Skip to content
Adopted text

Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges

TA-10-2026-0066 · P10_TA(2026)0066 · PE775.433

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.

Parliament's resolution on copyright and generative AI notes current law is insufficient and calls for a new legal framework to clarify licensing, ensure transparency, and protect creators. It demands that EU copyright law apply to all AI providers on the EU market regardless of where training occurs, and that non-compliant systems be barred. It calls for transparency obligations, opt-out mechanisms, and a rebuttable presumption of use when transparency is lacking. It urges the Commission to assess past uses and possible remuneration, and to explore measures against deep fakes and for labelling AI content.

Key points

  1. Notes ambiguities in the CDSM Directive for GenAI training and recommends swift clarification.
  2. Calls for an additional legal framework to clarify licensing rules, ensure cooperation, and restore bargaining power of rights holders.
  3. Recalls that exceptions must comply with the three-step test and that lawful access excludes pirated copies.
  4. Urges that research and educational activities are not restricted, and commercial exploitation is allowed with authorisation.
  5. Demands full control for rights holders over use of content for training and beyond, with express consent for non-training uses.
  6. Calls for mechanisms to compensate press outlets for traffic diversion, and enforcement of EU law for news aggregation.
  7. Calls for voluntary collective licensing per sector, accessible to all stakeholders, respecting refusals.
  8. Proposes EUIPO as trusted intermediary for opt-out tools and licensing support.
  9. Calls for transparency and source documentation, including for crawling, and for digital watermarking standards.
  10. Stresses that the Code of Practice should be updated and enforced, with public copyright policies and complaint mechanisms.
  11. Affirms that EU copyright law applies to AI models on the EU market regardless of where training occurs.
  12. Calls for a rebuttable presumption of use when transparency obligations are not met, with legal costs borne by providers.

Who is affected

  • AI providers and deployers: must comply with transparency, opt-out, and licensing obligations, and may face legal costs.
  • Rights holders, including press publishers and journalists: gain control over use of content and potential remuneration.
  • Creative and cultural sectors: benefit from fair remuneration and protection against AI competition.
  • Research organisations and cultural heritage institutions: ensure their activities are not restricted.
  • Individuals: protection against deep fakes and labelling of AI content.

Figures and deadlines

  • 4 % of EU value added and 6.9 % of GDP from creative sector
  • 8 million people employed in the sector

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