Skip to content
REPORT (2025/2058(INI))

On copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges

A-10-2026-0019

Committee on Legal Affairs · Rapporteur: Axel Voss

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull textProcedure & committee votes
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 4 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

This resolution addresses copyright and generative AI, calling for a new legal framework to clarify licensing, ensure transparency, and protect creators' rights. It proposes measures such as a trusted intermediary (EUIPO) for opt-outs and licensing, transparency obligations for AI providers, and a rebuttable presumption of use when transparency is lacking. It also calls for fair remuneration for past uses, protection against deep fakes, and labelling of AI-generated content.

Committee position. The Committee on Legal Affairs proposes a resolution calling for a new legal framework on copyright and generative AI, with measures on licensing, transparency, and enforcement.

Key points

  1. Calls for a new legal framework to clarify licensing rules for GenAI and address infringements, ensuring effective cooperation and a functioning licensing market.
  2. Stresses that rights holders must have full control over digital use of their content for training and other purposes, with opt-out mechanisms and transparency.
  3. Urges the Commission to explore compensation for press and news media outlets whose traffic is diverted by AI, and to enforce EU law on aggregation and presentation of news.
  4. Calls for voluntary collective licensing agreements per sector, facilitated by the Commission, and for a trusted intermediary (EUIPO) to manage opt-outs and licensing.
  5. Demands transparency on copyrighted content used for training, including itemised lists, and for continuous crawling activities to be recorded and identifiable.
  6. Proposes a rebuttable presumption that protected works were used if transparency obligations are not met, with legal costs borne by the AI provider.
  7. Affirms that EU copyright law applies to AI models placed on the EU market regardless of where training occurred, and non-compliant models should be barred.
  8. Calls for immediate fair remuneration for past uses of protected works, but opposes flat-rate global licences; remuneration should be negotiated in good faith.
  9. Insists that fully AI-generated content not meeting copyright criteria should remain ineligible for protection, and its public domain status should be clear.
  10. Urges measures against deep fakes and for labelling of AI-generated content, including an EU code of practice on content labelling.

Who is affected

  • AI providers and deployers: must comply with transparency and licensing obligations, and may face legal costs if they fail.
  • Rights holders, including creators and press publishers: gain control over use of their content and potential remuneration.
  • EUIPO: designated as trusted intermediary for managing opt-outs and supporting licensing.
  • Research and educational institutions: activities for scientific research should not be restricted.

Figures and deadlines

  • Creative sector represents approximately 4% of EU value added and 6.9% of EU GDP, employing around 8 million people.

Legal basis: Articles 4, 16, 26, 114, 118 and 179 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union