EU Copyright 2026: After the DSM Directive (Working Creator's Guide)

The European Union’s Copyright Directive of 2019 (officially the “Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market” or DSM Directive) was one of the most consequential copyright law changes of the past two decades. By 2022, all EU member states were required to implement it in national law. By 2026, the implementation has matured enough to assess what’s actually changed.

For working creators based in or selling into the EU, the practical reality is mixed. Some changes strengthened creator rights. Others created new obligations for platforms. The overall framework is more pro-creator than what came before but with significant compliance complexity.

Here’s the actual state of EU copyright in 2026.

The framework

EU copyright is largely harmonized across all 27 member states through a series of directives:

2001 Information Society Directive (InfoSoc) establishing core digital copyright framework
2014 Collective Rights Management Directive governing royalty collection societies
2019 Copyright Directive (DSM) modernizing for the digital age

Each EU member state implements these directives in national law. Implementation details vary but the core framework is consistent across the EU.

National copyright agencies in each member state handle administrative matters. There’s no single EU copyright office, but the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) handles trademarks and certain related rights for the EU as a whole.

Standard term

The EU standardized copyright term at life of the author plus 70 years in 1993, predating the DSM Directive. This applies across all member states for most original works.

Specific variations:

Anonymous and pseudonymous works: 70 years from publication
Works of joint authorship: life + 70 from death of last surviving co-author
Cinematographic works: 70 years from death of last to die of principal director, screenplay writer, dialogue writer, composer
Sound recordings: 70 years from publication
Performers’ rights: 50 years from performance, or 70 years from publication of fixation, whichever is later
Photographs: 70 years from author’s death for original photographs; some EU countries have shorter terms for “non-original” snapshot photos

What the DSM Directive changed

The DSM Directive made several significant changes. The most-discussed ones:

Article 15: Press publishers’ rights

Creates a new copyright-adjacent right for press publishers over their journalistic content. Online platforms (Google News, Facebook, etc.) need licenses or have specific exceptions to use press content.

Practical effect: News aggregation services must negotiate with press publishers in most EU countries. Google News has changed how it operates in some EU markets. The practical impact on individual journalists varies by country.

Article 17: Platform liability for user uploads

The big one. Article 17 makes platforms hosting user-uploaded content directly liable for unauthorized copyrighted material their users upload. Platforms must either obtain licenses from rights holders or implement effective measures to prevent infringing content.

Practical effects:

Major platforms (YouTube, Meta, TikTok) now have more sophisticated content matching and filtering
Smaller platforms have struggled with compliance costs
Some content has been over-blocked (false positives in filtering)
Rights holders gained more leverage with platforms for licensing

For working creators, this means platform enforcement against infringement of registered works is generally more effective than pre-DSM, especially on major platforms.

Article 18-23: Author and performer fair remuneration

The DSM Directive added rights for authors and performers to receive “appropriate and proportionate remuneration” when they license their works. This includes:

Right to information about exploitation of the work
Contract adjustment mechanism if remuneration becomes “disproportionately low”
Right to terminate contracts where rights aren’t exploited
Alternative dispute resolution for disputes about remuneration

Practical effect: Authors and performers have more leverage in negotiations with publishers, labels, and other counterparties. Implementation varies by country.

Text and data mining exceptions

The DSM Directive created mandatory exceptions for text and data mining (TDM):

For research purposes by research organizations
For commercial purposes (with opt-out option for rights holders)

This affects AI training data. EU rights holders can opt out of having their works used for commercial TDM (which includes AI training in most analyses). The opt-out must be expressed in machine-readable form for online content.

For working creators, this means you can express opt-out preferences for AI training in your website metadata, your content delivery, or via opt-out registries. Whether AI companies actually honor these signals varies.

Education and cultural heritage exceptions

The directive expanded exceptions for educational use, particularly for online teaching, and for digital preservation by cultural heritage institutions.

EU-specific creator rights

Beyond the DSM Directive’s additions, EU copyright has some distinctive features:

Moral rights

EU member states generally have stronger moral rights than the US. These include:

Right of attribution (always being named as author)
Right of integrity (preventing distortion of the work)
Right of disclosure (deciding when to publish)
Right of withdrawal (in some countries, for moral reasons)

Moral rights are typically non-transferable and may not be waivable. This affects how copyright assignments work; the assignee gets economic rights but not moral rights in most cases.

Resale royalty rights (droit de suite)

For original works of visual art, EU artists receive a royalty (typically 0.25%-4%) on resales after the first sale. Applies to physical artworks resold through galleries, auction houses, or art dealers above a minimum price threshold.

This is unique to the EU (and a few other jurisdictions). US-based artists don’t have this right.

Strong collecting societies

EU countries have well-developed collecting societies that handle royalty collection for various rights:

Music: GEMA (Germany), SACEM (France), SIAE (Italy), and equivalents in other countries
Visual arts: Bildkunst (Germany), ADAGP (France), DACS (UK pre-Brexit)
Reprographic rights: VG Wort (Germany), CFC (France)

These societies typically handle blanket licensing for uses where individual negotiation is impractical (radio play, public performance, photocopying, etc.).

Registration in the EU

Like the UK, most EU countries don’t have copyright registration systems equivalent to the US Copyright Office. EU copyright is automatic and unregistered.

A few countries (Spain, Italy, Greece) have copyright registries that creators can voluntarily use, but these aren’t required for protection and are less established than the US Copyright Office.

For most EU-based working creators, the registration approach is:

Online registration services (Ecopyright, etc.) for third-party timestamped evidence
Notarization for individual high-value works
Collective society membership for ongoing royalty management
No equivalent of US Copyright Office registration

For the broader analysis of registration approaches, see our piece.

Fair use in the EU?

The EU doesn’t have a general “fair use” doctrine like the US. Instead, EU member states have specific enumerated exceptions to copyright:

Quotation for criticism or review
Parody, caricature, pastiche (mandatory after DSM Directive)
Text and data mining (post-DSM)
News reporting of current events
Educational use (expanded post-DSM)
Private copying (in many member states)
Specific exceptions for libraries, archives, museums

This approach is less flexible than US fair use. Specific exceptions can apply or not; there’s no general “balance of factors” test that would let new uses be analyzed flexibly.

For a comparison of fair use vs fair dealing approaches, see our piece. The EU system is closer to UK fair dealing than to US fair use.

EU-specific enforcement

When EU copyright is infringed, several enforcement options exist:

National courts

Each member state has its own court system that handles copyright disputes. Procedures vary but the underlying copyright is harmonized.

Cross-border enforcement

Within the EU, judgments from one member state can typically be enforced in others under the Brussels I Regulation (now Brussels I Recast). This makes cross-border EU enforcement easier than enforcement against non-EU defendants.

Collective management for royalty disputes

Disputes about royalties from collecting societies are handled through specific procedures, often including alternative dispute resolution mechanisms required by EU rules.

Platform takedowns

Article 17 has made platform takedowns more effective for EU rights holders. Major platforms have more robust filtering and faster takedown processing for EU complaints.

What EU-based creators should actually do

The realistic playbook for working creators in the EU:

Step 1: Register with an online service

Online registration provides the third-party timestamped evidence that EU copyright law doesn’t require but enforcement needs. Ecopyright works for this. Cost: about $1 per work.

Step 2: Join collecting societies where applicable

For musicians, authors, and visual artists, the relevant collecting societies handle ongoing royalty collection. Worth joining when you have substantial output.

Step 3: Use national notarization for high-value works

EU notaries are well-established and provide strong evidence for individual high-value works. Costs vary by country but typically €30-€100 per document.

Step 4: Document creative process

Standard documentation (dated drafts, email correspondence, sales records) supports your authorship case if disputes arise.

Step 5: Use Article 17 leverage

For online infringement, EU platform takedowns are generally more effective post-DSM. Use the platforms’ EU-specific complaint processes.

Step 6: Express AI training preferences

For online content, express machine-readable opt-out preferences if you don’t want your work used for AI training. Some platforms and registries facilitate this.

Specific situations

A few EU-specific scenarios:

Cross-border licensing

For creators selling rights across EU member states, the harmonized copyright framework helps but national differences in moral rights, royalty rights, and enforcement still matter. Licensing contracts should specify governing law and dispute resolution.

Anglo-French differences

UK copyright (now post-Brexit) and French copyright differ in important ways despite both being EU-influenced. UK leans toward Anglo-American principles (broader fair dealing, stronger contract freedom). France leans toward continental principles (stronger moral rights, more limited assignability).

For projects spanning both, this matters for contracts and enforcement.

Eastern European member states

Newer EU member states (post-2004 accession) have implemented EU directives but have less mature local case law. Practical enforcement varies; what works smoothly in Germany or France may take longer in newer member states.

Brexit implications

UK creators now operate under separate UK rules but the rules are still substantially similar to EU rules (the UK adopted most pre-Brexit EU directives). For the UK-specific analysis, see our UK piece.

What’s coming

Three things to watch in EU copyright:

AI-specific legislation. The EU AI Act includes some IP-relevant provisions but a more comprehensive AI copyright framework is being discussed.

Continued DSM implementation. Implementation of Articles 17, 18-23 is still maturing in some member states.

Platform liability evolution. Major platforms’ Article 17 compliance continues to develop. Best practices for content matching and creator notice are still being established.

The summary

EU copyright is automatic, life + 70 years, harmonized across member states. Recent changes via the DSM Directive strengthened creator rights for fair remuneration and platform enforcement.

For working EU creators, the practical reality is:

Strong underlying protection that doesn’t require registration
The proof problem applies here (use online registration for immediate evidence)
Platform enforcement has gotten better post-DSM
Collective management is well-developed for ongoing royalties
Cross-border enforcement within the EU is relatively smooth

The system is creator-friendly compared to many alternatives. The infrastructure is mature. The main remaining work for individual creators is the proof discipline (online registration plus good documentation) plus appropriate enforcement tools when issues arise.

For the broader Berne Convention context, see our international framework piece.

Copyright in the EU After the DSM Directive