EU copyright consultation now closes on 10 November

The European Commission’s targeted copyright consultation remains open until 10 November 2026, according to its notice updated on 23 October. AI developers, rightsholders and other affected groups are being asked for evidence on whether technological and market changes call for further measures.[1]

Launched on 29 September, the consultation covers four areas: AI’s use of copyright-protected content, online piracy including live events, the single equitable-remuneration right for music performers and producers, and copyright in scientific research. It builds on an earlier call for evidence and previous studies. The invitation gathers views on possible policy responses; it does not itself introduce new legal duties.[1]

The AI question within a wider review

Modern generative systems learn statistical patterns from very large collections of material. Rights holders may want to know whether their text, music, pictures or recordings were used, what legal basis applied, whether licences are feasible and who should be paid. Developers need rules sufficiently clear to determine what training, indexing and research can lawfully do in different jurisdictions and to plan compliance costs. A policy that helps one actor can create burdens for another; the Commission is collecting information on both sides of those trade-offs.[1]

The Commission says the EU already has a substantial copyright framework and asks whether emerging challenges warrant additional measures. That leaves several distinct questions open: whether existing rights can be exercised effectively, whether licensing works in practice and what further measures would achieve. Evidence about those problems is more useful than treating the consultation as a completed decision on one model of AI licensing.[1]

The other topics have their own practical concerns. Live-event piracy is time-sensitive because an unlawful stream can lose much of its value once the event is over. Music remuneration and research copyright raise different questions about access and payment. Their inclusion means the exercise may inform several policy responses rather than a single rule for training AI.[1]

What stakeholders can contribute

For a publishing business, the useful submission is more than an opinion that AI copying is fair or unfair. Evidence could include the cost of identifying and documenting uses, viable licensing terms, the feasibility of access to usage information, cases where existing rights cannot be exercised effectively, and measurable effects on revenue or competition. A model provider might document the engineering and transaction costs of a contemplated requirement, consequences for small firms and workable transparency designs. Universities can explain how copyright exceptions or contract terms affect legitimate research sharing.[1]

The intended contributors include rightsholders, generative-AI providers, intermediaries, collective-management organisations, sports and live-event organisers, researchers, national authorities, consumer organisations and NGOs. A submission can show where a proposed obligation would help, where it would impose costs and whether a smaller actor could realistically comply.[1]

For those groups, 10 November is the deadline to contribute evidence. It is not a new licensing-compliance date. The Commission must still decide what action, if any, to take after assessing the responses.[1]

Report an error or suggest a correction