaining power of any individual performer. This is acknowledged insofar as the press and news media sector is concerned, for whom a new paragraph 7a recommends a guaranteed remuneration by promoting a presumption of collective management. A similar solution for performers is missing from the text.

Without such solutions, it will remain unclear how the Parliament aims to make effective the appropriate and proportionate remuneration the report refers to on multiple occasions. It is therefore regrettable that the first recommendation does not include an explicit reference to such fair remuneration when connecting the report to the review of the CDSM Directive, which has in the meantime already started.

Performers do support the change of direction in no longer requesting the introduction of a flat-rate payment as a transitional solution, but instead to recognise the widespread violation of copyright rules by Gen AI providers (Recital Ea), to instruct the Commission to seek “an immediate fair and proportionate remuneration for past uses of copyright-protected works” (Par.4a) and to emphasize that such must be obtained “through negotiations in good faith between rightsholders or their representatives and AI providers.”

Performers also support the strengthened position taken on transparency. The report makes a clear call for the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of use where transparency obligations have not been fully complied with (Par.11). Nonetheless, AEPO-ARTIS repeats the necessity of integrating such presumption into a two-tier transparency obligation in which a limited amount of registered representative rightsholders receive an additional enforceable right to full disclosure of the relevant data that was used for the training of GenAI models.

Further, we welcome the additional attention given to the necessity of introducing extra protection against deep fakes and the imitation of the personal characteristics of our performers (Par.13f) and stressing the need to clearly label purely AI-generated content in order to monitor the implementation of the transparency obligations. These obligations must take effect without delay. Just as rightsholders were denied a postponement of the TDM-exception despite the still existing lack of workable standards, a lack of labeling standards should not lead to a postponement of the obligation for AI developers to disclose their synthetic output.

We would like to thank MEP Axel Voss and the shadowrapporteurs for the enormous work invested in obtaining the outcome and especially their pro-active collaboration with all stakeholders as part of the process.

AEPO-ARTIS encourages all MEPs to adopt the report at the plenary in March and hopes it will result in a clear working plan of the Commission that has transparency and fair remuneration as key pilars.

The post VOSS REPORT: AEPO-ARTIS welcomes the growing political support to change the balance between Copyright and AI but warns against ineffective action. first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.

AEPO-ARTIS opposes the standardisation of inaccessible protocols

AEPO-ARTIS — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 07:42:14 +0000

Last week, the Commission sought input from rightsholders and GPAI model providers to find out if 55 months after the entering into force of the so-called TDM-exception, they had already been able to put in place protocols that would allow right holders to reserve their rights in a machine-readable manner. A 40-page long survey will most probably provide the Commission with lots of insights. However, the most important question was missing: how can rightsholders and AI developers work together to develop a protocol that is accessible by performers and authors who do not have access to the location nor asset via which their work is made accessible for crawlers?

The survey is linked to the Copyright chapter of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, which was finalised in 2025. In measure 1.3. of that Code, AI providers commit to employ web-crawlers that read and follow instructions expressed in accordance with the Robot Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt) as well as to identify and comply with any other appropriate machine-readable protocol that has been adopted by international or European standardisation organisations or is “widely adopted by rightsholders”.

The Commission now seeks views on that second category and is inspired by a recent study of the EUIPO in which seven different technical solutions were identified as having potential of being widely adopted. Its purpose is to find out which of these can be retained in a published list of generally agreed machine-readable opt-out solutions. Such solutions would no longer need to be identified, and compliance would apply automatically for the signatories of the Code.

At this stage it is important to not limit further the already limited obligations that come with the signing of the Code of Practice. It is important to create room for optimal nuanced sector-specific solutions to develop and facilitate the compliance of signatories with their obligation to respect all protocols used to express a rights reservation.

So, one can look at this as a perfect step by the Commission to help rightsholders find a way out of the misery that Article 4 has brought about. Especially when a revision of that article and the exception contained therein appears to be increasingly out of the question.

However, with this approach the Commission is missing a major opportunity to arrive at a workable solution. Rather than focusing on the technical feasibility of these protocols, attention should be paid to accessibility for non-owners of assets and locations. Especially with the ever-increasing convergence within the media landscape, the Commission must ensure that the right to make a reservation of rights enforceable does not become the privilege of a limited number of major players.

Individual authors and performers have the right to not authorise the use of their work for AI purposes by means of a rights reservation. But they face a very practical impracticality. Once their performance has been incorporated in a phonogram or videogram, they have no control of whether any metadata or other means of identification will be attached.

In particular, they have no control over whether metadata will be included that would indicate a performer’s preference when it came to rights reservation. The problem is not limited to performers and authors. Producers of different types of cultural content face the problem of not having control over the asset or location of their productions. This impracticality persists even in the situation where these rightsholders decide to entrust their collective management organisations with managing their choice for rights reservation.

For this particular reason, any protocol put forward should be open in a non-discriminatory way to all rightsholders in the sector. In the audio and audiovisual sectors, performers, authors and producers should all be able to engage with a protocol also in situations where they have no access to the asset or location via which their work has been made accessible for TDM activities. Such access can be provided by the establishment of a centralised registry of rights reservations. The work that the Commission is doing on this matter should therefore also focus on the problems of inaccessibility which the vast majority of rightsholders face.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the Commission’s approach here is in stark contrast to the way it is guiding AI providers to develop a standardised way to label their synthetically generated content in a machine-readable manner. Like a helicoptering parent it is doing everything in its power to help AI developers with yet another Code of Practice, while actively pushing member states to postpone the entering into force of the underlying obligations under the AI Act. A similar approach where rightsholders were brought together while the entering into force of the TDM exception was postponed was not given to the creative sector after the adoption of the 2019 CDSM directive.

In the most cynical way, AI providers oppose the one-size-fits-all approach and the use of robots.txt which they considered to be unfit for purpose. They criticise the draft of the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content for going beyond current capabilities of most AI companies. They fear having to retrofit complex watermarking and request the Code starts by setting out realistic baselines. For several years now, rightsholders have expressed similar criticism towards the impossibility of making their right reservation under the TDM exception practically possible.

And so we agree with the additional finding of the EUIPO study that there is a “need for AI developers to engage more actively with the creative and cultural sectors on effective ways to account for the TDM opt-out expressed” and are confident that if this happens, common solutions can be found.

Performers and their CMOs are eager to explore and develop any technical reservation measures which would result in an efficient rights reservation solution for all.

The post AEPO-ARTIS opposes the standardisation of inaccessible protocols first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.

MEPs question the legality of major label AI deals

AEPO-ARTIS — Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:41:04 +0000

The end of 2025 was marked by a series of new deals signed between major record labels and companies specialised in AI-generated music. Much of the attention undoubtedly focused on the settlements that SUNO and UDIO made with most of these labels and the licensing deals that resulted from them. However, at the European Parliament not everyone seems impressed by the bravado with which these deals were announced, and some have doubts whether these deals are fully compliant with European law, a requirement given that SUNO and UDIO are available as services in the EU. Driven by recent developments in France, a group of seven MEPs from three different political groups submitted a question to the European Parliament inviting Vice-President Virkkunen to clarify the matter.

The question, published yesterday on the Parliament’s website, specifically addresses the situation in France. France is one of the few countries in the European Union where all musicians’ have made use of the possibility to opt-out and made it clear that they don’t want their music used by AI companies without their permission. Through their collective management organisations (CMOs), this opt-out has been made not only with regard to the copyright on the lyrics and compositions, but also with regard to the so-called related rights on the recordings themselves.

French MEPs Emma Rafowicz (S&D), Laurence Farreng (Renew) and David Cormand (Verts/ALE) confront Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen, responsible for both AI and copyright, now with the request to confirm that: “if companies offering a product similar to that of Suno and Udio wish to offer their services in the EU, they must in all cases respect and comply with the opt-out expressed by the French CMOs and specifically in all cases they must obtain explicit authorisation from said CMOs prior to using their repertoire?” Their question received support by colleagues from Germany (Sabine Verheyen), Italy (Sandro Ruotolo), Austria (Hannes Heide) and Poland (Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski).

MEP Rafowicz explains the decision to table the question. “The EU has been the first region in the world to install a regulation on AI providers. While we are still looking into how a better balance between Copyright and AI can be found, we need to make sure that the rules that are in place are respected. So we need the Commission to confirm that they will demand services such as SUNO and UDIO to respect EU copyright when they provide their services – which are trained on large amounts of EU content – to EU citizens.”

MEP David Cormand adds “This Parliament has already made it clear that it supports the development of a licensing market for AI use. However, to be able to develop any kind of licensing our artists are faced with a legal framework that obliges them to opt-out of TDM activities. And so, when they do, that choice should be respected by any AI provider that wants to roll out its services and sell its products here in the EU market.”

The situation is particularly cynical for Universal Music Group, by far the leader in signing deals with AI companies. UMG, still for 28% in French hands, represents a catalogue particularly rich in French recordings and has repeatedly been condemned by French courts for infringing performers’ rights. There is therefore no doubt that they are fully aware of the opt-out that the French CMOs have made on behalf of the musicians on these recordings. Nonetheless it stubbornly continues to enter into agreements with third parties knowing it does not hold the relevant rights.

Benoît Galopin, General Counsel at French performer CMO Spedidam states: “Spedidam welcomes the initiative of the MEPs and fully supports their call for clarification on how European law applies to AI-generated music services, especially at a time when Executive Vice-President Virkkunen is tasked with leading the Commission’s work to conclude the review of the CDSM Directive.”

Elizabeth Le Hot, CEO of ADAMI states: “Adami welcomes the intervention of European parliamentarians who have referred the issue to the European Commission regarding the protection of musical works used by AI-generated music providers. Last November, Adami, with our union partners, had already warned of the risks posed by agreements between AI providers and major record labels to performers’ rights. It should be noted that the right of opposition (opt-out) exercised by Adami and their partners on behalf of thousands of members cannot be ignored, and that in Europe, no mode of exploitation can occur without the artist’s consent and remuneration.

AEPO-ARTIS embraces the initiative that brings together MEPs from across party lines. The recent developments are particularly worrisome. Not only have the major record labels been negotiating a license agreement with these and other AI companies without having obtained the consent of the artists involved. Some of the deal include taken an equity share with no guarantee that the profits these make will be shared with the human artists whose work is being exploited. This is the same business practice that was adopted when streaming began, and we have seen numerous studies and reports indicating that the streaming model is unfair to our artists.

“Artists now fear that history is going to repeat itself and are particularly concerned that they are not being included in these negotiations. Just as with streaming, they fear that they will be presented with a fait accompli and no power to enable them to receive appropriate and proportionate remuneration” states AEPO-ARTIS General Secretary Ioan Kaes. “We therefore expect the Commission to send a strong signal to both parties that the rules provided by the EU in this regard will be complied with.”

The full question is accessible via this link.

The post MEPs question the legality of major label AI deals first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.

AEPO-ARTIS writes an open letter to the President of Cyprus, Mr. Christodoulides

AEPO-ARTIS — Mon, 05 Jan 2026 13:29:45 +0000

With the start of the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the European Union, AEPO-ARTIS sent an open letter to the President of Cyprus, Mr. Christodoulides, emphasizing the importance of protecting performers’ rights.

Read the full letter below.

Brussels, 5 January 2026

Dear President of Cyprus,

Dear Mr. Christodoulides,

Today the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the European Union officially starts. For the next six months Cyprus will lead the discussions between Member States and have a major impact on the course the EU will take.

AEPO-ARTIS is a non-profit making organisation that represents 42 European performers’ collective management organisations from 30 different countries. The number of performers, from the audio and audiovisual sector, represented by our network is estimated at more than 650.000.

Together with our performers, we have been looking at the Cyprus Presidency Programme to find out what the next six months will bring for them. Allow us to express some disappointment that we had to read 51 pages before encountering the word culture and that we had to read it twice to realise the word artist is not mentioned once.

It is good that you will “take forward Council work on the Culture Compass”. This new instrument certainly needs the support of the Member States, most importantly for what concerns the striving towards an EU status of the artist. While obtaining this objective requires work within the competence of the Member States, a coordinating role within the Council is paramount.

And as the closing act of the trio program with Poland and Denmark, we expect from you an apotheosis. We hope that you will provide a plot and ensure that the good work of the main characters in the first and second acts will receive an ending on a positive note. Their work primarily focused on finding a fair and workable balance between artificial intelligence and copyright and related rights. The conclusions by the Danish Presidency on its Policy questionnaire regarding AI-licensing shows that a majority of EU Member States is ready to work on additional regulations and therefore this deserves a guaranteed follow-up.

Apart from AI, a review of the existing copyright and related rights framework should remain at the top of the Council agenda, and particularly the Commission’s review of Directive (EU) 2019/790 (the “CDSM directive”). It is anticipated that work on the review will be well underway by the second half of 2026. The Presidency should ensure a thorough review is carried out in a timely manner and that contractual imbalances such as buy-out practices are properly addressed. This could be achieved by insisting on regular updates within Council working parties and ensuring that Member States cooperate fully in this initiative.

The principle of fair remuneration was introduced to protect our performers from buyouts and unfair contractual practices used by producers and to guarantee them a fair share of the revenue their work generates on streaming services and social media platforms. Too many member states, including Cyprus, have not made use of the possibility the directive offers to introduce specific mechanisms, such as unwaivable remuneration rights, to protect performers. Meanwhile, the gap between powerful global market players and our individual European artists is widening.

During the Danish Presidency the Commission published its report on the assessment of the 2011 Term Extension directive, a report that was supposed to be submitted to the Council and the Parliament by November 2016. This directive extended the term of protection for musicians to 70 years but kept the protection of actors at 50 years. An incomprehensible discrimination that cannot be justified by any argument. Nonetheless, the Commission is of the opinion that no intervention is needed.

We expect the Council, under the Cyprus Presidency, to put this report back on the agenda and force the Commission to develop a proposal to remove all discrimination between performers from the EU acquis.

We also always like to read in a Presidency program that work will be done to “coordinate the EU’s positions at the meetings of the World Intellectual Property Organisation.” That is not a choice, but an essential part of the Presidencies’ job. We hope that this time you will be able to fulfil this role as a true diplomat, so that all Member States work together to obtain global support for the objectives the EU itself stands for. Objectives such as fair remuneration for performers.

For 10 years now, the topic of “Copyright in the Digital Agenda” has been on the agenda as an “other matter.” It was added with the objective of finding the best ways to ensure that existing WIPO treaties — which guarantee performers rights — result in effective, fair remuneration for those same rights holders. But the focus is lost. It’s time for the EU, during the SCCR in May, to take the lead, reclaim its role as a global cultural power, and ensure progress is made. Progress characterised by an unwavering commitment to fair remuneration for performers.

Lastly, we would like to urge that there finally be a coordinated response to our more than 10-year-old demand to work towards ratification of the WIPO Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, which the EU signed in 2013. This treaty aims at improving the worldwide protection of performers in the audiovisual sector. A unique moment for the EU to show that it puts the position of its performers first. Despite 13 years having passed and despite claiming full competence on this Treaty, the Commission has not done anything to prepare the ratification. We expect the Cyprus Presidency to push the Commission to take up its responsibility and provide a first draft before the end of June.

We wish you every success with the Presidency of the EU, which comes with so many responsibilities. You can count on us to help you in any way we can.

On behalf of every performer whose work you have ever appreciated.

Με απόλυτο σεβασμό,

Ioan KAES

General Secretary

AEPO-ARTIS

The post AEPO-ARTIS writes an open letter to the President of Cyprus, Mr. Christodoulides first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.

Performers discuss their term of protection at the European Parliament

admin — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 11:10:00 +0000

On Wednesday, 3 December performers took the floor at the European Parliament to discuss a matter not often discussed: the term of their neighbouring rights. During an event hosted by Finnish MEP Maria Guzenina (S&D) performers from Sweden, Finland and Spain took the floor to point out several shortcomings in the 2011 Term Extension Directive, among which the blatant discrimination against actors and other audiovisual performers.

In the music and audiovisual industry actors and musicians are protected by so-called neighbouring rights (or related rights) which are granted for 50 years after the first commercialisation of the album, the movie or the TV-series on which they collaborate. This is in stark contrast to the songwriters, composers, directors and screen writers who are protected by authors rights that guarantee them remuneration for the use of their work until 70 years after their death.

With the 2011 Term Extension Directive the European Union decided to increase the term of protection for performers up to 70 years in order to guarantee that all performers could benefit from their rights for at least their lifetime. However, the extension was given only to music recordings. The protection of performances fixed in audiovisual recordings, remained stuck at 50 years.
Moreover, the extension for musicians came with a set of additional measures put in place to guarantee that the performers themselves – and not just their record labels – would actually benefit from the extension. Evidence now shows that the only mechanism that has proven to bring additional revenue to performers is an annual supplementary remuneration for session musicians which is throughout Europe managed by their own CMOs.

Nevertheless, in a recent report the Commission concludes that the Directive has achieved all of its objectives and that no further follow-up is required.

A good reason for Maria Guzenina to invite some performers to the Parliament and ask them what could be improved. “In the end it is always the artist who pays. So, when it comes to legislation, their voice should be heard.”

And so, picking up her former role as music journalist, Maria Guzenina interviewed a series of performers who travelled to Brussels to discuss the matter. And in addition to sharing some fascinating stories from their many years as artists, they all agreed that there is still work to be done by Europe regarding the term of protection.

When asked about the benefits of a longer protection on the many recordings he worked on Janne Schaffer, a Swedish artist with numerous highly successful solo albums still touring today and playing to packed out audiences; also known for his performances as a session musician with some of the greatest bands on earth, including ABBA, stated: “These rights, and surely the payments we receive via our collective management organisations, are a vital element of the professional income of a musician. Being a professional musician comes with a lot of sacrifice and the possibility to receive a remuneration whenever your work is being used is something all performers should be able to rely on throughout their whole career.”

Finnish renowned steel guitar player Olli Haavisto, who has worked on more than 700 albums throughout his career, explained that: “As session musicians we receive a buy-out-out from the record companies. When our songs are played on the radio or in shops and bars, we receive some remuneration from our collective management organisation. They keep track as much as they can of our whole repertoire which is exploited by different record labels. As a result, it is because of them that we now receive a part also of streaming of our records once they are 50 years old. Before that time, we receive nothing from streaming.”

Spanish actress Isabel Blanco, known for her roles in Mares vivas and Ispansi and winner of multiple Mestre Mateo Awards for Best Leading Actress, criticised the continued discrimination against actors: “I don’t understand the logic why actors are not receiving the same protection. In the movie industry, we are also faced with buy-out-out contracts as a basis. In Spain we are very lucky to have a legislation that allows our local CMO to collect for streaming. This system has been working perfectly and is something that should be harmonised throughout Europe. And of course, we would also like to have the possibility to receive this for 70 years and not just 50.”

Patricia Riera-Barsallo, participating in the panel as representative of the Spanish CMO AISGE, stated that “After almost 15 years, the only tangible added value of this Directive is the value that performers themselves have created through their own CMOs. And even there, the results would have been better if they had been able to count on the constructive cooperation of all producers.” She also made a strong statement against the Commission’s analysis on why audiovisual performances should not be given the same protection as music recordings: “The arguments used are interchangeable. Every argument the Commission uses against providing actors with an extended protection can also be used to not provide musicians with it. And every argument they have used to provide musicians with an extended term, can equally be used to justify an equal term of protection for audiovisual performances. It is nothing less than discrimination.”

After the exchange with performers, several other MEPs present provided their reflections. French MEP Emma Rafowicz (S&D) stated: “Europe needs to protect workers, and this includes the cultural workers too. The extension has changed very little in the lives of our performers. They are still facing unbalanced contracts. Buy-outs are still a widespread practice for them. The situation we are confronted with is unworthy of the European Union we aspire to be. This needs to change.”

Swedish MEP Pär Holmgren (Greens/EFA) commented that: “The protection of performers is a crucial matter to me. It’s an important element in the sustainability of the artist.”

Austrian MEP Hannes Heide (S&D) referred to the extensive work that Parliament had already done to put the interests of artists on the agenda. “One of the main priorities of the CULT committee is to look after the working conditions of our artists. Their position is still precarious. We have been fighting for a long time for the abolishment of these buy-out-out contracts and they are still a big problem for the working conditions of our artists. This needs to be included in the EU artist charter, which is an element of the new cultural compass.” and added “We have talked a lot about the issues of performers here at the Parliament. And we often put focus on the musicians. So, I am happy that today we have also addressed our actors. The EP has long called for equal treatment of all performers.”

AEPO-ARTS’ General Secretary Ioan Kaes thanked all MEPs for their outspoken support and summarised the desired follow-up by the Commission: “Performers request that the Commission drafts a proposal to fix the gaps in this important Directive so that it becomes of real added value for our actors and musicians. The discrimination against audiovisual performers needs to be cut out. Performer CMOs must be granted a strong and enforceable right to information towards producers. And the right to receive a remuneration from streaming for music and audiovisual recordings should apply from year one and not year 50. In addition, the Commission should draft guidelines on the practice of the management of the annual supplementary remuneration to allow performer CMOs to manage this right in a harmonised way.”

(The full position paper of AEPO-ARTIS can be found here.)

The post Performers discuss their term of protection at the European Parliament first appeared on AEPO-ARTIS.