Last week, the Commission published its Work Programme 2025. Somewhere hidden in the initiatives on “Supporting people, strengthening our societies and our social model”, the Commission makes it its goal “To make the most of Europe’s cultural and creative industries – which are amongst the most dynamic and competitive sectors in our economy – we will develop a framework to harness the multiple dimensions of our culture and cultural heritage.”
While it is not clear what “harnessing multiple dimensions” really stands for, it certainly sounds exciting.
Several voices have spoken negatively about the lack of attention culture has received in the work programme. Has the Commission completely forgotten that hundreds of its people are tirelessly working day in, day out on culture and copyright matters? Are these people not entitled to an objective for 2025?
Although it is tempting to share in that criticism, the 650.000 performers represented by the AEPO-ARTIS network are supportive of the rationale behind the programme and the intention of the Commission to focus completely on the effective implementation of already existing legislation, rather than exhausting their limited (in number, not aptitude) resources with the task of drafting new proposals.
We hope that by not adding additional responsibilities for 2025, the services at the Commission will have the time to focus on what is important for performers:
· The 2011/77 Term Directive obliged the Commission to publish its report on extending the term of protection for actors to bring it into line with that of performers in the music sector no later than January … 2012. Several years ago, a study looking at this was conducted, concluded and … remains unpublished.
Despite the 13-year delay, we hope that the wait will have been worth it and that 2025 will be the year in which the Commission recommends ending the discrimination against actors in EU law.
· The 2012 Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances faces a similar delay. This treaty, to which the EU is a signatory, still awaits ratification. Maybe actors would have felt more secure if this would have been included in the actual list of legislative proposals, nevertheless we hope that 2025 will be the year that it happens.
· A chance to not provide performers with an additional delay is offered by the 2019/790 CDSM directive. Also known as the Copyright directive, it is awaiting assessment in 2026, a deadline set by both Commissioners Virkkunen and Micallef. Conducting this assessment in time is extremely important and this is where we sincerely commend the Work Programme which states: “…effective implementation of EU laws and policies is crucial to ensure they work properly. The Commission will … implement policies more effectively.”
We expect the Commission to use 2025 to identify whether this directive has been implemented effectively. Are performers receiving the level of transparent information they are entitled to? Are contracts being adjusted as intended in the directive? Are disputes being resolved using alternative dispute resolution? Has rights revocation been a success? And most importantly, has the remuneration of performers improved?
We are keen to work closely with the Commission on this and note that the Work Programme states that “Engagement with stakeholders and practitioners will be a cornerstone of the Commission’s approach towards successful implementation of EU rules”.
If the Commission succeeds in carrying out an assessment that shows whether implementation has been effective, it will be a great achievement. However, if it is a mere “tick-box” exercise looking at what is written on paper and not what is happening in practice it will be a complete waste of resources.
In the meantime, we eagerly await the publication of the Commission’s ambitious study on contractual practices.
· With the entering into force of additional chapters of the AI Act later this year in sight, performers need the full support of the Commission to safeguard that the strict regulations the EU puts in place will not be made ineffective and reduced to empty promises. This is specifically the case for what concerns the respect of copyright and related rights by GenAI providers.
Some people work best when they are able to choose their own priorities. Let’s just hope that the priorities of DG Connect and DG EAC correspond with those of our performers.
