What happened
The European Commission opened a consultation running until 3 November 2026 to explore new binding measures, voluntary cooperation, and non-legislative tools for AI copyright. This follows a US Court of Appeals decision rejecting fair use claims by Ross Intelligence regarding Thomson Reuters data.
The European Commission has initiated a consultation process to address challenges in using copyright-protected content for . The consultation, which remains open until 3 November 2026, invites input from content creators, AI developers, and other stakeholders on potential interventions. These include new binding measures under EU copyright law, enhanced voluntary cooperation through soft law instruments, and non-legislative measures to support access to content.
The launch of this consultation coincided with a ruling by the US Court of Appeals in the dispute between Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence. The US court rejected Ross Intelligence’s fair use defense, determining that the use of Westlaw headnotes to train a competing AI legal research product was not fair use. Pinsent Masons experts noted that while US law differs from EU frameworks, the court’s focus on market substitution and purpose provides a relevant lens for EU policymakers.
Current EU law includes a text and data mining (TDM) exception that allows AI training unless rightsholders explicitly opt out in a machine-readable format. However, the Commission stated that rightsholders still face difficulties in securing licensing agreements and remuneration, while AI providers struggle to access high-quality data. The consultation seeks to address these imbalances, particularly for SMEs and start-ups that lack resources to navigate complex licensing requirements.
Source details: pinsentmasons.com ↗
Why it matters
This consultation signals a potential shift in how the EU regulates AI training data, moving beyond existing text and data mining exceptions. It aims to resolve friction between rightsholders and AI developers, particularly for SMEs, by establishing clearer licensing standards and enforcement mechanisms. The timing alongside the US ruling highlights the global divergence in legal approaches to AI copyright, which will influence how European AI companies manage data compliance and licensing costs.
The consultation represents a significant policy development in the EU’s approach to . By considering new binding measures, the Commission is signaling that existing voluntary or exception-based frameworks may be insufficient to balance innovation with creator rights. This could lead to more structured licensing regimes that provide legal certainty for AI developers while ensuring fair compensation for rightsholders.
The potential introduction of mechanisms such as an EU registry for opt-outs, disclosure duties for web crawlers, and a rebuttable presumption of use could fundamentally change how AI companies operate in Europe. These measures aim to reduce the administrative burden on SMEs and create a more transparent market for AI training data, which is essential for the EU’s ambition to become an 'AI Continent' with sovereign capabilities.
The global context is critical, as the concurrent US court ruling highlights the risks of relying on fair use defenses in jurisdictions where AI products directly compete with rightsholders. For European AI firms, this underscores the need for proactive compliance strategies and clear licensing agreements to avoid legal uncertainty as the EU refines its regulatory stance.
Interactive Mechanism: How It Actually Works
Explore the underlying technology behind this development interactively.
Why can ethical evaluation not be reduced to one model score?
What to watch next
Stakeholder responses to the consultation, particularly regarding opt-out protocols and fair compensation models. Watch for legislative proposals that may amend the Digital Single Market Directive or the to address these specific copyright gaps.
The outcome of the consultation, particularly stakeholder feedback on the feasibility of new opt-out protocols and the establishment of a dedicated dispute resolution forum. These mechanisms are central to the Commission’s proposal for a more balanced copyright framework.
Legislative developments that may amend the 2019 Digital Single Market Directive or the 2024 to incorporate specific copyright obligations for general purpose AI providers. Any changes to the TDM exception or the introduction of fair compensation requirements will have direct implications for AI training costs and data access.
The evolution of enforcement mechanisms, including potential technical solutions for automated licensing at scale and model clauses for AI-specific licenses. These tools could streamline the process for both rightsholders and AI providers, reducing friction in the market.