Imagine the situation: a book has already entered the public domain in one EU country, but its copyright is still active in a neighboring one. You upload its text to a website in digital form and set a geographical restriction (geoblocking) so that residents of the neighboring country cannot access it… but you leave a simple prompt: “Confirm that you are not in the Netherlands.”

Is this considered copyright infringement in the Netherlands if users easily bypass such “blocking” or access the site via a VPN?

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a landmark ruling in the Anne Frank case (C-788/24), which goes far beyond the history of the famous diary. It will directly impact how the internet, VPN services, and the training of artificial intelligence models function in Europe.

The Essence of the Dispute: Where Does the Right to the Diary End?

Copyright protection terms in Europe can vary depending on legal nuances. “The Diary of Anne Frank” has already entered the public domain in Belgium (meaning it can be freely published), while in the Netherlands, certain parts of it are still protected by copyright law.

A Belgian organization published the text online, placing formal restrictions on users from the Netherlands. However, Dutch rightsholders went to court. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands stayed the proceedings and referred the case to the CJEU with two main questions:

1. Is such publication considered a “communication to the public” in the Netherlands if the geoblock is easily bypassed?

2. If this is an infringement, who is at fault—the website owner or the VPN services that help users bypass the block?

Three CJEU Conclusions That Will Change the Digital Industry

1. Formal “Checkbox” Blocking No Longer Protects Against Lawsuits

The CJEU stated: if you want to restrict access to content for a specific country, your geoblocking must be technically effective. A simple pop-up asking “Confirm that you are not from the Netherlands” or a basic language switcher is not sufficient protection. If a website owner used a porous or purely formal access restriction system, they alone will be liable for copyright infringement in the country from which users were able to access the site.

2. VPN Providers Bear No Direct Liability

The Court clearly distinguished between content creators and tool providers: VPN services do not perform a “communication to the public.” A VPN is a legal technical tool. The mere fact that a user used a VPN to bypass a weak geoblock and read the diary does not make the VPN company a direct copyright infringer. It merely provides the “technical facility,” which is protected under EU law.

3. Availability Matters Most, Not Targeting

Previously in European law, much attention was paid to whether a website “targeted” a specific audience (for example, whether it was written in Dutch or accepted the local currency). In this case, the CJEU shifted the focus: if content is actually accessible in a country due to a poor-quality geoblock, an infringement already exists, regardless of whether the website attempted to attract those specific users.

Why Is This Ruling Critically Important for AI and Web Scraping?

Although the case concerned a book, the legal community immediately saw its direct connection to artificial intelligence development and the EU AI Act:

• Opt-out mechanisms for text and data mining: Under EU directives, rightsholders can prohibit AI developers from using their websites to train models (data collection / web scraping). The ruling in the Anne Frank case demonstrates that for such a prohibition to have legal force, rightsholders must implement effective technical barriers, rather than simply stating “downloading prohibited” in the website’s terms of service.

• Geofencing for AI models: AI developers attempting to restrict access to their models in certain EU countries due to regulatory risks are now forced to implement much stricter geoblocking tools, as simple IP checks will no longer protect them from the jurisdiction of local courts.

Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.