Search engines use news content. Publishers create it. And for that, publishers should get paid. But what counts as “fair payment”? This is a question that courts are still figuring out – and which big tech companies are fighting. Behind-the-scenes deals keep everything murky, so as a smaller alternative search engine, we’re negotiating in the dark.
Which is why we’re taking a different approach. We’re publishing our licensing agreement, to showcase a transparent model that we think is fair, and to challenge the industry to do better.
Why is this important?
In Europe, search engines are legally required to pay publishers when we use their content. This is called the press publisher’s right, and it’s designed to support journalism, which is a cornerstone of democracy.
Germany (like most EU countries) has this law in place. But what counts as “appropriate payment” is still unclear. There are no standard rates or agreed metrics, just a lot of legal battles and opaque deals that leave smaller players like us guessing.
Meanwhile big search engines in the industry drag publishers through years of years of court fights, trying to pay as little as possible, or nothing at all.
We benefit from news – publishers should benefit as well
Journalism shapes democratic debate. We share that work in our search results, so we think it’s only right that the people creating it are compensated fairly. Plus, we want to see more transparency in this industry. We don’t want opaque negotiations or hidden power dynamics. A fair system can only emerge if it is visible.
We’ve developed a licensing agreement that is unified, fair, and predictable. Here’s how it works:
- The license fee is based on national search engine revenues
- A Tiered global revenue factor accounts for economies of scale
- This amount is distributed according to publisher market shares, which we determine uniformly via click-through rates or page impressions.
To make this work fairly, we need publishers to meet a few requirements:
- Prove they hold press publisher’s rights under EU law
- Be based in the EU/EEA
- Show which rights they hold and that Ecosia actually uses them
- Share measurable data (like IVW online usage stats) so we can calculate their market share
Why we’re publishing our licensing agreement
We believe the press publisher’s right only works if deals are visible. Opaque, one-off agreements between big tech and big publishers don’t help anyone, especially smaller organizations trying to do the right thing. They only perpetuate power imbalances.
Our template agreement provides transparency through clear definitions and calculations for parameters, applicability to all publishers and no confidentiality clauses. By publishing the agreement, we’re creating a starting point that courts, publishers, and other search engines can reference, while the market figures out what “appropriate payment” actually means.
We’re sending a political signal: A search engine can behave lawfully and in support of democracy – and stand by that publicly. This strengthens the industry, the press, and democratic discourse.
This is our call to the industry:
To publishers: Let's work together transparently. Fair payment for real usage.
To platforms: No more hiding deals. Publish your terms and let’s work together to build a system that works for everyone, not just the biggest players.
So what happens next? We'll keep this agreement open and adjust it as courts establish clearer standards. This is not final, nor perfect. It’s fair, transparent, and a lot better than backroom deals.
Quality journalism is essential for democracy. We want to fund it sustainably – and we want everyone to see how we're doing it.
