Press review under fire: Online magazine sues licensing giant PMG – is copyright law now entering the next round online?

Free in the press review—but behind the paywall?

For many, it is an integral part of their morning routine: the press review. Whether in government agencies, corporations, or law firms—current articles from relevant media outlets, neatly compiled and digitally formatted. It sounds practical, but when it comes to copyright law, it is anything but straightforward.

Anyone who reprints an article in whole or in large part in a press review actually needs a license—or at least a legal exemption. That's where the problem lies. The digital trade magazine Medieninsider is suing PMG Presse-Monitor, which produces these press reviews for many companies and is alleged to have used articles from Medieninsider without a license, without consent, and without proper payment.

Section 49 UrhG: Old law meets new media reality

At the heart of the dispute is Section 49 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG), the so-called "press review privilege." Under certain conditions, it allows the use of articles without a license if they deal with political, economic, or religious issues. The use is then subject to remuneration—but not to approval. The remuneration is usually paid by a collecting society, such as VG Wort.

However, media insiders consider the model outdated. Their articles are not freely accessible, but behind a paywall. Only those who pay can read them—a clear reservation of rights, they say. Furthermore, as a purely online medium, they are not covered by the wording of the law, which explicitly refers to "newspapers and information sheets"—i.e., more traditional print formats.

In addition, Medieninsider does not report on individual events on a daily basis, but rather analyzes structural developments in the media world. This is another reason why, according to the argument, its use in the press review is not covered by Section 49 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG).

Multi-stage lawsuit: first information, then money

The lawsuit, filed with the Berlin II Regional Court, has a clear plan: First, Medieninsider wants information about who exactly used its content—based on Section 101 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG). Next, it wants to examine whether there are any licensing claims against these companies. And finally, it wants PMG to pay for the use to date and to pay damages because it failed to fulfill its duty of care.

Particularly controversial: media insiders accuse PMG of knowingly operating a system that systematically infringes rights because it relies on a legal norm that is simply no longer appropriate for many modern online media. The remuneration model is said to be "outdated" and favors users rather than rights holders.

Dispute over money – and over principle

How much does an article like this actually cost? While Medieninsider offers subscription models for companies at prices ranging from €900 to €9,000 per year, PMG claims to have sold articles for as little as €1. The economic imbalance is obvious—and could explain why online media outlets are no longer interested in using press reviews, for which they see hardly any return.

The decisive factor now will be whether Section 49 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) actually applies to online media—or not. According to the Federal Court of Justice, the distribution of digital press reviews is permitted, but whether digital content falls under the scope of protection has not yet been clarified by the highest court.

Comment: Those who read must pay—even in the age of press reviews

What began as a clever information service for businesses could turn out to be a legal own goal. PMG is symbolic of a system that worked for many years—until the media world changed. Paywalls, digital memberships, and exclusive content are now the backbone of many online services. Simply squeezing this content into press reviews without fair licensing models is, at best, cherry-picking and, at worst, a breach of the law.

The lawsuit filed by Medieninsider rightly raises the question: Whose interests does Section 49 of the German Copyright Act actually protect—those of readers or those of authors? And more importantly, does a law from the print era still have validity in the digital age if it ultimately disadvantages precisely those media outlets that want to work innovatively and independently?

One thing is clear: this dispute is more than just a licensing dispute—it is a litmus test for copyright law in the 21st century.

Source: lto.de