If the EU’s top court embraces an accessibility standard for “communication to the public,” copyright enforcement becomes less dependent on proving that a service “targeted” a country...

2025-11-28 · Source: Pascal’s Substack · Field: Legal & Regulatory — Intellectual Property & Patents, Compliance & Risk Management, Regulatory Affairs & Government Relations · Depth: Intermediate, medium

Summary

An analysis of Advocate General Rantos's Opinion in the Anne Frank copyright case (C-788/24) suggests a shift in online copyright enforcement within the EU. The Opinion proposes that making content accessible on a website in an EU Member State can constitute "communication to the public" in that state, even if the upload was not specifically "targeted" at that country. This "accessibility approach" contrasts with the "targeting approach," which requires proof of intent to reach a specific country. The author largely agrees with this direction, noting it could simplify enforcement for rightsholders, especially against sophisticated infringers and in the context of AI models made available to EU users, by anchoring EU copyright compliance to EU availability rather than the location of training infrastructure.

Key takeaway

For CTOs and legal counsel evaluating copyright risk for online services or AI models, this shift towards an "accessibility" standard means EU availability could trigger local copyright enforcement regardless of targeting intent. You should prioritize investing in robust evidence generation, such as forensic capture of outputs and similarity analysis, and use this procedural leverage to reset AI licensing conversations with clear scope, audit rights, and provenance commitments.

Key insights

Online content accessibility in an EU Member State may trigger local copyright law, simplifying enforcement.

Principles

• Accessibility, not targeting, can define "communication to the public."
• Online reach can imply legal presence and consequences.

In practice

• Rightsholders may find it easier to establish jurisdiction in EU Member States.
• AI vendors may implement EU-specific product versions and compliance measures.

Topics

• EU Copyright Law
• AI Copyright Enforcement
• Communication to the Public Doctrine
• Cross-border Liability
• AI Licensing

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Executive, Legal Professional, AI Product Manager, Director of AI/ML

Related on AIssential

• Why Europe's latest Meta ruling matters: International approaches to AI legislation are diverging. — Europe and the US are diverging on AI legislation, particularly regarding platform compensation for content extraction.
• When Conversations with AI Become Evidence — AI chatbot interactions are becoming discoverable legal evidence, challenging privacy and existing evidentiary standards.
• Chinese AI companies that distribute products globally—directly or indirectly—are increasingly exposed to U.S. litigation theories that hinge on U.S. market effects. — Cross-border AI copyright litigation is becoming enforceable, shifting focus from jurisdictional reach to merits and compliance.
• EU Warns Meta not to Block Rival AI Bots From WhatsApp — Dominant platforms face antitrust scrutiny for restricting third-party AI access, especially in emerging markets.
• The Right to Access Foreign Communicative Infrastructure — Foreign social media platforms are vital communicative infrastructure, and restricting them burdens speech and association beyond direct users.
• AI Copyright Risk in Financial Services and the Limits of Legacy Licensing - with Roanie Levy of CCC — Widespread AI use in financial services creates significant copyright infringement risk due to content reproduction beyond traditional licensing scopes.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Pascal’s Substack.