EU copyright law roundup – first trimester of 2026

Welcome to our first roundup for 2026. In the first trimester of this year, several important developments have taken place in the EU copyright law arena. As our regular audience will know, in this series we have been reporting on CJEU judgments, Advocate General (AG) Opinions (if any) and significant policy developments.

You can read the previous roundups here.

CJEU judgments and AG Opinions

Anne Frank Fonds, AG Opinion, C-788/24

In January, AG Rantos delivered his opinion in this case concerning the communication to the public right, geoblocking and potential circumvention via VPN. Read Elena Izyumenko’s comment on the opinion here.

bluechip, CJEU, C-822/24

The private copying exception does not cease to entertain the CJEU. In this case, the Court handled the fair compensation condition and the recovery of overpaid levies. Read Bernd Justin Jütte’s analysis here.

Institutul G. Călinescu, CJEU, C-649/23

The concept of a copyright “work” was revisited in this case, in which the CJEU examined whether a critical edition of a public domain work qualifies for copyright protection.

The Court held that Article 2(a) of the InfoSoc Directive must be interpreted as follows. A critical edition of a public domain work, intended to restore the text with comments and a critical apparatus, may qualify as a protected work. This applies where the edition constitutes an intellectual creation reflecting the author’s personality, expressed through free and creative choices. The work must also be identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity.

The Court therefore reaffirmed the two cumulative conditions established in Cofemel. First, the subject matter must be the author’s own intellectual creation. Second, only elements expressing that creation with precision and objectivity may be protected.

As to free and creative choices, the Court stated that this requirement is met unless the preparation of the critical edition is dictated solely by technical considerations, rules, or constraints that leave no room for creative freedom. This assessment is for the referring court.

As to objectivity, the Court clarified that it is not necessary to distinguish between parts of the original text (including amended portions) and accompanying comments, notes, or explanations. Where appropriate, these elements may be assessed together to determine whether they fall within the scope of copyright protection.

Accordingly, when assessing the expression of a work, the same should not be artificially divided. A critical edition must be considered as a whole, including comments, notes, and explanations that supplement or relate to the restored text.

National case law

AG München, 2026 – 142 C 9786/25

In February, the District Court of Munich handled a case on the prompter’s claim to copyright in the output as a result of text-to-image genereative AI system. Read Ines Duhanic’s comment on the case here.

Policy

European Commission, Infringement proceedings against Slovenia

In January, the Commission has decided to open infringement proceedings against Slovenia for failing to correctly apply the InfoSoc Directive and the Collective Rights Management Directive. Under Slovenian copyright law, rightsholders are compelled to mandatorily manage their communication to the public right via collective management organizations, which is argued to lead to “a deprivation of author's exclusive rights and conflicts with the freedom of rightsholders to withdraw their rights from collective management, guaranteed by EU law.” Slovenia has two months to respond.

European Commission Raises Concerns Over Denmark’s Draft Copyright Law on AI-Generated Imitations

On 2 February 2026, the European Commission sent a formal letter to Denmark addressing its notification of a draft law amending the national Copyright Act, submitted under Directive (EU) 2015/1535. The proposed legislation introduces new protections against the unauthorised use of digitally generated imitations of individuals’ personal characteristics and artistic performances, particularly in response to advances in AI. While the Commission recognises the objective of tackling harms associated with “deep fakes” and similar technologies, it raises questions about the compatibility of these measures with existing EU copyright rules and the broader legal framework governing intellectual property.

In its assessment, the Commission highlights several areas of concern, including the scope and definition of the proposed rights, their interaction with harmonised EU legislation such as Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2006/115/EC, and the potential impact on the internal market. It also questions the proposed duration of protection and warns against extending liability frameworks in ways that could affect online service providers. Furthermore, the Commission calls for closer alignment with the AI Act, particularly regarding the treatment and labelling of AI-generated content. The letter ultimately invites Danish authorities to revise the draft law to ensure legal clarity, preserve the balance between rights holders and users, and avoid regulatory fragmentation across the European Union. On the topic of deep fakes and copyright law, readers are also invited to read the last paragraph of the European Parliament Report on copyright and AI, mentioned below.

Digital and Communication Committee, UK House of Lords, AI and Copyright Report

In March 2026, the Digital and Communications committee of the House of Lords published its report following an inquiry into copyright and AI, which included several oral witness sessions as well as written submissions upon request. The report urges the UK government to rule out a new commercial text and data mining exception with an opt-out model; close gaps in protection for identity, style and digital replicas; introduce transparency obligations for AI training data; create conditions for a fair and inclusive AI licensing market; champion the development of technical standards for control, provenance and labelling; and prioritise the development and adoption of sovereign AI models.

UK government, Report and impact assessment on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Having worked for more than a year analysing the 11,520 responses submitted to its consultation, the UK government issued its report on copyright and AI in March 2026, whereby it declared that it will no longer pursue its originally suggested option to adopt a commercial text and data mining exception with an opt-out mechanism. It suggests working with the AI and creative industry on many fronts to collect further evidence and develop better frameworks.

European Parliament, Report on copyright and artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges

In March 2026, the Parliament adopted a report authored by Axel Voss urging the Commission to pursue various AI/copyright initiatives. Read Bernd Justin Jütte’s comment here.

The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), Private Copying Global Study

CISAC’s latest study on private copying signals that private copying remuneration remains an important source of income for creators even in the age of digital technologies where access and storage of creative works has shifted.

Coming soon and latest referrals

The courts will certainly have interesting cases to handle in the coming months.

As a reminder from the national front: the UK Courts of Appeal will be dealing with Getty Images v Stability AI as appeal permission was granted, while the German appellate court in Munich will be looking at the GEMA v OpenAI case.

In Luxembourg, the case law agenda is particularly busy. Gândul Media Network (C-598/24) will handle the protectability criterial once again, while communication to the public will be the topic

in VHC 2 Seniorenresidenz (C-127/24) with respect to retirement homes, in Cloudfare (C-534/25) with respect to a hyperlink to an infringing copy of a music album, in Thuiskopie v HP (C-496/24) with respect to “offline streaming copies”, in Anne-Frank Fonds (C-788/24) with respect to VPNs and geoblocking, in SHR Germany (C-30/26) in the context of social media posts and in Natural Beauty Levin (C-667/25) in the context of salons.

Next, the private copying exception and levies will be further unpacked in VG Wort (C-840/24), while collective management will be dealt with in Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców SAWP (C-601/25) and AIE and AGEDI (C-22/26).

On the enforcement front, the CJEU will be analysing blocking injunctions in Satel Film (C-832/24, C-833/24 and C-834/24).

The CDSM Directive provisions are starting to generate interesting pending case lineup: Austro-Mechana (C-579/24) on the scope of Article 17, Like Company v Google (C-250/25) on text and data mining (see the recent European Copyright Society Opinion here), as well as Meta (C-797/23), Streamz and Others (C-663/24) and Agecop (C-441/25) on various aspects of the notion of fair compensation and the press publishers’ right in Article 15. Finally, there is a rather odd pending reference from Italy in Netflix (C-51/26) concerning the contributing to the financial activities of a regulatory authority.

Finally, although published outside the time frame of this roundup, it is important to note that on 14 April the CJEU published its long-awaited judgment in Case C-590/23 - CG and YN v Pelham GmbH and Others. We expect to publish analyses of this judgement in the weeks to come.

Stay tuned!