This post was originally published on COMMUNIA by Teresa Nobre and Leander Nielbock
Last week we saw the first draft of the long-anticipated own-initiative report on copyright and generative artificial intelligence authored by Axel Voss for the JURI Committee (download as a PDF file). The report, which marks the third entry of the Committee’s recent push on the topic after a workshop and the release of a study in June, fits in with the ongoing discussions around Copyright and AI at the EU-level.
In his draft, MEP Voss targets the legal uncertainty and perceived unfairness around the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, strongly encouraging the Commission to address the issue as soon as possible, instead of waiting for the looming review of the Copyright Directive in 2026.
A good starting point for creators
The draft report starts by calling the Commission to assess whether the existing EU copyright framework addresses the competitive effects associated with the use of protected works for AI training, particularly the effects of AI-generated outputs that mimic human creativity. The rapporteur recommends that such assessment shall consider fair remuneration mechanisms (paragraph 2) and that, in the meantime, the Commission shall “immediately impose a remuneration obligation on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems in respect of the novel use of content protected by copyright” (paragraph 4). Such an obligation shall be in effect “until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted.” However, we fail to understand how such a transitory measure could be introduced without a reform of its own.
Voss’s thoughts on fair remuneration also require further elaboration, but clearly the rapporteur is solely concerned about remunerating individual creators and other rightholders (paragraph 2). Considering, however, the vast amounts of public resources that are being appropriated by AI companies for the development of AI systems, remuneration mechanisms need to channel value back to the entire information ecosystem. Expanding this recommendation beyond the narrow category of rightholders seems therefore crucial.
Paragraph 10 deals with the much debated issue of transparency, calling for “full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems”, while paragraph 11 asks for an “irrebuttable presumption of use” where the full transparency obligations have not been fully complied with. Recitals O to Q clarify that full transparency shall consist “in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training”—an approach that does not seem proportionate, realistic or practical. At this stage, a more useful approach to copyright transparency would be to go beyond the disclosure of training data, which is already dealt with in the AI Act, and recommend the introduction of public disclosure commitments on opt-out compliance. A presumption of use—which is a reasonable demand—could still kick in based on a different set of indicators.
Another set of recommendations that aims at addressing the grievances of creators are found on paragraphs 6 and 9 and include the standardization of opt-outs and the creation of a centralized register for opt-outs. These measures are very much in line with COMMUNIA’s efforts to uphold the current legal framework for AI training, which relies on creators being able to exercise and enforce their opt-out rights.
Two points of concern for users
At the same time that it tries to uphold the current legal framework, the draft report also calls for either the introduction of a new “dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction” or for expanding the scope of Article 4 of the DSM Directive “to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI” (paragraph 7). At first glance, this recommendation may appear innocuous—redundant even, given that the AI Act already assumes that such legal provision extends to AI model providers. However, the draft report does not simply intend to clarify the current EU legal framework. On the contrary, the report claims that the training of generative AI systems is “currently not covered” by the existing TDM exceptions. This challenges the interpretation provided for in the AI Act and by multiple statements by the Commission and opens the door for discussions around the legality of current training practices, with all the consequences this entails, including for scientific research.
The second point of concern for users is paragraph 13, which calls for measures to counter copyright infringement “through the production of GenAI outputs.” Throughout the stakeholder consultations on the EU AI Code of Practice, COMMUNIA was very vocal about the risks this category of measures could entail for private uses, protected speech and other fundamental freedoms. We strongly opposed the introduction of system-level measures to block output similarity, since those would effectively require the use of output filters without safeguarding users rights. We also highlighted that model-level measures targeting copyright-related overfitting could have the effect of preventing the lawful development of models supporting substantial legitimate uses of protected works. As this report evolves, it is crucial to keep this in mind and to ensure that any copyright compliance measures targeting AI outputs are accompanied by relevant safeguards that protect the rights of users of AI systems.
A win for the Public Domain
One of the last recommendations in the draft report concerns the legal status of AI-generated outputs. Paragraph 12 suggests that “AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined.”
While some AI-assisted expressions can qualify as copyright-protected works under EU law —most importantly when there’s sufficient human control over the output—many will not meet the standards for copyright protection. However, these outputs can still potentially be protected by related rights, since most have no threshold for protection. This calls into question whether the related rights system is fit for purpose in the age of AI: protecting non-original AI outputs with exclusive rights regardless of any underlying creative activity and in the absence of meaningful investment is certainly inadequate. We therefore support the recommendation that their public domain status be asserted in those cases.
Next steps
Once the draft report is officially published and presented in JURI on July 14/15, MEPs will have the summer break to table amendments until September 12.
