Denmark Backs Belgium in EU Press Publishers’ Right Case
Denmark has intervened in support of Belgium before the Court of Justice of the European Union in litigation concerning the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. According to Reuters, several technology and media companies, including Google, Meta, Spotify, Sony, and Streamz, challenge elements of Belgium’s national implementation of that right.
Article 15 grants press publishers rights over certain online uses of their press publications by information society service providers. The dispute concerns the limits of national implementation and, in particular, whether Belgium’s rules impose obligations that exceed the Directive’s framework. Denmark’s intervention supports Belgium’s position that its measures are compatible with EU copyright law.
The Danish government has presented its participation as necessary to protect the interests of Danish press publishers and to support effective remuneration for online uses of journalistic content. This reflects wider efforts by Danish publishers to negotiate collectively with major digital platforms and secure compensation for the commercial use of news content.
The case could have consequences beyond Belgium. A CJEU judgment will clarify the discretion available to Member States when implementing Article 15, including the extent to which national rules may support negotiations, remuneration, and access to information needed to assess content use. The judgment may therefore affect the balance of power between press publishers and large online platforms across the EU.
The dispute also sits alongside wider discussions about generative AI and the use of news content for training purposes. Article 15 does not itself establish a general right to payment for AI training. That issue is primarily connected with the text and data mining rules in Articles 3 and 4 of the DSM Directive, including rights holders’ ability to reserve rights under Article 4(3). Nevertheless, the case may influence the commercial and legal context in which publishers seek payment for digital uses of their content.
