Five Years After DSM Directive: still no fair remuneration for Artists and Performers
The European Union’s Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive of 2019, implemented to modernize copyright laws and ensure fair remuneration for creators, has not fully met its objectives, particularly for artists and performers. The recently published study, “Streams & Dreams Part 2, 2024”, published by the International Artist Organisation, interrogated nearly 10,000 artists and highlights the persistent challenges faced despite the directive's promises.
Recap of the DSM-Directive
The Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive, officially known as Directive (EU) 2019/790, was a landmark legislation aimed at modernizing copyright rules in the digital age. It introduced several key rights to ensure fair treatment and remuneration for artists and performers, of which the following were key:
A right to appropriate and proportionate remuneration (Article 18), mandating that artists and performers receive fair payment for the exploitation of their works.
A right to transparency (Article 19), entitling artists and performers to receive detailed information at least once a year about how their works are being used and how much revenue they are generating.
A right to contract adjustment (Article 20), allowing artists and performers to seek additional, fair remuneration if the initially agreed payment turns out to be disproportionately low compared to the subsequent revenue generated from their works.
A right to voluntary Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) (Article 21), introducing a mechanism for resolving disputes amicably.
A right to revocation (Article 22), enabling artists and performers to revoke the license or transfer of their rights if their works are not being adequately exploited.
Five years down the line
Although the DSM Directive was introduced with noble intentions to create a fairer music economy, the study reveals that significant gaps remain between the directive's goals and the reality for many artists. The low satisfaction with streaming revenues highlights a systemic issue in how digital revenues are shared and perceived by artists.
Transparency, a cornerstone of the directive, is still lacking. The majority of artists do not receive comprehensive information on their earnings, making it difficult to assess the true value of their work. This opacity hinders artists' ability to manage their careers effectively and advocate for fair treatment.
Contractual adjustments, meant to correct disproportionate remuneration, are seldom pursued and rarely successful. This could be due to a lack of awareness among artists about their rights or fear of jeopardizing their relationships with record labels.
The right to reclaim rights remains largely theoretical, with few artists managing to successfully reclaim their rights from labels. This indicates a need for more robust enforcement mechanisms and support systems for artists.
The underutilization of ADR highlights a trust deficit and perhaps a lack of awareness or confidence in these mechanisms. The feedback from artists suggests that even when ADR is employed, it often falls short of providing satisfactory resolutions.
Facts and figures
Nearly 10,000 artists participated in the study, of which 4,215 are artists signed to a record label, while 5,327 are independent (DIY) artists and session musicians. Some key facts and figures:
Only 5.1% of signed artists are satisfied with their streaming income.
Approximately 77% of signed artists report not receiving the detailed financial information they are legally entitled to.
Only 35.3% have received the required transparency from their labels.
Merely 4.1% of signed artists attempted to renegotiate their contracts post-DSM directive implementation.
Just 5.9% of artists attempted to reclaim their rights, with a significant 69.4% of these attempts failing.
The ADR mechanism, intended to provide a less hostile and cost-effective dispute resolution, was rarely used. When used, 60% of artists did not find it helpful.
Conclusion
Five years after the DSM Directive's adoption, the music industry still has a long way to go in ensuring fair and transparent remuneration for artists and performers. Policymakers and industry stakeholders must address these shortcomings by enhancing enforcement mechanisms, increasing awareness of artists' rights, and ensuring that transparency obligations are met. Only then can the DSM Directive truly fulfill its promise of a fairer music economy.
This study serves as a crucial reminder that legislative changes, while necessary, must be accompanied by practical measures and industry-wide commitment to effect meaningful change for artists and performers.
