Groups representing almost 17 million professionals say the EU’s AI Act implementation package favors generative AI providers.

By Porter Anderson, Editor-in-Chief | @Porter_Anderson

A Call ‘To Safeguard European Intellectual Property Rights’

In a dramatic public statement issued today (July 30) to the European Commission, 40 of the world’s largest organizations of publishers, producers, performers, authors, and other rights-holders charge that the EU AI Act’s implementation measures “fail to address the core concerns [of] our sectors—and the millions of creators and complaints active in Europe which we represent.”

The Federation of European Publishers; the European Federation of Journalists; the European Producers Club; the European Writers’ Council; the Federation of European Screen Directors; the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe; the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations and 32 other organizations write their primary complaint this way (emphasis ours):

“We remind the European Commission that Article 53(1)(c) and (d) of the EU AI Act and related provisions were specifically designed to ‘facilitate holders of copyright and related rights to exercise and enforce their rights under (European) Union law’ in response to ongoing, wholesale unlicensed use of their works and other protected content by GenAI model providers in disregard of EU rules.

“However, the feedback of the primary beneficiaries these provisions were meant to protect has been largely ignored in contravention of the objectives of the EU AI Act as determined by the co-legislators and to the sole benefit of the GenAI model providers that continuously infringe copyright and related rights to build their models.”

In short, the creative sector is charging the EC with allowing Big Tech to override the original intention of the European Union AI Act’s intended protections for  that creative sector’s rights.

• Certainly publishers and others in associated fields supported the original approval of the act in 2024.
• The world’s first comprehensive legislation on artificial intelligence had been agreed in December 2023 with appropriate fanfare in Europe and the admiration of many from other parts of the world looking on.
• The new act achieved final approval on May 21, 2024 and moved into effect in June 2024.

The part of this complex legislation that called for what now concerns the organizations speaking together today carry two key provisions:

• Article 53(1)(c) on copyright policy requires the GPAI models (general-purpose AI models) to adhere to copyright and related rights; and
• Article 53(1)(d) requires GPAI models’ owners and operators to produce publicly available, detailed summaries of what their systems are using for training.

The Complaint Made to the EC

Here is the complete text provided to Publishing Perspectives of the 40 organizations lodging their complaint with the European Commission. The acronym GPAI stands for a General-Purpose AI code.

“Representing a broad coalition of European and global authors, performers, publishers, producers, and other rights-holder organizations, we wish to formally express our dissatisfaction with the published GPAI Code of Practice, the GPAI guidelines, and the template for disclosure of a sufficiently detailed summary of training data under Article 53 of the EU AI Act.

The GPAI Code of Practice, guidelines, and template for disclosure, are “not a balanced compromise; it is a missed opportunity to provide meaningful protection of intellectual property rights in the context of GenAI and does not deliver on the promise of the EU AI Act itself.”Signatories to the EU AI Act implementation measures document

“Despite the extensive, highly detailed and good-faith engagements by rights-holder communities throughout this process, the final outcomes fail to address the core concerns which our sectors—and the millions of creators and companies active in Europe which we represent—have consistently raised.

“The result is not a balanced compromise; it is a missed opportunity to provide meaningful protection of intellectual property rights in the context of GenAI and does not deliver on the promise of the EU AI Act itself.

“We remind the European Commission that Article 53(1)(c) and (d) of the EU AI Act and related provisions were specifically designed to ‘facilitate holders of copyright and related rights to exercise and enforce their rights under (European) Union law’ in response to ongoing, wholesale unlicensed use of their works and other protected content by GenAI model providers in disregard of EU rules. However, the feedback of the primary beneficiaries these provisions were meant to protect has been largely ignored in contravention of the objectives of the EU AI Act as determined by the co-legislators and to the sole benefit of the GenAI model providers that continuously infringe copyright and related rights to build their models.

“Copyright-intensive industries in Europe contribute nearly 7 percent of EU GDP, provide employment for nearly 17 million professionals, and have an economic contribution larger than European pharmaceutical, automobile, or high-tech industries.”Signatories to the EU AI Act implementation measures document

“In 2024, the cultural and creative sectors across Europe welcomed the principles of responsible and trustworthy AI enshrined in the EU AI Act, intended to ensure mutually beneficial growth of innovation and creativity in Europe. Today, with the EU AI Act implementing package as it stands, thriving cultural and creative sectors and copyright intensive industries in Europe—which contribute nearly 7 percent of EU GDP, provide employment for nearly 17 million professionals, and have an economic contribution larger than European pharmaceutical, automobile, or high-tech industries—are being sold out in favor of those GenAI model providers.

“The deployment of GenAI models and content production systems which also make extensive use of scraping is already underway. The damage to and unfair competition with the cultural and creative sectors can be seen each day. The cultural and creative sectors must be safeguarded, as they are the foundations of our cultures and the Single Market.

“We wish to make it clear that the outcome of these processes does not provide a meaningful implementation of the GPAI obligations under the AI Act. We strongly reject any claim that the Code of Practice strikes a fair and workable balance or that the template will deliver ‘sufficient’ transparency about the majority of copyrighted works or other subject matter used to train GenAI models. This is simply untrue and is a betrayal of the EU AI Act’s objectives.

“We call on the European Commission to revisit the implementation package and enforce Article 53 in a meaningful way, ensuring that the EU AI Act lives up to its promise to safeguard European intellectual property rights in the age of generative AI.

“We also call on the European Parliament and member states, as co-legislators, to challenge the unsatisfactory process of this exercise, which will further weaken the situation of the creative and cultural sectors across Europe and do nothing to tackle ongoing violations of EU laws.”

A Point of Comparison

In an interesting parallel point of timing, it’s worth noting that the Association of American Publishers is reporting  disappointment in the ongoing development of the Trump administration’s White House AI Action Plan.

Europe’s and the United States’ processes on AI policy development are completely separate, of course—and are at different stages—but those who promote the protection of copyright in the AI arena in both major governmental jurisdictions seem to be encountering somewhat similar responses from the governmental side.

In a separate action, a bipartisan bill—named the ‘AI Accountability and Personal Data Protection Act—has been introduced by Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), a piece of legislation that could make tech companies liable to be sued for pirating content without permission for AI training.

Here is that story as originally reported by Ashley Gold for Axios. The text of that bill can be read (in the Hawley office’s PDF) here.

---

More from Publishing Perspectives on artificial intelligence is here, more on the European Union is here, more on the Federation of European Publishers is here, and more on the publishing markets and their issues in Europe is here.