Create. Assign. Get paid.

Recent cases illuminate creation

In Mio/USM, on 4 December 2025, the CJEU stressed that creative choices must be expressed in the object’s form. Intention alone is insufficient. The case concerns furniture, but its method also matters to Belgian creators: identify precisely the elements for which protection is claimed.

The Belgian ONB case then illuminates consent. On 6 March 2025, the CJEU rejected a general regulatory assignment of performers’ related rights without their prior agreement. The Intellectual Property Council examined the consequences in its opinion of 3 November 2025, presented by FPS Economy in January 2026. That opinion is not a new law.

From the person to the rights

Protection does not depend on mandatory registration. Drafts, dated files and correspondence during creation can help establish who created what. Keep the relevant version of the work: a signature on an invoice does not, by itself, describe the protected subject matter.

Then identify the people and transactions: author, co-authors, employer, company, client and publisher. An employee’s work, a commissioned work and a computer program do not necessarily follow the same rules on transfer. Classification comes before the clause.

An assignment transfers economic rights; a licence permits their use. Put the intended scope in writing and retain evidence of agreement. Authorship, moral rights and the power to exploit a work are separate questions.

Belgium before the Court of Justice

In Streamz, C-663/24, the CJEU is examining Belgian rules on press publishers and creators’ remuneration from platforms and streaming services. The hearing was announced for 6 and 7 July 2026. On 7 September, the Belgian Constitutional Court’s register still indicated that no CJEU judgment had been delivered.

Enforcement also addresses unlawful use. FPS Economy’s Anti-Piracy report of 5 June 2025 recorded 147 websites blocked during the service’s first year, with monitoring of mirror sites. This dated report illustrates an approach already operating in Belgium.

Describe the use precisely

For each mode of exploitation, the agreement should identify the rights granted, their scope, duration and remuneration. Special employment and commissioning rules require attention. Permission for a printed publication does not, by itself, describe every possible digital use.

Turn that into practical questions: which work, on which medium, in which territory and for how long? Adaptations, translations, extracts and sublicences each deserve an answer. Also agree on the information needed to track exploitation and the amounts due.

When a copy is suspected, identify the elements reproduced and preserve evidence of the disputed use before choosing a response. Mio/USM makes recognisable reproduction of protected creative elements decisive; overall visual impression is not the copyright infringement test.

The official signal of 2 September

The Ruling Commission confirms that the regime extends to computer programs from 1 January 2026. It examines originality, assigned rights, exploitation and valuation individually. A payment connected with software therefore does not qualify automatically.

FPS Finance lists an indexed ceiling of €77,220 for income earned in 2026, assessment year 2027. It operates alongside other conditions and limits. It is neither a guaranteed entitlement nor a flat amount to insert in every contract.

Separate the questions to calculate correctly

Build the civil-law file first: which original creations, which author, which rights, which assignment or licence and which actual use? Explain separately what the development service and the payment for rights each remunerate.

The tax review also covers the relative limit where services and rights are paid together, the annual ceiling and the average over earlier periods. Reconstruct the income history and identify the income year before comparing scenarios.

Expenses are a further question. Working in the Arts links the flat-rate scheme to an ordinary or plus certificate and the relevant artistic activities. IT activities alone do not qualify for that certificate. Actual expenses require evidence under the applicable rules.

Finally, address withholding, filing duties and the social-security analysis appropriate to the professional relationship. The calculator must show these assumptions: a net figure does not establish legal eligibility.