{"id":26187,"date":"2026-07-22T10:17:24","date_gmt":"2026-07-22T10:17:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/?post_type=ip-law&#038;p=26187"},"modified":"2026-07-22T10:17:25","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T10:17:25","slug":"vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank","status":"publish","type":"ip-law","link":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/","title":{"rendered":"VPNs, Copyright and Geolocation: The CJEU Defines the Digital Boundary of The Diary of Anne Frank"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In its <strong>judgment of 9 July 2026 (Case C-788\/24)<\/strong>, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands concerning the scope of the concept of <em>communication to the public<\/em> where a protected work is made available online and access may be gained through a VPN, that is, a virtual private network. The background to the dispute was whether the digital dissemination of the famous <em><strong>Diary of Anne Frank<\/strong><\/em>, which remains protected by copyright in some countries while being in the public domain in others, constitutes an act of communication to the public even where the party making the work available has implemented technological measures intended to prevent access from territories in which copyright protection still subsists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal question is far from trivial: if such measures can be circumvented by means of a VPN, can it still be maintained that there is a communication to the public? Who, then, performs the act of communication: the person making the work available to the public, or the VPN provider that enables effective access? The issue reflects particularly clearly the tension between the territorial nature of intellectual property rights and the global logic of the internet, where a work may be accessible simultaneously from States with differing protection regimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Digital exploitation has significantly reduced the practical effectiveness of rights holders\u2019 powers of prohibition. Although legislators and courts have sought to develop remedies to combat unlawful online uses, the slow pace of legal responses and the procedural complexity faced by rights holders often leave them with very limited real means of enforcement. Consequently, technological measures designed to prevent or hinder access to unlawfully disseminated works have emerged as the most desirable means of containing unauthorised online uses. Yet technological reality invariably finds ways of overcoming such safeguards. A VPN is a prime example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment is timely because it clarifies the scope of the exclusive right of communication to the public. The CJEU reaffirms its case law on Article 3(1) of Directive 2001\/29 and recalls that <strong>any transmission or making available of a protected work to the public constitutes an act of exploitation, regardless of the technical means employed, provided that the intended public has the possibility of accessing it<\/strong>. The concept of \u201cpublic\u201d refers to an indeterminate but fairly large number of persons, thereby excluding acts carried out within a private household or directed at a small number of recipients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further emphasises that the intention of the person disseminating the protected content is decisive in determining whether an act amounts to communication to the public. Where the disseminator has implemented effective technological measures to prevent or hinder unrestricted access by a particular public, for example users located in a State where the work remains protected, there will be no act of exploitation, even if such measures can be circumvented. According to the Court, any other interpretation would result in a disproportionate level of protection for rights holders in an environment such as the internet, where territorial borders are increasingly blurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Accordingly, there is no communication to the public on the part of a person who implements territorial blocking or geolocation measures based on IP addresses, even if those measures can be bypassed through a VPN or similar service. The effectiveness of the measure will depend on what the Court describes as the \u201c<strong>cutting edge of technology<\/strong>\u201d, an expression as fluid as it is problematic in practice, given the speed at which technology evolves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The CJEU also rejects the argument that a VPN service provider communicates the work to the public. Merely making available a technology that allows users to circumvent protective measures against unlawful or unauthorised uses does not, in itself, make its provider a necessary participant in the act of communication. This conclusion shifts the focus of liability onto the party disseminating the work and whether or not it adopts territorial restriction measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling highlights a tension that is not new. <strong>Temporal asymmetry in the protection of works has always been shaped by the legislation of each individual State.<\/strong> In the offline environment, rights holders were fully aware of these differences. It was precisely for this reason that the European legislator sought to harmonise copyright terms in order to reduce discrepancies and remove obstacles to the free movement of goods and the provision of services. This was the objective of Directive 93\/98\/EEC, later codified in Directive 2006\/116\/EC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That said, this harmonising ambition should not be overstated. The level of protection recognised in the European Union, with its comparatively lengthy terms of protection, does not always find an equivalent response at international level. The Berne Convention generally provides for a term of fifty years after the author\u2019s death, in contrast to the seventy years applicable in the EU. In practice, this entails the legal acceptance of a degree of asymmetry in protection. Furthermore, the European legislator has preserved the application by Member States of Article 14bis of the Berne Convention, which links the status of author of a cinematographic work to the law of the country in which protection is claimed, extending protection in certain circumstances as though the work were attributed to a natural person acting as co-author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">What is new is that this tension is now projected onto the online environment. It was inevitable that disparities in protection terms would eventually surface in the digital sphere. The Court\u2019s solution is both eclectic and balanced. On the one hand, it recognises the right of rights holders to receive fair remuneration for the exploitation of their works and, implicitly, their exclusive right to prohibit unauthorised exploitations. On the other hand, it accepts that technological geolocation measures preventing access by certain categories of users are consistent with that exclusive right and do not, in themselves, constitute exploitation in the legal sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nevertheless, a difficult contradiction can be discerned between the lines of this balanced approach. <strong>The judgment accepts that where technological protection measures are at the \u201ccutting edge of technology\u201d, there will be no act of communication to the public even if those measures can be circumvented.<\/strong> <strong>The Court therefore sacrifices, at least to some extent, the interests of rights holders in favour of the proper functioning of the online market.<\/strong> If such measures are in place, there is neither exploitation nor a corresponding right of prohibition, even where they may be bypassed. The burden is effectively shifted onto rights holders to demonstrate the technological obsolescence that reveals the measure\u2019s ineffectiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Equally striking is the exemption from liability granted to operators that make available the technology enabling users to circumvent those measures. According to the judgment, such providers do not participate in the potential act of exploitation, even where they are aware that their service may be used to access protected works without the consent of their authors. This interpretation contrasts with Article 13(1) of Directive 2004\/48\/EC and, similarly, with Article 138(II) of the Spanish Copyright Act, both of which provide for liability not only where infringement is committed knowingly, but also where a person has reasonable grounds to know of the infringement and contributes to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The only possible means of mitigating the practical impact of this ruling may lie in Article 9 of the Digital Services Act, which allows competent authorities to order intermediary service providers to take specific action against unlawful content. In any event, the judgment consolidates a line of case law that favours the facilitation of digital exploitation where reasonable territorial restriction measures have been adopted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>In conclusion<\/strong>, although the CJEU seeks to strike a balance between the interests of rights holders and those of parties exploiting protected content online, the ruling ultimately prioritises the functionality of the digital marketplace. Unless this approach changes, digital geolocation will constitute, <em>prima facie<\/em>, a legitimate mechanism for the online exploitation of protected content that is no longer protected in the country from which the communication originates.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":26186,"template":"","categorias-ip-litigations":[114],"class_list":["post-26187","ip-law","type-ip-law","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","categorias-ip-litigations-copyright"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v26.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>VPNs, Copyright and Geolocation: The CJEU Defines the Digital Boundary of The Diary of Anne Frank - PONS IP<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"VPNs, Copyright and Geolocation: The CJEU Defines the Digital Boundary of The Diary of Anne Frank - PONS IP\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (Case C-788\/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands concerning the scope of the concept of communication to the public where a protected work is made available online and access ... Read more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"PONS IP\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-22T10:17:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AnneFrank.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"960\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/\",\"name\":\"VPNs, Copyright and Geolocation: The CJEU Defines the Digital Boundary of The Diary of Anne Frank - PONS IP\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AnneFrank.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-22T10:17:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-22T10:17:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AnneFrank.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AnneFrank.jpg\",\"width\":960,\"height\":600},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Portada\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"IP Law\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/ip-litigations\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"VPNs, Copyright and Geolocation: The CJEU Defines the Digital Boundary of The Diary of Anne Frank\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/\",\"name\":\"PONS IP\",\"description\":\"Consultora Global especializada en Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"PONS IP\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg\",\"width\":166,\"height\":26,\"caption\":\"PONS IP\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"VPNs, Copyright and Geolocation: The CJEU Defines the Digital Boundary of The Diary of Anne Frank - PONS IP","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"VPNs, Copyright and Geolocation: The CJEU Defines the Digital Boundary of The Diary of Anne Frank - PONS IP","og_description":"In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (Case C-788\/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands concerning the scope of the concept of communication to the public where a protected work is made available online and access ... Read more","og_url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/","og_site_name":"PONS IP","article_modified_time":"2026-07-22T10:17:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":960,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AnneFrank.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/","name":"VPNs, Copyright and Geolocation: The CJEU Defines the Digital Boundary of The Diary of Anne Frank - PONS IP","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AnneFrank.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-22T10:17:24+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-22T10:17:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AnneFrank.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/AnneFrank.jpg","width":960,"height":600},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/vpns-copyright-and-geolocation-the-cjeu-defines-the-digital-boundary-of-the-diary-of-anne-frank\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Portada","item":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"IP Law","item":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/ip-litigations\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"VPNs, Copyright and Geolocation: The CJEU Defines the Digital Boundary of The Diary of Anne Frank"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/","name":"PONS IP","description":"Consultora Global especializada en Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization","name":"PONS IP","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg","width":166,"height":26,"caption":"PONS IP"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip-law\/26187","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip-law"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/ip-law"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26186"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"categorias-ip-litigations","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categorias-ip-litigations?post=26187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}