The FSE at the European Parliament in a meeting on AI and copyright
Yesterday, the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe took the floor at the European Parliament in a stakeholder meeting on AI and copyright, alongside the European Commission and MEPs Mario Furore and Gaetano Pedullà
We are grateful to both MEPs for the invitation and for creating this space for dialogue.
Here is the intervention delivered by FSE Délégué Général Denis Goulette.
---
Mr Pedullà, Mr Furore, Representative of the European Commission, dear colleagues,
I represent the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe, 31 guilds across 26 countries, and around 10,000 professional screenwriters who want one simple thing: to continue making a living from their craft, and to ensure that the next generation of storytellers still has a profession to enter.
I am also a practising lawyer, member of a Bar. Which perhaps allows me to say, very directly, what others may prefer not to.
For two years now, we believe the European Commission has been losing valuable time, both for authors and for AI providers who want to operate in Europe.
One year was spent on a Code of Practice whose own preamble states that it does not ensure compliance with EU copyright law. A code that disqualifies itself in its own preamble is, in our view, an admission of failure.
And during that time, one issue remains largely unspoken.
The Soulier and Doke judgment.
In 2016, the Cour de justice de l'Union européenne made it clear that authors cannot be subject to formalities to exercise their rights, under Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention. Any opt-out mechanism is therefore legally incompatible with international copyright law.
The JURI study acknowledges this, implicitly. The Code of Practice hints at it, without naming it.
We fully support the Voss report. The restoration of exclusive rights. The framework of consent, transparency, and remuneration. The presumption of use.
But let me be very clear on one point.
Consent is not just about being paid.
Consent is first and foremost the right to say no.
And that right must be exercisable, both by our members and by the CMOs they trust, when the licensing conditions on offer are deliberately set too low to compensate for the harm caused by systems that use their works, and then compete with them on their own ground.
So our request today is simple.
We need a timeline. A clear legislative timeline.
Because the current legal uncertainty is not only damaging for authors, it is also unsustainable for AI providers. Even those acting in good faith, and following the Code of Practice, remain exposed to litigation risk.
France is moving. The Senate has voted. The French Conseil d'État has given guidance.
What are we waiting for at the European level?
Thank you.
Here is the intervention delivered by FSE Délégué Général Denis Goulette.
---
Mr Pedullà, Mr Furore, Representative of the European Commission, dear colleagues,
I represent the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe, 31 guilds across 26 countries, and around 10,000 professional screenwriters who want one simple thing: to continue making a living from their craft, and to ensure that the next generation of storytellers still has a profession to enter.
I am also a practising lawyer, member of a Bar. Which perhaps allows me to say, very directly, what others may prefer not to.
For two years now, we believe the European Commission has been losing valuable time, both for authors and for AI providers who want to operate in Europe.
One year was spent on a Code of Practice whose own preamble states that it does not ensure compliance with EU copyright law. A code that disqualifies itself in its own preamble is, in our view, an admission of failure.
And during that time, one issue remains largely unspoken.
The Soulier and Doke judgment.
In 2016, the Cour de justice de l'Union européenne made it clear that authors cannot be subject to formalities to exercise their rights, under Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention. Any opt-out mechanism is therefore legally incompatible with international copyright law.
The JURI study acknowledges this, implicitly. The Code of Practice hints at it, without naming it.
We fully support the Voss report. The restoration of exclusive rights. The framework of consent, transparency, and remuneration. The presumption of use.
But let me be very clear on one point.
Consent is not just about being paid.
Consent is first and foremost the right to say no.
And that right must be exercisable, both by our members and by the CMOs they trust, when the licensing conditions on offer are deliberately set too low to compensate for the harm caused by systems that use their works, and then compete with them on their own ground.
So our request today is simple.
We need a timeline. A clear legislative timeline.
Because the current legal uncertainty is not only damaging for authors, it is also unsustainable for AI providers. Even those acting in good faith, and following the Code of Practice, remain exposed to litigation risk.
France is moving. The Senate has voted. The French Conseil d'État has given guidance.
What are we waiting for at the European level?
Thank you.
The FSE at the European Parliament in a meeting on AI and copyright
Ενημέρωση: 23-04-2026
