On 9 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) answered a key geo-blocking copyright question in Case C-788/24, Anne Frank Fonds: a work that is in the public domain in some Member States can be published online free of charge even if it is still protected in another, provided the website uses an effective geo-blocking measure. State-of-the-art geo-blocking counts as effective even if users can get round it with a VPN. The ruling matters to publishers, archives and platforms that distribute content across Europe and Latin America, where protection terms differ.
Key takeaways
- Copyright terms are national: the same work can be free to use in Belgium and protected in the Netherlands.
- Whoever knowingly publishes such a work online must restrict access to users in the countries where it is in the public domain.
- State-of-the-art geo-blocking is an effective measure, even though a VPN can circumvent it.
- If the geo-blocking is not effective, the person who put the work online is responsible, not the VPN provider.
What was the Anne Frank case about?
According to the CJEU press release No 98/26 of 9 July 2026, copyright in Anne Frank’s writings is held by the Anne Frank Fonds, set up by her father in 1963. In the Netherlands, parts of those works are protected until 2037, while in many other countries, including Belgium, they are already in the public domain.
In September 2021, the Anne Frank Stichting and other bodies published a free scholarly edition of the manuscripts online, in Dutch. Access was geo-blocked for countries where the manuscripts are still protected. The Fonds sued to stop the publication, and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands asked the CJEU whether making the works available is a “communication to the public” under Directive 2001/29/EC (the InfoSoc Directive) if Dutch users can get round the block with a VPN (virtual private network) or similar service.
What did the CJEU decide on geo-blocking and copyright?
The Court recalled that a communication to the public requires two cumulative elements: an act of communication of a work and its communication to a public. It then set out four points:
- A person who knows a work is protected only in certain Member States, and who publishes it free of charge for the first time on a website, must make it accessible only to users who can reach the site from countries where it is in the public domain.
- Otherwise, that person infringes the rights holder’s exclusive right to authorise or prohibit communication to the public.
- State-of-the-art geo-blocking is an effective technological measure: it keeps free access where the work is in the public domain and protects the rights holder where it is not, even if a VPN can circumvent it.
- If the geo-blocking is not effective, responsibility for the communication lies with whoever put the work online, not with the VPN provider.
The CJEU interprets EU law but does not decide the dispute. The Dutch court must now apply the ruling, and courts across the EU must follow the same interpretation in similar cases.
Why protection terms differ between countries
The Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 50 years after the author’s death and makes protection in each country independent of protection in the country of origin, according to WIPO’s summary of the Convention. Each state can go further, and transitional rules keep older terms alive. Some examples from the corridor:
| Jurisdiction | General term for authors’ economic rights | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Berne minimum | Life plus 50 years | Berne Convention, WIPO summary |
| Spain | Life plus 70 years; authors who died before 7 December 1987 keep the term of the 1879 Act | Spanish Intellectual Property Act, art. 26 and fourth transitional provision |
| Mexico | Life plus 100 years | Federal Copyright Law, art. 29 |
| Netherlands (Anne Frank’s works) | Parts protected until 2037 | CJEU press release 98/26 |
In practice, a text that a Spanish or Belgian publisher treats as free may still be protected in Mexico for decades. The CJEU ruling solves the problem inside the EU; outside it, each country’s law decides whether geo-blocking is enough.
What this means for your business
- Map the status of each work country by country before publishing, including translations and editions, which may carry their own rights.
- Use state-of-the-art geo-blocking where the work is still protected, and keep records of the tool, its configuration and updates.
- Review the measure periodically: what is state of the art today may not be tomorrow.
- Do not encourage users to bypass the block, and keep your messaging consistent with the restriction.
- For Latin American audiences, check local terms such as Mexico’s life plus 100 years before assuming a European public domain status applies.
If you publish or license content across Europe and Latin America, our copyright clearance and digital works service can map protection terms and set the access rules before launch.
Where companies get geo-blocking wrong
- Assuming public domain is global. It is not; terms and transitional rules vary by country.
- Using weak measures. Our recommendation is a technical, IP-based block maintained to current standards, not a simple notice or a country selector.
- Counting on VPN providers to share the blame. If the block is not effective, the publisher carries the risk.
- Treating the ruling as global. It binds EU courts; Mexican, Colombian or Brazilian courts will apply their own law.
When a rights holder objects, the response must be coordinated across jurisdictions; our IP disputes and licensing team handles that step.
Frequently asked questions
Can I publish online a work that is public domain in one EU country but protected in another?
Yes, according to the CJEU ruling of 9 July 2026 in Case C-788/24, provided your website incorporates an effective geo-blocking measure that blocks users visiting from the Member States where the work is still protected. State-of-the-art geo-blocking is considered effective for this purpose.
Am I liable if users bypass my geo-blocking with a VPN?
Not merely because circumvention is possible. The Court held that state-of-the-art geo-blocking remains effective even if a VPN can get round it. If your measure is not effective, however, responsibility for the communication to the public lies with you as the person who put the work online, not with the VPN provider.
Does the ruling apply to Latin America?
No. The CJEU interprets EU law, which binds courts in EU Member States. In Mexico, for example, authors’ economic rights last for the author’s life plus 100 years, and whether geo-blocking is enough is a question of Mexican law. Cross-border projects need a country-by-country analysis.
Can IP Global Guard review our cross-border publication plan?
Yes. We map the protection status of each work in your target markets, design the access and licensing strategy and coordinate qualified local correspondents in Latin America and Africa, all from a single point of contact alongside your European advice.
How IP Global Guard can help you publish across borders
IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, coordinates copyright clearance, licensing and enforcement across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa with one strategy; see our jurisdictions across the corridor.
Send us the list of works and the markets you want to reach. We will map their status, recommend the access rules and coordinate any licences you need. Talk to our copyright team.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the position on its publication date.
Sources
- CJEU, Press release No 98/26, Judgment in Case C-788/24 Anne Frank Fonds (9 July 2026)
- WIPO, Summary of the Berne Convention
- BOE, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, Spanish Intellectual Property Act (consolidated text)
- Chamber of Deputies of Mexico, Federal Copyright Law (consolidated text, last amended 14 May 2026)
