Digital distribution dramatically expanded reach for creators and publishers, but it also restructured who controls value. Visibility, pricing, audience data, and monetization now sit largely inside platform ecosystems that the creators of content do not own. As a result, growth in access has coincided with declining bargaining power. Publishers reach more people than ever, yet depend on intermediaries that set the terms, capture a disproportionate share of revenue, and restrict direct audience relationships. 

This structural shift sits at the center of today’s sustainability debate across media and culture. And it is important to recognize that copyright remains an economic issue not just a legacy legal one. As platforms centralize distribution and monetization, copyright is one of the few mechanisms that still anchors creator claims to value inside digital markets. Without it, bargaining power erodes further—not because creators fail to innovate, but because market design favors intermediaries over originators. 

Axel Springer’s new research-based assessment, Cultural Funding and Financing, examines this imbalance across traditional and digital markets. Rather than treating copyright as a purely legal safeguard, the analysis positions it within broader systems of value creation and capture. It shows how revenue flows, incentives, and negotiating power have shifted as culture has moved online. The findings clarify why access alone is insufficient, and why sustainable digital markets depend on mechanisms that reconnect scale with compensation. 

Copyright as an economic tool 

Digitalization lowers distribution costs and removes many physical barriers to entry. Creators reach global audiences faster and with fewer upfront investments. At the same time, platforms concentrate decision making around visibility, pricing, and revenue sharing. Creators gain reach but lose leverage. 

Most creators and publishers must accept standardized terms to participate in platform ecosystems. Algorithms shape discovery and prioritize engagement metrics. Data access remains limited. Revenue flows follow platform incentives rather than creator value. This pattern reflects market structure, not individual performance or strategy. 

Public debate often frames copyright as a legal or moral issue. However, this research treats copyright instead as an economic instrument that shapes incentives, bargaining power, and market outcomes. Copyright systems exist to encourage creation while preserving public access to knowledge and culture. 

Digital markets complicate that balance. Reproduction costs approach zero. Content circulates instantly across borders. Platforms mediate nearly every use of creative work. Even so, copyright remains one of the few tools that anchors creator claims within digital markets. Without it, bargaining power erodes further. 

Platform power and value capture 

The research places integrated platforms at the center of the digitalization paradox. These platforms combine content distribution, discovery, advertising, data collection, and payment functions within a single ecosystem. Social, search, and aggregation platforms increasingly act as gatekeepers between creators and audiences, shaping how content circulates and how revenue flows. 

For premium content companies, platform power shapes how value moves through the market. Referral traffic, subscription conversion, licensing opportunities, and brand visibility depend on external rules. Copyright operates inside those constraints, not outside them. Strong rights matter, but market structure determines how those rights function in practice. 

Open access delivers clear public benefits. Audiences gain convenience, choice, and scale. Yet access without compensation undermines long-term production. Journalism and cultural work require sustained investment, not one-time distribution gains. The research highlights this trade off directly. Sustainable digital markets require mechanisms that reward creation while preserving access. That balance sits at the center of policy debates around copyright, competition, and platform regulation. Each choice reshapes incentives across the ecosystem. 

Publishers operate inside this paradox every day. Digital publishing depends on platforms for reach and discovery. It also depends on reliable revenue to support original reporting and production. Understanding value capture clarifies why audience growth alone does not ensure sustainability. It also explains why licensing, attribution, and usage terms remain core business concerns. Copyright debates connect directly to publisher strategy, not just legal theory. 

Markets evolve within policy frameworks. Regulation influences bargaining power, revenue distribution, and long-term viability. The research avoids simple solutions and instead maps tradeoffs between openness, incentives, and sustainability. Copyright reform represents one lever among many. Its impact depends on enforcement, market design, and complementary competition policy. For publishers and creators, these choices determine whether digital markets reward creation or merely distribute it. 

The future of digital copyright

Digitalization does not inherently require dependence on intermediaries. Yet under current market structures, distribution, monetization, and data have become increasingly concentrated within platforms. That concentration shapes bargaining dynamics, revenue flows, and the ability of creators and publishers to translate reach into sustainable economics.  

Copyright alone cannot resolve these imbalances, but it remains a necessary economic foundation. Without enforceable rights, creators have fewer mechanisms to assert value in markets where platforms coordinate access, pricing, and usage at scale. Sustainable digital markets therefore depend on how copyright operates alongside competition policy and platform governance and on whether these systems preserve incentives for continued investment in original work.