On 30 September 2026, the SAA brought together experts to take stock of Art 18 of the 2019 DSM Directive. You can read a summary of the event here, along with the key takeaways. A recording of the event is also available. You will find a detailed document below with all the key points made by each speaker.
The speakers were: Prof. Séverine Dusollier (Sciences Po Law School, Paris), Ricardo Gómez Cabaleiro (DAMA, Spain), Dr. Tomasz Targosz (Partner Traple Konarski Podrecki & Wspólnicy) and MEP Axel Voss (EPP, Germany). Moderator was Cécile Despringre (SAA Secretary General). Speakers’ biographies.
Download the full report here (PDF).
Spain has had a statutory remuneration right for audiovisual authors since 1967, and Poland since 1994. Both have extended it to streaming. In 2024, DAMA and SGAE together collected close to €60 million for Spanish screenwriters and directors. Neither country has seen any evidence that this harmed investment in production, quite the contrary with Spain among the country leaders in film production in Europe.
As MEP Axel Voss recalled, the European Parliament added the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration to the EU Commission’s 2016 proposal. It was adopted deliberately without a fixed rate or mechanism, so Member States can choose, with statutory remuneration rights being proven to work.
Prof. Séverine Dusollier pointed out that a tiny percentage of revenues can be proportional without being fair, while a lump sum can be proportionate to a small contribution. DSM Recital 73 also calls for a dynamic assessment, because a work’s value can change over time.
Dr Tomasz Targosz argued that treating Art 18 as a mere declaration, or validating unfair contracts, both lead to unworkable results. An unwaivable right to remuneration collected through collective management organisations meets the obligation while keeping Member States’ flexibility.
The experts rejected the claims that remuneration rights mean ‘double payment’ or weaken exclusive rights. Authorising a use and being paid for it have long been separable in EU law, as the 1992 Rental and Lending Directive shows. Prof. Dusollier added that platforms, not producers, now capture most of the value of exploitation, so remuneration based only on the transfer to the producer misses part of it.
Since 2019, the contract adjustment and dispute resolution mechanisms (DSM Art 20-22) have produced few meaningful cases. Using them requires an individual author to challenge a producer and risk their career. Collective bargaining can help, but it is slow, depends on union traditions that many countries lack, and is not designed to deal with copyright revenues.
The Advocate General’s opinion in the Streamz case is due on 19 November 2026, with a judgment expected in 2027. Meanwhile, the EU Commission’s review of the DSM Directive is examining the implementation of Art 18 and the mechanisms put in place by Member States. Speakers urged that residual remuneration rights be recognised in that review. They agreed that if the ruling departs from the Directive’s wording and purpose, the law should be clarified.
