
Photo Credit: Catalina Federova
Universal Music was victorious in a court case in Amsterdam that centered on whether the company underpaid three Dutch musicians in streaming royalties.
According to an Amsterdam court on Wednesday, Universal Music does not owe Dutch artists Arriën Molema, Henk Westbroek, and Marinus de Goederen larger shares of streaming revenue. The three musicians were seeking at least half of the earnings from their streams on Apple Music, Spotify, and YouTube.
However, Universal Music argued that it made significant investments to generate income from streaming platforms online, and that payment arrangements made at the time (in 2006) were transparent.
“If the parties had known exactly what role streaming would play, they might have made specific agreements about it. However, this does not mean that applying the agreed-upon royalty provisions to streaming is unacceptable,” the court determined, noting that the musicians’ claim that record companies “have applied a standard 50/50 revenue split” in the streaming age is inaccurate.
The court’s ruling specifically pertained to agreements made between Universal and the three artists—not the broader Dutch music industry.
“It has not been established that Universal misapplied the record contracts and paid too low royalties,” wrote the court.
A spokesperson for Universal said the company was pleased with the Amsterdam court’s decision.
This case is not unlike others, which posit that because an artist signed their contract before streaming was prevalent—and they understood how important it would become in getting their music to the broader public—they should be eligible to renegotiate to receive higher royalties. The topic of royalties in the streaming age has and continues to remain a hot-button issue in the broader industry.






