What changed

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

P10_TA(2026)0066

on copyrightCopyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges

(2025/2058(INI))

Committee on Legal Affairs

PE775.433

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2026 on copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges (2025/2058(INI))

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Articles 4, 16, 26, 114, 118 and 179 thereof,

B. whereas the EU faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence (AI); whereas at the AI Action Summit in February 2025 in Paris, the Commission announced the AI Continent Action Plan, with the objective of making Europe a world leader in AI; whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of GenAI technologies and services in the public interest within the EU in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, multi-linguistic culture, and capacity for innovation while staying true to its values and ensuring that technological development supports sustainable economic growth, competitiveness and innovation while facilitating broad access to AI technologies across the EU; whereas maintaining competitiveness in the race to improve GenAI also requires access to high-quality content, underlining the importance of a fairly remunerated creative sector as a source of high-quality AI training data;

C. whereas the creative and cultural sector plays a key role in safeguarding European values and cultural diversity, representing approximately 4 % of EU value added and 6.96,9 % of the EU’s gross domestic product; whereas the sector employs around 8 million people, underpinning Europe’s cultural diversity, social cohesion, values and democratic dialogue;

D. whereas the Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade established the objective of ensuring a just, safe and secure digital environment, where everyone, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), should have the possibility to compete fairly and in an innovative way; whereas this entails measures to promote the traceability, safety and compliance of products and services offered on the digital single market; whereas the signatories commit to promoting human-centric, trustworthy and ethical AI systems, used in a transparent way and in line with EU values; whereas the declaration insists that the digital transformation should contribute to a fair and inclusive society and economy, and to promoting cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as to open technologies and standards, as a way to further strengthen trust in technology and consumers’ ability to make autonomous and informed choices;

17. Furthermore recommends that such an assessment be aimed at upholding a framework in which transparency is ensured regarding the use of copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter and in which fair and proportionate remuneration mechanisms for such use enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of an AI-driven global transformation and for the sustainability of the public information ecosystem; stresses the urgency of ensuring these conditions in order to avoid the growing risk of human creativity gradually disappearing in favour of content generated by AI systems;

18. Notes the use of GenAI systems that rely massively on protected content, reproducing it without authorisation from, or compensation for, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that infringes upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained, or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly and unfairly compete with those of the rights holders, including through illegal self-preferencing of gatekeepers.gatekeepers;

19. Recalls that voluntary licensing, whether individual or collective, underpins the success of the creative sectors by ensuring the flexibility to choose the most suitable model for each use, while stressing that rights holders must remain free to determine whether to license their works to generative AI systems and to set the corresponding remuneration, so as to safeguard sectoral diversity and prevent market distortions that could undermine the viability of the creative industries and the European press;

29. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

With the ever-advancing digital and technological development, notably as regards AI and the so-called Generative Large Language Models, some rights such as copyright, the right to privacy and the right to non-discrimination are being devalued as it is becoming extremely difficult to enforce them without an enormous legal and financial risk to the rights holders.

This creates huge legal uncertainties for all parties involved. However, if the European legislator, through its lengthy procedures and a lack of courage, continues to refuse to tackle the crucial issues head on, the EU and its actors will always be left at a disadvantage and further dependencies will be created.

Therefore, the principle that must apply is that technological developments must respect existing laws while, on the other hand, existing laws must not hinder technological developments. This urgently calls for workable solutions, which are currently not being provided by market participants on either side, with technological developments colliding with copyright, such that they appear no longer compatible with each other. It is likely that perfect, comprehensive solutions will no longer be possible.

For this reason, the European legislator needs to strike a fair balance between the interests of all stakeholders at the earliest opportunity. It would also be desirable to find a permanent workable solution to avoid having to protect copyright claims against new technologies every five or six years. A ‘General Copyright Protection Regulation’, akin to the General Data Protection Regulation, could be helpful in this regard. The AI liability proposal ought to have provided procedurally swifter solutions. However, owing to a lack of strategic long-term vision on the part of various actors, this is now to be withdrawn (this being probably legally dubious) so that legal uncertainty will persist.

This report therefore is an attempt to bring a workable balance between new technology and copyright closer. This will require a combination of legal, technical and technological solutions.

The political context for the EU is not easy because:

1) in geopolitical terms, guiding values are diverging in the ‘West’;

2) European AI development is severely lagging behind and needs to be promoted without additional ‘obstacles’;

3) the current added value in digital development is being generated by large tech companies in the US, to the detriment of the European creative sector.

This report therefore also aims to support and promote the development of AI in Europe. After all, Europe needs AI to drive the digitalisation that is essential in our globalised world. The opportunities for European progress are immense and must under no circumstances be left untapped. However, we also want AI systems in Europe that meet certain requirements as regards quality and trustworthiness, and this can only be achieved with quality data belonging to content creators.

At the same time, we also want to preserve copyright protection for the works of our creative sectors and cultural professionals. European culture constitutes a fundamental part of our identity. European added value in the creative sectors is immense and it should not be possible to use it without compensation. This novel use of protected content (training data, data used for generative output) must therefore be remunerated. Only thus can European cultural professionals create the economic basis for the generation of further content.

In this context, the copyright-related rights relating to the content of press publishers play an additional special role for our European understanding of democracy and the rule of law. Freedom of the press, freedom of opinion and freedom of information must under no circumstances be undermined or subjugated by artificial intelligence, in particular where, as is currently the case, digital access and digital ‘distribution’ of information are increasingly taking place through search engines and AI and, in the case of generative AI, are also influenced by bots, all this being in the hands of a few companies. The control of information and disinformation, whether bot-driven or not, as well as deepfakes and the resulting interference in elections or influencing of public opinion, is extremely dangerous. Plurality and diversification of opinion in this context must therefore be guaranteed in the form of an independent press. This means that the processing of content in an automated and generative manner must trigger a commensurate compensation. However, it is also important for press publishers that they remain identifiable to users. This may require an obligation to cite sources.

In this connection, the comparable situation of so-called paywalls, the data behind which is not always solely copyright-protected material – though at times it is – should also be examined.

However, under the current situation, it must also be assumed that a slowly developing licensing market will no longer encompass all market participants. This means that not every press publisher or not all copyright-protected content is needed to provide training material for a fee, so that market participants lacking in bargaining power may no longer be taken into consideration if they demand compensation. A solution, if it is even necessary at this point, will probably only be possible by means of flat-rate fees or a stronger organisation to pool bargaining power. It is, however, questionable whether all parties would want to embark on such a path.

While this should mainly be left to the market participants, the question arises – given the generative AI systems that are offered worldwide –as to whether only ‘global licences’ will in future play a role in licensing.

Since this ‘copyright-protected’ data has been used for years (at least since late 2022) without a licence or other authorisation from the creators, consideration must also be given to the extent to which compensation should also be paid retroactively.

In any event, the European legislator or the European Commission should, pending the introduction of an appropriate provision to address this problem, establish an immediate, simple, flat-rate copyright fee for this use of 5 to 7% of global turnover in order to compensate for the added value that these businesses generate using the data of European creatives and to ensure it remains in Europe.

Of course, this also calls for a reassessment of the territoriality principle, as already envisaged in the AI Act. We cannot allow AI models to be trained just anywhere in the world using European copyright-protected data only for them to be then made available in Europe.

In the future, there may also be a need for a democratic legislator having to either review or standardise the quality of the basic data used by generative ‘Large Language Models’. In the future, it may also be necessary for the legislator to require such AI developers to include copyright-protected works in order to maintain the quality of those models.

On the other hand, we should also use AI to enhance the independence and diversity of high-quality information.

AI also needs access to copyright-protected works in order to develop further in terms of quality. In recent years, therefore, a huge amount of content has been used by AI developers mainly, but not solely, for training purposes. Such training constitutes a completely novel use of content, to which the existing copyright rules are applicable only to a limited extent.

Currently, the lack of compensation results in enormous legal uncertainty. A legally clear solution to this source of conflict is required with the utmost urgency. As long as there is no clear legal framework regulating conflicting interests, European content will be used with the added value being generated elsewhere. The Commission must therefore take immediate action without waiting for possible reviews of, for instance, the Copyright Directive or the AI Act.

A solution must arise from the interplay between licensing possibilities and transparency requirements on the basis of international law and the resulting right of disposal of the content creator.

Thus, a reference to Article 4 of the DSM Directive is still not sufficient and probably not in line with international copyright principles. The European legislator incorporated Article 4 in the AI Act without, however, having clearly established the consequences. The current exemption in Article 4 allowing text and data mining under the conditions specified was not drafted with the intention of enabling the use en masse of copyright-protected material by all through generative AI. And certainly not where it also leads to the creation of a competitive product accessible to the public.

Nevertheless, even if in the opinion of the rapporteur Article 4 is not applicable, we need a similar possibility allowing developers of AI to obtain licences for copyright-protected works in as straightforward and technically easy to implement manner as possible. This is best done digitally. Moreover, the rationale of Article 17 of the DSM Directive should also be taken into account.

At the same time, it is important to ensure that rights holders are still able to decide whether – or not – and how (licencing) their content can be utilised for this new type of use. Right-holders must be given the right to an opt-out.

However, for this to be recognised easily and unhindered by AI developers, it must be machine-readable and standardised. It must also be the responsibility of the rights holder to make use of this opt-out in a legally and practically certain manner.

In order to make implementation as simple as possible for AI developers, it seems necessary to record the opt-out in a European register. It would therefore seem appropriate for such a register to be maintained by EUIPO. The AI developer would thus have the possibility either to respect the standardised, machine-readable opt-outs or to identify through the register which works may not be used without permission.

On the other hand, only content protected with an opt-out or registered can still be protected from this type of use. It would even be possible to link the licensing process to this register, thereby simplifying matters and creating a kind of ‘one-stop-shop’ for AI developers.

As rights holders are not and cannot be aware whether their content is being used in this novel way, a transparency requirement is essential. This transparency requirement would oblige AI developers to provide a comprehensive and detailed list of the protected content they have drawn on for this novel use. The ‘sufficiently detailed summary’ provided for by the AI Act has so far been completely inadequate since it cannot provide clarity regarding the use of content precisely because it is a summary. An interpretation which can also be used in the context of copyright law is therefore necessary here.

If, for example, reasons such as trade secrets preclude access to this data base in the form of transparency that is relevant to the content creator, the obligation must be fulfilled through a trust as an intermediary. Here too, EUIPO could act as the intermediary. It could then inform the rights holders of the use made of their work.

The transparency obligation can also be fulfilled by requiring labelling of the copyrighted work, e.g. watermarks or the like, and allowing rights holders to cross-check this either through access to the basic AI model or via the register. In a digital world, a digital fingerprint on the protected works seems essential anyway.

The legislator will probably also have to resolve the issue that not every private website containing a copyright-protected image is automatically excluded from the training data.

Abuse, manipulation of information, legal assumptions, reversal of the burden of proof or even the very strong legal remedy of liability must be considered or weighed very carefully at all times and at every step of the way.

In addition to considering how to solve this problem, copyright law needs generally to be adapted to technological developments. This will require further European harmonisation of Member States’ national copyright laws.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register

ITI - Information Technology Industry Council

Spitzenorganisation der Firmernwirtschaft

Fdup

Linklaters LLP

Mazagan

NBCuniversal

The lnternation Federation of Film Distributors' and Publishers' Associations

Allianz

Digital Music Europe

IFRRO

KPMG Law

TikTok

MFE-MEDIAFOREUROP EN.V.

Hanbury Strategy

VAUNET

EBU / UER - European Broadcasting Union

University of Turin; Eindhoven

VAUNET - Verband Privater Medien

Coalition for Creativity

The European Video on Demand Coalition

#WeAreEurope

Aleph Alpha GmbH

Cullen International

Bertelsmann

NAI apollo

IMPF

Tilburg University

Meta

YouTube

HBM

Initiative Urheberrecht

ICMP - The global voice

Access Partnership

AEPO-ARTIS

Toy Industries of Europe

EIMP - European Independent Media Publishers

Cullen International

Bertelsmann

NAI apollo

IMPF

Tilburg University

Meta

YouTube

HBM

Initiative Urheberrecht

ICMP - The global voice

Access Partnership

AEPO-ARTIS

Toy Industries of Europe

EIMP - European Independent Media Publishers

EARE

DFL Deutsche FuP..ball Liga GmbH

Video Games Europe

Midjourney

Nexareg

EurolSPA

Keywords Studios

Advance/Conde Nast

Future of privacy forum

Society of Audiovisual Authors

Initiative Urheberrecht

APCO

European Publishers Council

Cloudflare

Elda

RELX

Center for Journalism & Liberty (CJL)

Business at OECD

Google

Bitkom e.V.

Creativity Works!

IFPI

STM

MVFP

CEPIC

National Law Institute University

Motion Picture Association

Copyright Clearance Center

Solutions for a Small Planet

European Parliamentary

Ives Attorneys

Freshfields

FREELENS e.V.

IFRRO

News Media Europe

Mediapro

Lausen

L'ARP - Societe civile des Auteurs Realisateurs Producteurs

EUROPEAN BLOCKTECH

RAAP

EMMA-ENPA

LAUSEN

MPA

BDI

Anthropic

Credo Al

ODISEIA

EG Legal Services

Federal Association of German Leasing Companies

Independent policy expert

European Producers Club (EPC)

Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA)

CEPI - European Audiovisual Production

365 Sherpas GmbH

Wikimedia France

IFPI

Federation of European Publishers

Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry

Al Sweden

CEDRO

European Writers' Council

Dell

FTI Consulting

Apple

Adan

CEPI - European Audiovisual Production

FERA - Federation of European film directors

APCO

European Visual Artists

CGI

DGA Group

HP

DOT Europe

Schibsted media AS

Business Software Alliance

Vorsitzender

FREELENS

NCSR Demokritos

Bertelsmann SE & Co KGaA

Lawyer

Universal Music Group

Solutions for a Small Planet

Association of Commercial Television and Video on Demand Services in Europe

AK Public Affairs

ECSA, European Community Shipowners' Associations

PRSforMusic

International Trademark Association

L'ARP

EFAD

Arcom

Axel Springer SE

Auteursbond (Dutch)

Premier League

Deutscher Fotorat

Society of Audiovisual Authors

Bitkom e.V.

Futuro Publico

Al Caramba!

INTA

University of Liverpool / School of Law and Social Justice

Assonime

AIE

PlayRight CV, IMARA, GA

Assonime - Association

RTL Deutschland GmbH

Euralia

German Bar Association

Atresmedia

Amazon

Samman Law & Corporate Affairs

European Publishers Council

EUROCINEMA

Tony Blair Institute

European Illustrators Forum

AEPO-ARTIS

IHK fur Munchen und Oberbayern

GEMA

Hubert Burda Media

Access Partnership

FIAPF - International Federation of Film Producers Associations

Sky Group

The European Alliance of News Agencies

European Writers' Council

EGAIR

VERA Studio

Warner Bros Discovery

VAUNET

IHK fur Munchen und Oberbayern

Bundesverband Schauspiel

News Corp

Boardmember Dutch Writers Guild

Kunstenbond

Forward Global

Video Games Europe

APCO Worldwide

Getty Images

VERA Studio

EGAIR

Klarna

UGGC Avocats

FLA

Shearwater Global

EuroCommerce

MFE

International Federation of Actors

2. Representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Date adopted

28.1.2026

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

17

3

2

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Key to symbols: