Streaming Payments for Artists: The Legal Deadlock

Why Streaming Payments for Artists Are Still Stuck — and What’s Really Going On

Streaming is now the main way audiences consume music and audiovisual content. Yet for many performing artists, the financial reality behind streaming still feels deeply unsatisfactory. While radio and television broadcasts generate clear, regulated payments for performers, streaming remains a legal grey area — and that uncertainty is the core of the problem.

At the centre of this debate are neighbouring rights: the rights that ensure performers are paid when recordings of their performances are used. These rights have long functioned through collective systems for traditional broadcasting. When a song is played on the radio or a recording is broadcast on TV, performers receive equitable remuneration through collecting societies.

Streaming, however, does not fit neatly into this existing framework.

A Law That Lags Behind Technology

European copyright law was updated in recent years to better reflect the digital reality. The EU’s Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive explicitly aimed to strengthen the position of creators and performers in the online environment. In principle, it recognises that artists should receive appropriate remuneration when their work is exploited by digital platforms.

In practice, however, the legislation left too much room for interpretation — particularly around how performers should be paid for streaming. This lack of clarity has allowed streaming services to continue operating largely outside the collective remuneration systems that apply to broadcasting.

Belgium’s Attempt to Fix the Gap

Belgium tried to address this imbalance by introducing a national rule requiring streaming platforms and certain online services to pay equitable remuneration to performers via collective management organisations. The idea was simple: if streaming replaces broadcasting, performers should not lose the protections they already have elsewhere.

But this approach immediately ran into resistance.

Major technology companies and parts of the recording industry challenged the Belgian rule, arguing that it conflicts with existing EU law. As a result, Belgium’s Constitutional Court referred 13 detailed legal questions to the European Court of Justice, asking for clarification on whether national laws can impose such payments on streaming services.

A Legal Standstill — Until 2026

While the case is under review, the system is effectively frozen. Payments are not being made, because platforms fear that any remuneration paid now could later be deemed unlawful. At the same time, performers cannot enforce their rights until the legal uncertainty is resolved.

A decision from the European Court of Justice is expected around mid-2026. Until then, artists remain caught in a holding pattern — aware that streaming generates enormous value, but unable to access a fair share of it through neighbouring rights.

Why This Matters

This debate goes beyond technical legal wording. It raises a fundamental question about the future of performer income in a streaming-first world. If streaming continues to replace traditional broadcasting without offering equivalent protection, performers risk losing an entire category of income that was once stable and predictable.

For now, the issue is not whether artists should be paid for streaming — but whether lawmakers can translate that principle into a system that actually works.

Original source Playright (text in Dutch)