IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT NEWS: Court of Central Netherlands finds no revenue-sharing for U.S. filmmakers under Dutch law, (Mar 9, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The films at issue were works for hire under U.S. law and thus did not qualify.

The directors and writer of movies that were broadcast in the Netherlands were not entitled to a cut of the broadcast revenue proceeds under a Dutch revenue division statute because the works were made as works for hire under US law, a federal court in the Netherlands has held. The court, in finding that U.S. rather than Dutch law applied to the work-for-hire question, also found that the filmmakers could not avail themselves of revenue-sharing under European law and international copyright treaty law.

The dispute was brought as a claim by the U.S.-based Directors Guild and Writers Guild against a Dutch TV and streaming company named Ziggo. The two guilds, who serve as unions for tens of thousands of directors and writers in the United States, sought compensation from Ziggo for a share of the proceeds for certain film broadcasts. When Ziggo refused, the guilds brought a claim in the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland, the Dutch court that translates into English as the Central Netherlands Court. (All translations in this article are based on translations provided online by the Google search engine).

Dutch law. The court found that the directors and writers at issue were not entitled to compensation. Since July 1, 2015, the court noted, anyone broadcasting a film, pursuant to Article 45d, paragraph 2, of the Dutch Copyright Act, must pay compensation to the creators of the film. This right, the court noted, “cannot be waived.” (The provision, the court noted, replaces the former cable retransmission fee, which was “discontinued due to the demise of cable television.”) However, a prerequisite for this compensation, the court noted, is that the filmmaker must have “transferred their rights to the film producer.” Thus, if the work was created in the first instance as a work for hire, the court noted, the statutory right to compensation would not apply.

Under these principles, the court emphasized, the two guilds could not prevail because the works at issue would all be considered “for hire” under U.S. law. This was for two reasons, the court found. First, the court noted, some of the directors and writers had created the works while they were direct employees of the movie studios who hired them. All parties agreed that in that particular case, the works would have been made for hire under U.S. law. In other cases, the courts noted, the film directors and writers were not formally employees of the studios, but they entered into agreements with their studios providing that their works would be made for hire. Thus, the court concluded, all of the works were made for hire—meaning they could not qualify for the revenue-sharing provision of Dutch law.

The court also found, contrary to the argument of the guilds, that U.S. law, as opposed to Dutch law, was properly applicable in this case. The two guilds argued that because the works were broadcast in the Netherlands, Dutch law should apply. But contrary to the view of the guilds, the court found, “this question must be assessed under American law.” By applying the law of lex origines, in which “a single legal system determines who is initially considered the creator and copyright holder,” the court noted, it is “prevented that different rights holders exist for the same work.” Moreover, the court noted, not only did the legal relationship between the filmmaker and the film producer take place entirely within the US legal sphere, but the work for hire agreements also contained a “safety net” assignment agreement containing “a specific provision declaring US law applicable to the agreement.” Thus, the court found, applying Dutch law was consistent both with common law principles as well as the contractual expectations of the writers.

Nor did the safety net provision itself change the outcome, the court noted. Because there is longstanding ambiguity under U.S. law over whether work for hire agreements between film directors/writers and movie studios are enforceable, the court noted, these agreements provide a standard backup provision stating that in the event the work for hire provision is not enforceable, the directors/writers agree to assign their works to the studios. The directors and writers argued that this provision was not intended to be limited to the situation where the work for hire provision was enforceable under U.S. law but was rather intended to apply “in the event that the situation falls outside the formal scope of US law.” But this did not follow from the text of the agreements, the court found, and “cannot be read into it either.” In fact, the court noted, the provision is “entirely attributable to US law, so that it is clear that the safety net is included for the—more or less theoretical—event that the requirements of US law are not met in a particular situation.” It could not change the outcome here.

European and international law. Nor did anything in the provisions of European law or international conventions alter this outcome, the court found. Under EU law, the guilds argued, “the basic principle” is that “copyright always accrues to the actual creator and that this cannot be automatically transferred to a legal entity.” But that provision did not mean that the directors and writers were entitled to compensation in this case, the court found. Rather, in the court’s view, the Dutch revenue-sharing provision was not “derived from an exclusive right harmonized by EU law or a statutory restriction” but was, rather, at most “one of the instruments chosen by the Dutch legislature to comply with the obligation imposed [on it] to provide fair and proportionate compensation to authors when they license or transfer their exploitation rights.” Because the American filmmakers were already entitled under their contracts to financial compensation for the production and broadcasting through various media channels, the court reasoned, “they already receive appropriate and proportionate compensation, which was the background and intention of the obligations included in [EU law].”

Finally, the court noted, the main international copyright treaty—the Berne Convention—also did not change the outcome. Under that convention, the court noted, contracting states must grant foreign authors protected by the Convention the same protection for their works as they grant their own authors. But even if the right to compensation for broadcast revenues were encompassed within that provision—a matter on which there was some doubt, the court noted—it would not help the filmmakers. That is because American filmmaker and Dutch filmmakers were on the same ground, the court noted, as “each would be entitled to compensation if they transferred (sold) their exploitation rights to the film producer.” There was no unequal treatment here.

News: Copyright IndustryNewsTrends TechnologyInternet