EU copyright law roundup – second trimester of 2026

As we are going from one heatwave to another, EU copyright law has not stopped producing exciting developments on the judicial and policy front. In this issue we report on CJEU judgments (including two important Grand Chamber judgments), Advocate General (AG) Opinions and significant policy developments for the period from April 2026 to June 2026.

You can read the previous roundups here.

CJEU judgments and AG Opinions

Steizer, AG Opinion, C‑176/25

AG Emiliou’s Opinion in Steizer concludes that the formal validity of a copyright licence or assignment, even when invoked against a third party in infringement proceedings, must be characterised as a contractual issue and therefore governed by the conflict‑of‑laws rules of the Rome I Regulation (on the law applicable to contractual obligations) rather than the lex loci protectionis under Rome II Regulation (on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations).

Pelham II, CJEU, C-590/23

The Metall auf Metall saga culminated on 14 April 2026 with the CJEU’s Grand Chamber judgment on pastiche. Read the analysis from Sabine Jacques here.

Stichting de Thuiskopie, CJEU, C-496/24

On 16 April 2026, the CJEU delivered yet another judgment on private copying. You can read our analysis here.

VHC 2 Seniorenresidenz, CJEU, C-127/24 (or: Hey, Gema, leave the seniors alone!)

GEMA, the German music collecting society, sued VHC 2, the operator of a retirement home, arguing that VHC 2 required a licence because it received TV and radio programmes via satellite and simultaneously retransmitted them, unaltered and unabridged, through its internal cable network to residents’ rooms and treatment rooms. The lower appeal court rejected GEMA’s claim, finding no “communication to the public”.
The Bundesgerichtshof asked the CJEU whether residents of a commercially operated retirement home constitute a “public” under Article 3(1) InfoSoc Directive; whether the “specific technical means” and “new public” criteria remain generally applicable; and whether such internal retransmission reaches a “new public”, including where the operator acts for profit and rightholders have already been remunerated for the original broadcast.
The Court held that an internal cable retransmission of a satellite signal within a retirement home is not a separate communication by “specific technical means”. That criterion applies only where the technical process entails a new transmission independent of the original communication, such as retransmission of terrestrial television over the internet. In addition, the Court considered that the residents were not a “new public” because they live in the retirement home on a permanent basis and receive broadcasts in their private sphere. The Court distinguished them from hotel guests, spa patients, rehabilitation-centre patients, or short-term tenants, who normally access protected works because of the operator’s intervention.
On that basis, the court considered that Article 3(1) InfoSoc Directive does not cover the simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged retransmission, by a retirement-home operator, of broadcast programmes received by satellite and distributed via an internal cable network to residents’ rooms. Consequently, such retransmission is not a “communication to the public”.

Meta, CJEU, C-797/23

May saw another Grand Chamber judgment upon referral from Italy.

This case addresses a dispute between Meta and AGCOM regarding Italy’s implementation of Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 (CDSM Directive), which grants press publishers exclusive rights over the online use of their press publications. Meta challenged AGCOM’s authority to mandate negotiation rules, demand sensitive data sharing, impose transparency requirements, and unilaterally establish fair compensation in the event of an economic deadlock.
Among the key points of the judgement are the following. First, press publishers are free to condition authorisation on remuneration and national implementing measures may seek to ensure “fair remuneration” for authorised uses. In this respect, Member States retain significant discretion regarding the detailed implementation of those rights, if they retain essential characteristics of the exclusive rights. But national implementations cannot replace the exclusive rights in Article 15 with a mere right to remuneration.
Second, information society service providers (ISSPs) remain free to decide whether to use press publications at all. Article 15 only applies where providers use or intend to use protected press publications. No payment or related obligations may be imposed where providers do not engage in such uses.
Third, obligations imposed on ISSPs to negotiate with press publishers, provide relevant information, and refrain from limiting the visibility of press publications during negotiations may be compatible with EU law where they contribute to fair negotiations and address structural informational asymmetries.
Fourth, intervention by public authorities like AGCOM, including powers to establish benchmark remuneration criteria and supervise compliance with information obligations, may be compatible with Article 15. 
Finally, the Court reaffirmed that the freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter is not absolute and may be subject to proportionate limitations pursuing objectives of general interest or protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

For in-depth analysis, see Michalina Kowala’s take on it here, as well as Christophe Geiger and Ludovico Bossi’s here.

Policy

European Commission, Targeted initiative for a better copyright environment for European creativity and innovation

Between May and June, the Commission ran a public consultation to collect the information necessary to support the review of the CDSM Directive, and to seek feedback on the challenges linked in particular to the exercise of copyright and related rights in the context of technological developments and potential ways to address them. Read Paul Keller’s post on it here, as well as Stephen Wyber’s post here

EUIPO, Mapping of EU databases and metadata standards providing information on copyright-protected works

In May, the EUIPO issued a commissioned report on the databases and metadata standards providing information on copyright-protected works. Stay tuned for a post reporting on it in the coming weeks.

European Commission, Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content

In June, the Commission issued the code of practice to compliance with the AI Act transparency obligations related to marking and labelling of AI-generated content under Article 50 of the AI Act.

Coming soon and latest referrals

In the coming months, national appeal courts will be looking at the reproduction issues in the AI training processes in the following highly anticipated cases: Getty Images v Stability AI in the UK Court of Appeal and in GEMA v OpenAI in the German appellate court in Munich.

In the CJEU, communication to the public will be the topic (once more) in Cloudfare (C-534/25; referral from Germany) with respect to a hyperlink to an infringing copy of a music album, in SHR Germany (C-30/26, referral from Germany) in the context of social media posts, as well as in Anne-Frank Fonds (C-788/24; referral from the Netherlands; see here and here) with respect to VPNs and geoblocking, and in Natural Beauty Levin (C-667/25) in the context of salons.

The scope of the exceptions and limitations is another one on the CJEU agenda with Gândul Media Network (C-598/24) turning to news reporting upon referral from Romania and VG Wort (C-840/24) unpacking (once again) the private copying exception and levies, upon referral from Germany.

Next, different flavors of collective management issues are at issue in three different cases. Two of these have been referred to the CJEU by Poland - Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców SAWP (C-601/25) and Radio Express 92.3 FM (C-248/26) – and one from Spain, namely AIE and AGEDI (C-22/26).

Finally, nobody is surprised that the CDSM Directive provisions are unclear to national judges, so they have started referring cases to the CJEU. Austro-Mechana (C-579/24; referral from Austria) tackles inter alia the scope of Article 17. Article 15 instead is discussed in Like Company v Google (C-250/25; referral from Hungary) together with an issue on text and data mining, as well as Agecop (C-441/25; referral from Portugal) on various aspects of the notion of fair compensation. The validity of the residual right of remuneration is one of the topics at the heart of Streamz and Others (C-663/24; referral from Belgium). The hearing is scheduled for 7 and 8 of July 2026. You can read the European Copyright Society’s latest opinion on it here.

There is also a peculiar reference from Italy in Netflix (C-51/26) on the contributing to the financial activities of a regulatory authority.

Stay tuned!