Article 17 of the DSM Directive makes platforms that host large amounts of user uploads directly responsible for the copyright works on their service. They must obtain a licence from rightholders or, failing that, prove they made best efforts to get one, to keep notified works off the platform and to remove infringing uploads quickly. For creators, publishers and brands, it is a lever to license or remove content; for platforms, it is a compliance regime that the EU review starting in 2026 will revisit.
Key takeaways
- Under Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790, an online content-sharing service provider itself communicates works to the public when users upload them, so it needs authorisation from rightholders.
- Without a licence, it is liable unless it proves three cumulative best efforts conditions: seeking a licence, preventing availability of works identified by rightholders, and notice and takedown with stay-down.
- Services under three years old with turnover below EUR 10 million benefit from lighter conditions.
- Users keep quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche; the CJEU upheld the article in 2022 because of these safeguards.
- The Commission’s review of the Directive could start no sooner than 7 June 2026; its call for evidence points to Q1 2027.
What does Article 17 of the DSM Directive say?
The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive, Directive (EU) 2019/790) was adopted on 17 April 2019, with a transposition deadline of 7 June 2021 (Article 29). Article 17 changes who is responsible when users upload protected content:
- The platform performs an act of communication to the public when it gives access to works uploaded by users, so it must obtain authorisation, for instance through a licence (Article 17(1)).
- That licence also covers users who do not act commercially or whose activity does not generate significant revenue (Article 17(2)).
- The hosting safe harbour of the e-Commerce Directive (Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC) does not apply to these situations (Article 17(3)).
- Application of the article must not lead to a general monitoring obligation (Article 17(8)).
In Spain, Article 17 was transposed by Article 73 of Royal Decree-law 24/2021 (BOE, 3 November 2021), which also excludes the hosting liability limitation of the Spanish e-commerce law (Law 34/2002) for these acts.
Which platforms are covered?
Article 2(6) defines an online content-sharing service provider as an information society service whose main purpose, or one of whose main purposes, is to store and give the public access to a large amount of protected works uploaded by its users, which it organises and promotes for profit.
The same provision expressly excludes not-for-profit online encyclopedias, not-for-profit educational and scientific repositories, open source software development and sharing platforms, electronic communications services, online marketplaces, business-to-business cloud services and cloud services for users’ own storage.
Smaller and newer services face a lighter regime under Article 17(6):
| Type of service | Conditions to avoid liability without a licence |
|---|---|
| Standard platform | Best efforts to obtain a licence; best efforts, under high industry standards of professional diligence, to prevent availability of works for which rightholders gave relevant and necessary information; expeditious takedown on notice plus best efforts to prevent future uploads |
| Available in the EU for less than three years and annual turnover below EUR 10 million | Best efforts to obtain a licence and expeditious takedown on a sufficiently substantiated notice |
| Same, but more than 5 million average monthly unique visitors in the previous calendar year | The above, plus best efforts to prevent further uploads of notified works |
What do the best efforts conditions require in practice?
Article 17(4) sets three cumulative conditions, and Article 17(5) requires them to be assessed proportionately, taking into account the type, audience and size of the service, the type of works uploaded and the availability and cost of suitable means. The Commission’s guidance on Article 17 (COM(2021) 288, 4 June 2021) adds practical detail:
- Seeking a licence: as a minimum, the platform should engage proactively with rightholders that can be easily identified and located, and contacting collective management organisations is treated as a minimum requirement for every platform.
- Preventing availability: the obligation only arises for specific works for which rightholders have supplied relevant and necessary information. Larger services with significant audiences can be expected to use more advanced tools than smaller ones.
- Blocking at upload: where a file matches rightholder information, automated blocking should in principle be limited to manifestly infringing uploads. Other uploads should go online and can be reviewed by a person if the rightholder objects.
The burden of proof is on the platform, which needs records of each step.
What protections do users keep?
Article 17(7) states that cooperation between platforms and rightholders must not prevent the availability of lawful uploads, and obliges Member States to guarantee that users can rely on quotation, criticism and review, and on caricature, parody and pastiche. Article 17(9) requires an effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism, with human review of removal decisions, access to out-of-court dispute resolution and to the courts. Platforms must inform users of these exceptions in their terms and conditions.
Poland asked the Court of Justice to annul parts of Article 17. In Poland v Parliament and Council (C-401/19, 26 April 2022), the Grand Chamber dismissed the action. It accepted that the article in practice requires automatic recognition and filtering tools, but found that the legislature had attached appropriate safeguards. A key holding: platforms cannot be required to prevent uploads whose unlawfulness would require an independent assessment of the content in the light of the rightholder’s information and of copyright exceptions.
How can rightholders use Article 17 to license or remove content?
For publishers, producers, photographers or brands, Article 17 opens several routes:
- License and monetise. The platform has a legal reason to negotiate, and the licence also covers non-commercial users. In Spain, Article 73 of Royal Decree-law 24/2021 requires those negotiations to follow good faith, due diligence, transparency and free competition.
- Identify and protect. Supplying platforms with reference files and metadata for specific works triggers the obligation to prevent their availability.
- Notify and remove. A sufficiently substantiated notice obliges the platform to act expeditiously and, outside the lightest regime, to prevent re-uploads. Under Article 17(9), rightholders must justify removal requests.
- Ask for information. Platforms must explain, at the rightholder’s request, how their cooperation practices work and, where there is a licence, how the licensed content is used (Article 17(8)).
Article 17 and the 2026-2027 review
Article 30 requires the Commission to review the Directive no sooner than 7 June 2026. On 13 May 2026 it published a call for evidence (Ares(2026)4845636) combining the review report with a possible targeted legislative proposal, with indicative planning for Q1 2027. The document highlights generative AI and live-event piracy. It does not announce changes to Article 17, so the current regime is the one to comply with and use.
What this means for your business
- If you own content: build a register of your key works with reference files, and decide per platform whether you want to license, monetise or block.
- If you run a platform: check whether you fall under Article 2(6), document licence requests, and set up a complaint mechanism with human review.
- If you are a brand reusing user content: Article 17 protects uploads under the exceptions, but a brand campaign rarely qualifies as parody or quotation; clear the rights.
- If you operate across the EU and Latin America: Article 17 is an EU rule; outside the EU, platform liability depends on each country’s law, so platform strategies must be set market by market.
Our copyright protection and digital content licensing team can map which platforms carry your works and which route fits each one.
Where rightholders and platforms get Article 17 wrong
- Sending vague notices. A notice that does not identify the work and the infringing upload precisely may not trigger the obligation to act.
- Assuming the platform must find infringements alone. Prevention only applies to works for which rightholders supplied relevant and necessary information.
- Over-blocking. Removal requests that ignore parody, quotation or review expose rightholders to complaints and platforms to breach of Article 17(7).
- Treating every service as covered. Marketplaces and business cloud services are excluded and need different strategies.
- Missing the contractual layer. Licences with platforms are negotiated documents; scope, reporting and territory clauses determine what you actually earn.
When disputes escalate, our IP licensing and enforcement team handles negotiations and, where needed, coordinates proceedings.
Frequently asked questions
Does Article 17 require upload filters?
The text does not mention filters, but the Court of Justice acknowledged in C-401/19 that the best efforts obligation in practice requires automatic recognition tools for many services. It also held that such tools must not block lawful content and cannot be required where judging illegality needs an independent assessment of the upload.
Is my company’s platform an online content-sharing service provider?
Only if one of its main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of protected works uploaded by users, organised and promoted for profit. Online marketplaces, business-to-business cloud services, personal storage clouds, open source repositories and not-for-profit encyclopedias are expressly excluded by Article 2(6).
Can I get my content removed from a platform under Article 17?
Yes. A sufficiently substantiated notice obliges the platform to act expeditiously, and most platforms must also make best efforts to prevent re-uploads. Supplying reference files in advance strengthens your position. Removal requests must be justified, and uploads covered by quotation, parody or pastiche can be reinstated.
Can IP Global Guard negotiate licences or takedowns with platforms for us?
Yes. We audit where your content appears, prepare notices and reference data, negotiate licence terms with platforms and handle disputes over removals. Where your catalogue is also exploited in Latin America or Africa, we coordinate qualified local correspondents under the rules of each country, from a single point of contact.
How IP Global Guard can help you use Article 17
Article 17 rewards rightholders who are organised: clear ownership, identified works and a decision on whether to license or remove. IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, handles copyright licensing, platform takedowns and disputes with one strategy across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa. Where AI or data protection issues arise, the META Channel group covers the AI Act and the GDPR in-house.
Send us the list of works that matter most and the platforms where they appear. We will propose a licensing and enforcement plan for each one. Talk to our copyright team.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and does not replace an assessment of your specific situation.
Sources
- EUR-Lex, Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (17 April 2019)
- CJEU, Judgment in Case C-401/19, Poland v Parliament and Council (26 April 2022)
- European Commission, Guidance on Article 17 of Directive 2019/790, COM(2021) 288 (4 June 2021)
- BOE, Royal Decree-law 24/2021, Article 73 (3 November 2021)
- European Commission, Call for evidence on the review of the CDSM Directive, Ares(2026)4845636 (13 May 2026)
