In my previous blog – The price of ignorance: what artists can learn from Ronnie Flex vs. Top Notch – I demonstrated that Ronnie Flex largely failed in his battle with Top Notch. Agreements made cannot simply be reversed if you achieve success (perhaps unexpectedly) or if the means of exploitation change due to developments in the world of music exploitation.
On 22 October 2025, the Amsterdam District Court ruled on three cases brought by artists against Universal. Here too, the artists felt that Universal was paying too little for, in this case, streams and downloads, based on old contracts from the CD era. They wanted a new deal: at least 50% of the revenue from streaming and recognition as producers.
The judge disagreed. All claims were dismissed.
Streaming is not a magic word for 50/50
The artist’s reasoning was simple: streaming is not selling, but licensing to platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music. And licensing means sharing.
It sounds logical, but legally it works differently.
The contract stated that streaming fell under ‘Electronic Music Distribution’ (EMD), with fixed percentages. And that is precisely what the court held to: in other words, what you agreed applies. Period. The fact that Universal itself increased the royalties to 20% “at source” in 2024 did not change that. That was a gesture of goodwill, not proof that the old system was wrong.
A deal is a deal
Many artists recognise that feeling.
At the time, you were thinking about breaking through, not legal wording and contracts. And now it turns out that your label earns much more from your streams than you do yourself.
The artists in this case attempted two legal avenues:
- the contract was unreasonably onerous, and
- its application contrary to reasonableness and fairness.
The court did not agree with this.
The agreements were customary at the time of signing, the artists were not misled or pressured, and the fact that streaming later became more important does not change that..
The judge’s message is clear:
The world may change, but your contract will not automatically change with it.
Producing your own music? Not automatically
The artist also argued that he himself was the phonogram producer of the first album: after all, he had led the creative process and recorded it before Universal.
But legally, it’s not about creativity, it’s about financial responsibility.
Universal had paid for the mixing and mastering, was listed as the producer on the album, and had even acquired the rights from the original producer.
Anyone listed as a producer on the album is presumed to be a producer, unless you can refute this.
The lesson
As with the Ronnie Flex case, this is not about the label’s unwillingness, but about a legal reality: a signed contract remains valid in principle, even if the market changes.
Most artists lose not because they are wrong, but because they have never properly documented their case.
Or, as this case shows:
the judge does not look at what feels fair, but at what has been agreed.
What you can learn from this as an artist
- Seek help before signing.
Not from a friend who “knows something about law,” but from someone who understands the potential pitfalls. - Explicitly record streaming.
How is it billed? Which costs can be deducted? What does “at source” mean? - Include a renegotiation clause.
This will allow you to renegotiate agreements in the event of new forms of exploitation or changed market conditions. - Keep proof of your investment.
Are you contributing to the recordings? Put that in writing — with credit as producer.
Would you like to know whether your contract still reflects the current music industry?
Please contact Thomas Kriense at Guldemond Advocaten.
