On 1 January 2026, an important legislative amendment came into force: the Copyright Contracts Act was amended. This amendment is intended to strengthen the position of creators, such as writers, composers, directors, designers and performing artists, in relation to the parties that exploit their work. These include publishers, record companies, producers, broadcasters and streaming services.
If you work in a sector where copyright-protected work is central – from media to education, from film to music, from software to design – then it is important to know what is changing. The new rules entail additional obligations, but also opportunities for those who prepare well.
Transfer of rights: from signature to written confirmation
One of the most notable changes is the simplification of the transfer of rights. Until now, this had to be done by means of a signed deed. From 2026 onwards, a written agreement will suffice. An email explicitly stating that copyrights are being transferred may therefore be sufficient.
That sounds convenient, but it also entails risks. The description of the transferred rights must be clear and specific. An unclear or overly broad formulation, especially if it is included in the general terms and conditions, can be challenged. In such cases, judges usually rule in favour of the creator.
Example: a production company purchases a writer’s script for a web series. The agreement vaguely states: “rights are transferred for digital use”. The series is then offered worldwide on multiple paid streaming platforms. If no specific permission has been given for this, the creator can argue that the exploitation goes too far. There is a good chance that the court will then rule in favour of the creator.
Tip: use explicit wording. Specify exactly which rights are being transferred, for what use, which media, which countries and for how long. If in doubt, put it in writing.
Insufficient exploitation? Then the creator may terminate the agreement.
Another major change: if a work is hardly used after transfer or licensing, the creator may terminate the agreement. The previously necessary route of dissolution (with a heavier burden of proof) is then no longer required.
Example: a label acquires an album but does not release it or hardly promotes it. From 2026 onwards, the artist will be able to terminate the agreement more easily, without complicated legal proceedings. The rights must then be returned. If this is not done, a court may impose compensation and damages.
For operators, this means: ensure active use of the rights you obtain. Anyone who does nothing with a work for too long runs the risk of losing it again.
Collective bargaining and reasonable remuneration
An important new principle is that creators will now be allowed to negotiate remuneration collectively. If they conclude agreements with operators through their trade association or trade union, those remunerations will be presumed to be reasonable.
Example: a group of freelance illustrators and a publishers’ association agree on minimum fees for the reuse of images in educational publications. These agreements are now considered reasonable unless proven otherwise. This ensures greater equality in negotiations.
For operators, this provides clarity: joining collective agreements can help prevent legal disputes. For creators, it means a better chance of fair remuneration, even if they have less bargaining power individually.
Streaming and film: transparency and collectivity required
The law is more in line with how films and series are exploited today, particularly via streaming services. Creators can not only negotiate streaming fees collectively, but are also entitled to clear, written agreements and insight into how their work is used.
Example: a screenwriter sells his rights to a film producer, who releases the film via a platform such as Videoland or Netflix. In the new situation, the remuneration for reuse or re-screening must be agreed in writing. The producer must also provide insight into viewing figures or revenues, so that creators can check whether their remuneration is reasonable.
If the system does not work as intended, for example if fair agreements are not made on a structural basis, the government can intervene. In that case, it is possible to make collective compensation systems legally binding.
The disputes committee: accessible and binding
The existing Copyright Contracts Disputes Committee will be given a broader role. Creators will be able to submit complaints about unfair contracts, including anonymously. This is particularly important for those who are dependent on an operator and do not wish to initiate legal proceedings immediately.
Participation in this committee is mandatory for publicly funded institutions and organisations. The ruling is binding, unless one of the parties decides to take the matter to court within three months. The procedure is accessible, fast and relatively inexpensive, making it an attractive alternative for many parties.
What does this mean in practice?
Whether you are a producer, publisher, distributor, client or organisation with creative content, this legislative change will affect you if you work with copyright-protected material. A few important points to note:
- Check whether your contracts meet the new requirements for written form and clarity.
- Be aware of collective agreements within your industry or sector.
- Please note passive exploitation: inactivity may result in loss of rights.
- Ensure transparency and recording when streaming and reusing content.
- Take into account the strengthened position of creators in disputes.
Finally
The legislative amendment effective 1 January 2026 marks a turning point in copyright contract law. For creators, this means greater protection and more room for negotiation. For operators, it requires more stringent contracts, active management of rights, and clear communication about use and remuneration.
Copyright lawyer Julia van Leeuwen at Guldemond Advocaten is happy to assist in assessing or drafting (copyright) contracts.
