Sunny September has been all about in-person meetings, and a reminder that disagreeing well - really listening, pushing back, working through friction - is a distinctly human skill. AI, for all its functionality, is built to agree with you. Outside the office, I caught a few screenings at the Brussels Film Festival, to continue with my monthly fix of cinema after the Sarajevo Film Festival in August and ahead of the FIFF Namur that is starting tomorrow.
By the way, I'm sending this month's digest a day early, so you still have time to join tomorrow's expert seminar, a conversation I'll be moderating with an excellent lineup of speakers about what works, what's contested, and what's next for the remuneration of audiovisual authors!
Early this month, an SAA delegation met with the European Commission's head of the Copyright Unit and head of the Audiovisual and Media Policies unit. It wasn't the first time we'd met, nor the first time we'd shared our position, we do that regularly, at stakeholder meetings and in writing. Yet I still felt the need to restate our messages as if from scratch, which reminded me how valuable these one-on-one, in-person meetings are: they really ensure that policymakers hear you. It was also useful for us to understand where audiovisual authors' concerns fit into the bigger picture.
At our meeting with Emmanuelle du Chalard, Head of the Copyright Unit, we discussed the DSM Directive review, the right to remuneration, the Streamz case, AI and copyright, and the SatCab II review. One thing I had to explain was that exclusive rights alone don't work, especially not for the average author, who has little power to negotiate and would otherwise walk away with a one-off payment. Famous authors may be in a different position, since being in demand gives them more room to negotiate better contracts. A residual remuneration right sets a guaranteed minimum for everyone, and doesn't stop at those with bargaining power. Ricardo Gómez Cabaleiro, Director of DAMA, our Spanish member, added that this statutory remuneration hasn't hurt the Spanish market, which has continued to be strong.
At our meeting with Anna Herold, Head of the Audiovisual and Media Policies Unit, we discussed the AVMS Directive review. We learned that our favourite provisions in the Directive, regarding the promotion of European works, such as the European works quota, are not currently a political priority for the Commission.
While we met with the Commission, my colleague Annica delivered our recommendations at the stakeholder meeting hosted by MEP Sousa Silva on his draft report in the Culture Committee on cultural and creative sectors in the age of AI. Her overall message was what the SAA has said many times: authorisation, remuneration through scalable CMO licensing, and transparency. Read her intervention.
In parallel, we submitted our response to the European Commission 's call for evidence on an EU AI Strategy for the Cultural and Creative Sectors, making the point that AI should complement, not replace, authors' creativity, and that it should therefore protect authors’ rights, prevent the substitution of human-made works, ensure transparency when AI is used in audiovisual creation, and encourage sector-specific codes of practice based on trust and consent. Read more.
After a lot of behind-the-screens work, I'm ready for tomorrow's expert seminar on Article 18 of the DSM Directive, which I'll be moderating. Joining me are Prof. Séverine Dusollier (Paris Sciences Po Law School), Ricardo Gómez Cabaleiro (DAMA, Spain), Dr. Tomasz Targosz (Partner Traple Konarski Podrecki & Wspólnicy) and MEP Axel Voss (EPP, Germany). It's not too late to join us online: register here.
One of SAA's founding objectives is to "develop, promote and advance the collective management of rights by member organisations, to provide a cost-effective, transparent and efficient system for disseminating audiovisual works and distributing royalties to authors."
To do this, we create opportunities for CMOs to exchange information and stay updated on developments at European level. In September, for example, we held our internal working group meeting on private copying, to compare notes with members on developments at national level. My team also gave members an internal assessment of what's relevant for audiovisual authors' rights in several ongoing policy processes:
Contributions sent to the Commission's call for evidence on the DSM Directive review, and to a targeted initiative for a better copyright environment for European creativity and innovation.
Commission's "Guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems", which included its practical examples of what counts as a deepfake in artistic works, and definitions of the key concepts behind the AI Act's transparency obligations.
MEP amendments (among the 1544) to the Parliament's draft report on the AgoraEU programme for 2028–2034, led by co-rapporteurs MEP Emma Rafowicz and Alice Kuhnke.
In October, we're combining our board meeting in Strasbourg with our annual dinner with MEPs in the Parliament, alongside authors and in partnership with our colleagues from FERA and FSE. This year's dinner is co-hosted by Sabine Verheyen, Vice-President of the Parliament, and Emma Rafowicz, Vice-Chair of the Culture Committee.
Afterwards, I'll head to Dublin for the Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU 2026 Conference on Copyright and Human Creativity in the Age of AI, more on that next month.
I wish you another sunny month!
Warm regards,
Cécile
