Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:270
Date: 2026-03-26
Language of the case: German

Summary C-579/24 – 1 
Case C-579/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
3 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
30 August 2024 
Appellants: 
Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-
musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH 
AKM eingetragene Genossenschaft mit beschränkter Haftung 
Respondent: 
Supervisory authority for collecting societies 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
In the main proceedings, two Austrian collecting societies (that is, companies 
which manage copyright interests on behalf of rightholders) have lodged an 
appeal against a decision of the Austrian supervisory authority for collecting 
societies. This is an administrative-law dispute decided at first instance by the 
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court). 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
This is a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of provisions of EU 
law. The request concerns the area of ‘intellectual, industrial and commercial 
property’. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-579/24 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
I. Is EU law, in particular Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Article 17(1) of 
Directive (EU) 2019/790 and Article 9 of the Berne Convention for the Protection 
of Literary and Artistic Works (Revised Berne Convention (RBC)), to be 
interpreted as meaning that an online content-sharing service provider pursuant to 
Article 2, point 6, of Directive (EU) 2019/790 which stores works and other 
subject matter uploaded by users, in addition to performing an act of 
communication to the public (or an act of making available to the public) within 
the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, also performs, or is to be 
regarded as also performing, an act of reproduction within the meaning of 
Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, and must obtain separate authorisation to do so 
from the rightholders referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC? 
II. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: 
Is EU law, in particular Article 17(1) and (2) and Article 1(2) and Article 2, 
point 6, of Directive (EU) 2019/790, to be interpreted as meaning that an 
authorisation to reproduce obtained by online content-sharing service providers 
within the meaning of Article 2, point 6, of Directive (EU) 2019/790 also covers 
acts of reproduction performed by, or to be regarded as being performed by, the 
users of such platforms, provided that those users are not acting on a commercial 
basis or their activity does not generate significant revenues?  
III. If the first question is answered in the negative: 
Is EU law, in particular Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Article 17(2) of 
Directive (EU) 2019/790, to be interpreted as meaning that users of services 
offered by online content-sharing service providers within the meaning of 
Article 6, point 2, of Directive (EU) 2019/790, in uploading copyright-protected 
works and subject matter for the purposes of storing and sharing them, perform 
acts of reproduction within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC and 
require authorisation to do so from the rightholders referred to in Article 2 of 
Directive 2001/29/EC? 
IV. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: 
AUSTRO-MECHANA AND AKM 
 
3 
Is EU law, in particular Article 4, Article 5 and Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 
2014/26/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that rightholders may grant the 
reproduction right under Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, on the one hand, and 
the right of communication to the public under Article 3 of the same directive, on 
the other hand, for the purposes of licensing under Article 17(1) and (2) of 
Directive (EU) 2019/790, individually and separately, too, to a collective 
management organisation (or an independent management entity), either in order 
to have those rights managed by different collective management organisations (or 
independent management entities) or in order to manage those rights individually 
in part? 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Paragraph 15 (‘Reproduction right’) of the Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht an 
Werken der Literatur und der Kunst und über verwandte Schutzrechte (Federal 
Law on copyright in literary and artistic works and related rights) (the Law on 
Copyright, ‘the UrhG’) provides, in subparagraphs 1 and 2: 
‘(1) The author shall have the exclusive right to reproduce the work, irrespective 
of the process used, the quantity reproduced and whether temporarily or 
permanently.  
(2) Reproduction shall consist, in particular and inter alia, in fixing the 
recitation or performance of a work on any device permitting repeated visual or 
sound reproduction (video or audio recording), such as, for example, on film or 
phonograms. 
Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Paragraph 17 (‘Broadcasting right’) read: 
‘(1) The author shall have the exclusive right to broadcast the work by radio, 
television or similar means. 
(2) Where a work is communicated to the public in Austria from a location 
inside or outside Austria in a manner similar to broadcasting but with the aid of 
cables, this shall be treated as broadcasting’.  
Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Paragraph 18 (‘Right of recitation, performance and 
presentation’) provide: 
‘(1) The author shall have the exclusive right to recite or perform publicly a 
work of language, to perform publicly a work of the kind referred to in 
Paragraph 2, point 2, a work of music or cinematography, and to present publicly 
a work of visual art by means of an optical device. 
(2) It shall be immaterial in this regard whether the work is recited or performed 
live or by means of video or audio recordings’. 
SUMMARY OF A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-579/24 
 
4  
Paragraph 18a (‘right to make available’) of the UrhG is worded as follows: 
‘(1) The author shall have the exclusive right to make the work available to the 
public, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may 
access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. 
(2) Where this Law uses the expression ‘making a work available to the public’, 
this shall be construed as referring only to the exploitation reserved for the author 
in accordance with subparagraph 1’. 
Paragraph 18c (‘Broadcasting and making available by providers of large online 
platforms’) of the UrhG provides: 
‘Subject to the conditions of Paragraph 17(1) and (2) and Paragraph 18a, a work is 
also broadcast or made available to the public by anyone who, as a provider of a 
large online platform, gives the public access to copyright-protected works 
uploaded by its users. Any such provider shall therefore obtain authorisation from 
the authors. A provider of a large online platform is an information society service 
provider (Paragraph 1, point 2, of the Notifikationsgesetz 1999 (Law on 
Notifications 1999) …), if it plays an important role on the market by competing 
with online content services, such as audio and video streaming services, for the 
same audiences and one of the main purposes of the service is to store and give 
the public access to a large amount of works uploaded by its users and the service 
is used to organise and promote that content so as thereby to make a profit. 
Providers of services such as not-for-profit online encyclopaedias, not-for-profit 
educational, artistic and scientific repositories, open source software-developing-
and sharing-platforms, providers of electronic communications services within the 
meaning of Paragraph 4, point 4, of the Telekommunikationsgesetz 2021 (Law on 
Telecommunications 2021) …, online marketplaces, business-to-business cloud 
services and cloud services that allow their users to upload content for their own 
use are not service providers within the meaning of this provision’. 
Paragraph 24a (‘Authorisation to use a work or right to use a work for the purpose 
of broadcasting it or making it available to the public pursuant to Paragraph 18c) 
of the UrhG reads: 
‘If the provider of a large online platform has been given an authorisation to use a 
work for the purpose of broadcasting it or making it available to the public 
pursuant to Paragraph 18c, or a right to use a work for that purpose has been 
granted or transferred to it, the users of that service shall also be permitted to 
broadcast the works concerned or make them available to the public via the online 
platform to the extent of the authorisation granted, provided that those users are 
not acting on a commercial basis or their activity does not generate significant 
revenues. An authorisation granted to the user also entitles the provider of the 
service to engage in authorised use’. 
Paragraph 2 (‘Definitions’) of the Bundesgesetz über Verwertungsgesellschaften 
(Federal Law on Collecting Societies) (‘the VerwGesG’) provides: 
AUSTRO-MECHANA AND AKM 
 
5 
‘For the purposes of this Federal Law, the following definitions apply: 
1. “collecting society” means an organisation which: 
(a) is exclusively or principally geared towards the collective management, in 
the interests of a number of rightholders, of rights in works or related rights on the 
basis of a statutory or contractual entitlement; and 
(b) is owned or controlled by rightholders or entities representing rightholders 
or is not for profit; 
…’ 
Paragraph 10 (‘Delimitation of management licences’) of the VerwGesG reads: 
‘If the scope of a management licence is unclear or in dispute, the supervisory 
authority shall, at the request of an interested party or of its own motion, decide on 
the scope thereof and publish that decision on its website’. 
Paragraph 23 (‘Obligation to manage’) of the VerwGesG provides: 
‘(1) Collecting societies shall conclude with rightholders, at their request and on 
reasonable and uniform terms, agreements for the management of the rights 
belonging to their field of activity (management agreements). 
(2) Collecting societies shall lay down in the terms of their management 
agreements rights or categories of rights relating to specific types of use, rights in 
specific types of works and other subject matter and territorial rights which a 
rightholder may choose to grant to the collecting society. In the establishment of 
those rights or categories of rights, a balance shall be struck between the 
rightholders’ freedom to dispose of their works or other subject matter and the 
ability of the collecting society to manage the rights effectively’. 
Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 24 (‘Management agreement’) of the VerwGesG 
provides: 
‘The rights or categories of rights which a rightholder grants to a collecting 
society and the nature of the works or subject matter in respect of which he or she 
grants rights shall be expressly stated in the management agreement. The grant of 
rights shall be documented’. 
Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 26 (‘Authorisations for non-commercial uses’) of 
the VerwGesG reads: 
‘Even after granting exclusive rights to the collecting society, the rightholder shall 
remain entitled, on the terms laid down in this regard by the collecting society, to 
allow others to use his or her works or subject matter on a non-commercial basis’. 
SUMMARY OF A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-579/24 
 
6  
Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 29 (‘Management of rights’) of the VerwGesG 
provides: 
‘Collecting societies shall effectively manage and utilise in the interests of 
rightholders but in their own name the rights which have been granted to the 
former by the latter under a management agreement. They shall do so in as cost-
efficient a manner as possible and ensure that there is a reasonably proportionate 
balance between the cost of capturing as completely as possible facts giving rise 
to claims, enforcing those claims and ensuring that distribution is effected as 
accurately as possible, on the one hand, and the benefit derived from doing so, on 
the other. They shall act in the best interests of the rightholders and may impose 
on the latter only obligations which are objectively necessary for the protection of 
their rights and interests or for the effective exercise of those rights’. 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and 
amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (OJ 2019 L 130, p. 92), Article 2, 
point 6, and Article 17(1) and (2) 
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 
2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the 
information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10), Articles 2 and 3 
Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and 
multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal 
market (OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72), Article 4, Article 5 and Article 16(1) and (2) 
Provisions of international law relied on 
1 Article 9 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic 
Works (Revised Berne Convention (RBC)) reads: 
2 ‘(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall 
have the exclusive right of authorising the reproduction of these works, in any 
manner or form. 
3 (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit 
the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such 
reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not 
unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. 
4 (3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the 
purposes of this Convention’. 
AUSTRO-MECHANA AND AKM 
 
7 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
5 The main proceedings are concerned in essence with the question of the extent to 
which any reproduction of copyright-protected works by providers of large online 
platforms and their users for the purposes of communicating them to the public is 
covered by the management licence granted to the first or second appellant. 
6 The first appellant, Austro-Mechana, is a collecting society entered in the Austrian 
commercial register. It has an official management licence and, as a collecting 
society within the meaning of Paragraph 2, point 1, of the VerwGesG, manages in 
the interests of a number of rightholders rights in works and related rights within 
the meaning of the UrhG. Austro-Mechana is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 
second appellant, AKM. 
7 The management licence granted to Austro-Mechana reads, in extract: 
8 ‘I. [Austro-Mechana] shall hold the licence to manage works of music and 
works of language associated with works of music … for the purposes of 
exercising or asserting rights of reproduction and distribution as well as 
corresponding claims to participation and/or remuneration. 
9 1. The management licence shall apply to cases of: 
10 (a) reproduction and/or distribution on video and/or audio recordings (storage 
media) pursuant to Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the UrhG; 
11 (b) reproduction and distribution on video and audio recordings (storage 
media) in connection with cinematographic works intended for broadcasting 
which a broadcaster or webcaster produces itself or has produced by another 
party; 
12 …’ 
13 The second appellant, AKM, is also a collecting society entered in the Austrian 
commercial register. Its management licence reads in extract: 
14 ‘I. [AKM] shall hold the licence to manage works of music and works of 
language associated with works of music … for the purposes of exercising or 
asserting performance, contract, broadcasting and making-available rights in 
recitations, concert performances and broadcasts as well as corresponding claims 
to participation and/or remuneration. 
15 1. The management licence shall apply to cases of: 
16 (a) broadcasting by radio, television or similar means pursuant to 
Paragraphs 17 to 17b of the UrhG; 
17 (b) concert performances of works of music and recitations of works of 
language associated with works of music, including performances and recitations 
SUMMARY OF A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-579/24 
 
8  
in connection with cinematographic works and/or motion pictures pursuant to 
Paragraph 18(1) of the UrhG. … 
18 (c) communication to the public by means of video and/or audio recordings 
(data carriers) as well as communication to the public by means of broadcasts 
pursuant to Paragraph 18(2) and (3) of the UrhG; 
19 (d) making available to the public pursuant to Paragraph 18a of the UrhG … 
20 …’ 
21 On 7 June 2022, Austro-Mechana applied to the supervisory authority for 
collecting societies (‘the supervisory authority’) for, inter alia, a declaration that 
its management licence covers reproduction for the purposes of broadcasting and 
making available to the public on large online platforms (Paragraph 18c of the 
UrhG. 
22 The supervisory authority adjudicated on that application by decision of 
30 January 2023, as follows: 
23 ‘1. The application for a declaration that the management licence currently 
held by Austro-Mechana covers the reproduction of works by its providers of 
large online platforms [within the meaning of] Paragraph 18c [of the UrhG] for 
the purposes of making those works available and broadcasting them is dismissed. 
24 2. It is hereby found ex officio that the management licence currently held 
AKM … also covers any reproduction of works by its providers of online 
platforms for the purposes of broadcasting those works and making them available 
to the public [within the meaning of] Paragraph 18c of the UrhG’. 
25 The grounds given by the supervisory authority for its decision included the 
following: 
26 ‘It is doubtful whether the reproduction right is concerned at all by the processes 
covered by Paragraph 18c of the UrhG. Militating against that assumption are, in 
particular, (i) the fact that both … Article 17 [of Directive 2019/790] and the 
national transposing provisions (in particular Paragraph 18c, Paragraph 24a and 
Paragraph 89a of the UrhG) deal exclusively with the [right of] communication to 
the public pursuant to Article 3 [of Directive 2001/29], which, in Austria, was 
transposed in the form of the right to broadcast (Paragraph 17 of the UrhG) and 
the right to make available (Paragraph 18a of the UrhG), and (ii) the statements 
made by the European Commission in its guidance on Article 17 [of Directive 
2019/790].  
27 Even if it is assumed that the … act of use provided for in Article 17 [of Directive 
2019/790] concerns the reproduction right, it can be concluded from the 
regulatory purpose of that provision only that an authorisation to broadcast works 
and/or make them available on large online platforms, as provided for in 
AUSTRO-MECHANA AND AKM 
 
9 
Paragraph 18c of the UrhG, necessarily also includes all the acts of reproduction 
technically required to be able to give the public access to the copyrighted works 
uploaded by platform users. 
28 The reproduction right cannot therefore be artificially separated from the act of 
broadcasting a work or making it available to the public – not, in any event, within 
the sphere of application of Paragraph 18c of the UrhG – and, consequently, 
cannot be licensed separately or transferred in isolation to a collecting society for 
collective management’. 
29 Both Austro-Mechana and AKM lodged an appeal against that decision before the 
referring court. They claim in essence that paragraph 2 of the contested decision 
should be annulled without substitution and that paragraph 1 should be amended 
in such a way as to grant Austro-Mechana’s application of 7 June 2022. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
First question (Does an act of ‘communication to the public’ by service 
providers also entail a ‘reproduction’?) 
30 The appellants consider the fundamental issue to be that Article 17(1) of Directive 
2019/790 and its transposition in Paragraph 18c of the UrhG expressly deal only 
with the right of communication to the public (or broadcasting within the meaning 
of Paragraph 17 of the UrhG or making available within the meaning of 
Paragraph 18a of the UrhG) and do not explicitly mention and regulate the 
reproductions generated as a result of uploading by users and storage by the 
platform operator (which are prerequisites for subsequent communication to the 
public). 
31 The view taken by the supervisory authority would lead to a ‘de facto abolition’ of 
the oldest right under copyright law, namely the reproduction right (‘copyright’), 
notwithstanding that no such abolition is provided for by a derogation permissible 
under international law and clearly expressed in EU law, an outcome which, 
moreover, would infringe the right to intellectual property provided for in 
Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
32 The Commission Communication on which the supervisory authority relies 
(‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council – Guidance on Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the 
Digital Single Market’ [COM(2021) 288 final], ‘the Commission guidance’) is 
only recommendatory and does not form part of the applicable body of EU law. 
The view taken by the Commission and, supporting it, the supervisory authority 
runs counter to the clear case-law of the Court of Justice on reproduction on 
online platforms. Thus, the Court of Justice has held, most recently in its judgment 
of 24 March 2022, Austro-Mechana (C-433/20, EU:C:2022:217), that the concept 
of ‘reproduction’ must be construed broadly; reference must also be made in this 
SUMMARY OF A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-579/24 
 
10  
connection to the judgments of 11 September 2014, Technische Universität 
Darmstadt (C-117/13, EU:C:2014:2196) and of 16 July 2009, Infopaq 
International (C-5/08, EU:C:2009:465). 
33 Moreover, it is the settled case-law of the Court of Justice (judgments of 26 April 
2012, DR und TV2 Danmark, C-510/10, EU:C:2012:244, and of 9 February 2012, 
Luksan, C-277/10, EU:C:2012:65) that the body of applicable EU law also 
comprises certain international copyright treaties, including, in particular, the 
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Revised 
Berne Convention (RBC)). The reason for this is that the European Union ratified 
the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) in 1996 (Council Decision 2000/278/EC of 
16 March 2000, OJ 2000 L 89, p. 6) and thus adopted the substantive provisions 
of Articles 1 to 21 of the RBC (Article 1(4) of the WCT). Since the Berne 
Convention, too, governs the reproduction right, in particular in Article 9 thereof, 
that provision must be expressly taken into account. 
34 The supervisory authority, on the other hand, substantiates its decision in the 
manner already described in paragraph [2]7 above. It refers in essence to the 
wording of Article 17 of Directive 2019/790, to the nature of that provision as a 
lex specialis and to the Commission’s guidance on that provision. It also argues 
that the case-law of the Court of Justice cited by the appellants is not relevant. In 
particular, the judgment of 24 March 2022, Austro-Mechana (C-433/20, 
EU:C:2022:217), concerns a completely different point of law from that at issue 
here. 
Second question (Does the authorisation to reproduce obtained by service 
providers also cover reproductions by users?) 
35 The appellants submit that, as a result of the technical error in Directive 2019/790, 
in that Article 17(1) thereof does not deal with the reproductions arising from 
uploading by users, it is unclear how such reproductions by users are to be treated 
from the point of view of copyright law. In their submission, the answer to that 
question can only be that the liability regime provided for in Article 17 of 
Directive of Directive 2019/790 is applicable to these acts of reproduction too, the 
inevitable consequence of this being that platform operators too must endeavour 
to obtain the reproduction right and that that right, once obtained, is also enjoyed 
by ‘uploading’ users, provided that they are not acting on a commercial basis or 
generating substantial revenues. 
Third question (If service providers do not perform acts of reproduction, do 
users of service providers do so and do they need authorisation to do so?) 
36 The appellants submit that, should the Court of Justice find that online platforms 
do not perform acts of reproduction which are relevant from the point of view of 
copyright law, in other words, should its answer be that large online platforms are 
not liable for reproductions on their servers and do not have to obtain 
authorisation for reproduction, the question would arise as to whether users are 
AUSTRO-MECHANA AND AKM 
 
11 
liable for such reproductions and whether those rights can be exercised by Austro-
Mechana. This question must, however, be confined to users that do not act on a 
commercial basis or generate substantial revenues, since the liability of the latter 
users is already unequivocally established in Article 17(2) of Directive 2019/790. 
Fourth question (May the reproduction right and the right of communication to 
the public be exercised separately?) 
37 The supervisory authority takes the view, in the light of Article 17 of Directive 
2019/790 and its transposition into national law, that the reproduction right cannot 
be exercised separately from the right to broadcast and the right of communication 
to the public. In this regard, the Commission states in its guidance on that 
provision: ‘The acts of communication to the public and making content available 
in Article 17(1) should be understood as also covering reproductions necessary to 
carry out these acts’. It must therefore be assumed that, in the context of 
Paragraph 18c of the UrhG, an authorisation to broadcast or communicate to the 
public necessarily carries with it also an authorisation to reproduce and the 
rightholder cannot license the act of reproduction separately. 
38 In this regard, it was necessary to make clear in the contested decision that, in the 
context of Paragraph 18c of the UrhG, AKM was further authorised to undertake 
the collective management of reproductions incidentally associated with 
broadcasting works and making them available to the public. If that authorisation 
had been granted to Austro-Mechana, this would necessarily have entailed the 
separate exercise of the right to broadcast or make available, on the one hand, and 
the reproduction right, on the other hand, which is incompatible with the purpose 
of that legislation for various reasons. 
39 In particular, it is necessary to protect the expectation of platform owners and 
uploaders that the authorisation to broadcast works and make them available to the 
public covers all necessary acts of use. The protection of that expectation is 
guaranteed only if there is no danger of their being sued for lack of authorisation 
to reproduce. 
40 Furthermore, there is no case-law of the Court of Justice that would support the 
view taken by the appellants. On the contrary, it would truer to say that its most 
recent rulings indicate that it distinguishes according to functionality and does not 
recognise any act of reproduction in the sharing of works by a user, including the 
associated storage processes (judgments of 24 March 2022, Austro-Mechana, 
C-433/20, EU:C:2022:217, paragraphs 31 and 32, and of 13 July 2023, Ocilion 
IPTV Technologies, C-426/21, EU:C:2023:564, paragraph 42). 
41 The appellants counter the foregoing with the argument that the supervisory 
authority relies heavily on the Commission’s guidance, which attempts to resolve 
the legislative shortcomings of Directive 2019/790 by dispensing with the 
reproduction right in connection with Article 17 of that directive. However, such 
guidance has no binding force, particularly since the Commission is an 
SUMMARY OF A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-579/24 
 
12  
administrative authority which, although enjoying the right of initiative to propose 
legislation, does not have any power of interpretation, which is instead reserved 
exclusively for the Court of Justice. 
42 The attempt by the supervisory authority to remove the inconsistencies in the 
directive with respect to the reproduction right by describing the reproduction 
right as ‘incidental’ is impermissible under EU law as laid down in particular in 
Directive 2001/29, since that directive clearly and unambiguously distinguishes 
the reproduction right from the right of communication to the public. 
43 In response to the supervisory authority’s argument that Article 17 of Directive 
2019/790 constitutes a special rule for online platforms, it is to be noted that a 
derogation from the acquis communautaire calls for a more recent provision of EU 
law which, however, cannot be inferred from Article 17(1) of that directive. On 
the contrary, Article 1(2) of that later directive expressly provides that earlier 
directives are to remain intact. It follows indubitably from this that Directive 
2019/790 does not amend the acquis communautaire but is intended only to adapt 
it in relation to certain uses, of which ‘merging’ different exploitation rights is not 
one. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
44 It is unclear whether (i) uploading by the users referred to in Article 17(2) of 
Directive 2019/790 and/or (ii) ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning 
of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29 by ‘online content-sharing service providers’ 
pursuant to Article 2, point 6, of Directive 2019/790 also give rise to a 
‘reproduction’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/2019 for which 
‘authorisation’ must be obtained from the rightholders referred to in Article 2 of 
Directive 2001/29. The need for an interpretation follows in particular from the 
fact that Article 17(1) of Directive 2019/790 does not mention ‘reproduction’. 
45 There is then the question as to who (user or service provider) must obtain the 
authorisation to reproduce that may be required: (i) if it is found that service 
providers do perform acts of reproduction, the first question is whether the 
authorisation obtained by the service provider in accordance with Article 17(2) of 
Directive 2019/790 also includes reproduction by the user in the course of 
uploading; (ii) were it to be found that service providers do not perform acts of 
reproduction, the next question would be whether the user requires separate 
authorisation for engaging in reproduction by uploading. 
46 Finally, a finding that service providers do perform acts of reproduction raises the 
question, in connection with exploitation rights, as to the extent to which 
rightholders may grant the reproduction right under Article 2 of Directive 
2001/29, on the one hand, and the right of communication to the public under 
Article 3 of the same directive, on the other hand, individually and separately, too, 
to different collective management organisations (or independent collecting 
societies), particularly given that, from an economic point of view, such cases 
AUSTRO-MECHANA AND AKM 
 
13 
might conceivably entail a single act of use for the performance of which both 
rights is necessarily required.