SAA - Society of Audiovisual Authors

The SAA firmly supports the continuation of this essential directive. Over time, it has succeeded in integrating new players while staying true to its cultural policy objectives. If the Directive is reopened, its landmark provisions on the promotion of European works should be strengthened. The SAA’s 5 priorities for reform are:

1. A higher minimum quota for European works in VOD catalogues
2. Exclusion of certain types of programmes from the quota
3. Mandatory measures ensuring the prominence and discoverability of European works
4. Financial obligations for VOD service providers in all Member States
5. A cross-reference to the DSM Directive defending authors’ right to fair remuneration

Scope and enforcement

• The AVMSD remains relevant and fit for purpose but must keep pace with the growing dominance of US platforms in the European market.

The SAA consider the AVMSD remains relevant to the market as it captures the definitions of the key operators and services (broadcasters, media service providers, video sharing platform providers, on-demand audiovisual services, etc.) that are relevant to market and technological developments. It encompasses the increasing role of video-sharing platforms and on-demand services, the shift of viewers towards the digital environment and the dominance of the European market by US companies. According to the European Audiovisual Observatory in the Top 10 groups on the European market by AV revenues (2024), Netflix is now second (up from fourth in 2020) and YouTube third (up from eighth in 2020). The first European company, ARD (Germany), is in 5th position (down from 3rd in 2020). Meta has entered the chart in 10th position.

Influencer definition

• Any clarification of influencer status must carefully consider the impact on content creators who are authors in many EU countries.

The Commission acknowledges that the AVMSD already applies to influencers when their activities meet the definition of an audiovisual media service but notes the Directive does not explicitly mention or define influencers. The SAA responded that if clarification is deemed necessary, it will be essential to decide which rules apply and assess the impact on content creators.

Special attention should be paid to the status of content creators who create, produce and publish content professionally on video-sharing platforms. These creators are considered authors in many EU countries, in addition to qualifying as on-demand audiovisual media services or users of video-sharing platforms. Any clarification of the status of influencers should therefore consider its possible impact on content creators, articulate both statuses, and avoid any negative side effects on content creators who are authors.

European works definition

• The definition of European works should be updated to require respect for authors’ remuneration rights and to exclude AI-generated content.

The SAA has not identified major problems with the existing geographical definition of European works (Art. 1(1)(n)) but raises two important concerns.

First, co-production mechanisms should not lead to situations where works from third countries, particularly the US, are falsely classified as national works. Second, following the DSM Directive (2019/790) and its Article 18 on appropriate and proportionate remuneration for authors, it is time to introduce a condition that authors’ contracts for the production of works respect European copyright law, in particular the authors’ right to appropriate and proportionate remuneration. In a context where generative AI is spreading in audiovisual production, it would also be important to limit the qualification of European works to human-made works, effectively banning AI-generated content from benefiting from the Directive’s support.

Interplay with the Digital Services Act and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

• Without cross-references between the AVMSD and the DSA, there is a risk that platforms will apply whichever instrument places the lower burden on them.

In November 2025, the Commission published a report on the application of Article 33 of the DSA and its interaction with other legal acts, including the AVMSD. The report clarifies some of the links between the two instruments, but there remains a risk that platforms will act in a ‘race to the bottom’ logic, choosing the less burdensome obligation of the two.

If the AVMSD is reopened: amendments should include cross-references to the DSA where there is an interplay, especially where a higher standard of protection applies.

If the AVMSD is not reopened: guidelines should be used to clarify the interplay, building on what the Commission has already done in the November 2025 report.

Audiovisual commercial communications

• Existing AVMSD rules should be maintained, but transparency obligations on distribution agreements between broadcasters and streaming services must be strengthened.

The Commission asked whether the Directive has effectively protected viewers against inappropriate, hidden or excessive audiovisual commercial communications. The SAA is in favour of maintaining the current rules. However, the SAA is concerned about the lack of transparency of distribution agreements between broadcasters and streaming services or video-sharing platforms, and their possible impact not only on advertising revenue-sharing but also on quota reporting. Clear transparency rules are needed.

Protection of viewers: promoting European works

• Articles 13, 16, 17 and 18 were the right measures in 2018 and have worked, but the market has shifted, and the Directive’s landmark provisions on European works must now be strengthened.

While current provisions have been effective in promoting European works, market, technological and geopolitical developments require stronger measures. The SAA identifies five priority areas for reform:

1. Raise the minimum European works quota for VOD services

• The minimum quota for European works in VOD catalogues should be raised from 30% to narrow the gap with the 50% obligation applied to broadcasters.

According to the European Audiovisual Observatory, 32% of works in VOD catalogues across the EU were of European origin in 2025, against 48% for US works. The share varies significantly across Member States: France (45%), Germany (41%) and Austria (39%) are above average, while Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Hungary and others remain below 30%.

The streaming business model increasingly resembles that of broadcasters. Maintaining the current gap between on-demand services (30%) and broadcasters (50%) would be anachronistic at a time when online distribution is dominating the audiovisual market. Compliance would also improve if VOD services were required to report individually in each country of operation.

2. Focus the VOD quota on film and series

• The VOD quota should exclude certain types of programmes, as the broadcaster quota already does, to protect the focus on films and series.

The quota of European works for on-demand services does not exclude certain types of programmes, unlike the broadcaster quota, which excludes news, sports events, games, advertising, teletext services and teleshopping. The business models of on-demand services now include more non-scripted content. Aligning the VOD quota with the broadcaster quota would help create a level playing field for all operators.

3. Introduce mandatory measures for prominence and discoverability

• Availability is not enough, the Directive should require specific, mandatory measures to ensure European works are actively promoted, not just present in catalogues.

Attention is not neutral, it is engineered by interface design, algorithms and marketing. While ensuring the prominence of European works is already an obligation, the Directive currently does not mandate any specific measures to achieve it. Some Member States have implemented dedicated sections, search filters and promotional banners. Based on performance assessments of the most used measures, the Directive should stipulate mandatory measures ensuring the prominence and discoverability of European works.

4. Extend financial obligations to all Member States

• Voluntary commitments by streamers are opaque and unstable, financial obligations for VOD providers should be implemented across all Member States, with flexibility on the type of measures.

Most EU Member States have now implemented financial obligations, and the measure continues to attract new Member States despite legal challenges from streamers. On 26 March 2026, the Belgian Constitutional Court ruled largely in favour of Belgium’s mandatory contribution scheme, rejecting most of Netflix’s criticisms. International streamers favour voluntary mechanisms, but these lack the stability required to build local ecosystems and are extremely opaque, neither the investments covered nor compliance monitoring are clear.

The SAA believes that media service providers should be required to contribute financially to the production of European works in all Member States. It should remain up to each Member State to choose the type of obligation (direct contribution, levy to a fund, or a combination), ensuring a level playing field while allowing flexibility to adapt to local market conditions.

5. Defend the European model of authors’ rights

• The next revision of the AVMSD should cross-reference the DSM Directive and only promote European works that respect authors’ right to fair and proportionate remuneration.

Bad contractual practices for authors remain commonplace in the audiovisual sector. The DSM Directive (EU 2019/790) established the principle of fair and proportionate remuneration for authors and performers (Art. 18). This principle should now be reflected in the AVMSD: the Directive should only support and promote European works that respect it. Such a cross-reference would improve complementarity and synergies with the legal framework established since the last AVMSD revision in 2018.

 The consultation.