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

On Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges

JURI-PR-775433

Committee on Legal Affairs · Rapporteur: Axel Voss

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ 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 draft report addresses copyright and generative AI, recommending that the Commission assess the EU copyright framework, impose remuneration for AI training use, clarify the text and data mining exception, and establish transparency and opt-out mechanisms. It also proposes that AI-generated content remain ineligible for copyright, that EUIPO manage a central opt-out register, and that an irrebuttable presumption of use apply when transparency obligations are not met.

Committee position. The rapporteur proposes a resolution recommending the Commission to assess and reform EU copyright law for generative AI, including remuneration, transparency, and opt-out mechanisms, while keeping AI-generated content unprotected.

Key points

  1. Recommends the Commission urgently assess whether existing EU copyright law addresses legal uncertainty and competitive effects from using protected works to train generative AI and from AI-generated content.
  2. Calls on the Commission to immediately impose a remuneration obligation on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems for the novel use of copyright-protected content until reforms are enacted.
  3. Supports clarifying the text and data mining exception under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, especially regarding a machine-readable opt-out standard and the concept of 'lawful access'.
  4. Believes a legal framework for generative AI should be established via a dedicated exception or by expanding Article 4 to cover training, with rights holders able to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism.
  5. Recommends assigning EUIPO responsibility for a central register of opt-outs and licensing mediation, with opt-out declarations and licence offers recorded in machine-readable form.
  6. Calls for full transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models on use of protected content for any purpose, including inference, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning.
  7. Calls for an irrebuttable presumption that protected works were used for training if transparency obligations are not met, and that providers bear legal costs if rights holders succeed in proceedings.
  8. Insists that AI-generated content remain ineligible for copyright protection and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined.
  9. Calls on the Commission to explore measures to counter infringement of reproduction, making available, and communication rights through generative AI outputs.

Who is affected

  • Providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, who would face remuneration, transparency, and opt-out obligations.
  • Rights holders, including creators and press publishers, who would gain opt-out rights, remuneration, and transparency benefits.
  • The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would manage a central register and act as intermediary.

Figures and deadlines

  • 5 to 7% of global turnover as a possible flat-rate copyright fee for use of protected content in AI training.

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