Text · Amendment list
Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges
Document JURI-AM-777015 · 2025/2058(INI)
- Kind
- Amendment list JURI-AM-777015
- Date
- 15 September 2025
- Committee
- Committee on Legal Affairs
- Dossier
- 2025/2058(INI)
More facts (2)
- Formats
- Official page PDF Word
- Reference
- 2025/2058(INI)
Text
The text as parsed from the official Word file. Every paragraph has a link (¶) and can be saved to a project as a passage.
Jump to an amendment (370)
- Amendment 1
- Amendment 2
- Amendment 3
- Amendment 4
- Amendment 5
- Amendment 6
- Amendment 7
- Amendment 8
- Amendment 9
- Amendment 10
- Amendment 11
- Amendment 12
- Amendment 13
- Amendment 14
- Amendment 15
- Amendment 16
- Amendment 17
- Amendment 18
- Amendment 19
- Amendment 20
- Amendment 21
- Amendment 22
- Amendment 23
- Amendment 24
- Amendment 25
- Amendment 26
- Amendment 27
- Amendment 28
- Amendment 29
- Amendment 30
- Amendment 31
- Amendment 32
- Amendment 33
- Amendment 34
- Amendment 35
- Amendment 36
- Amendment 37
- Amendment 38
- Amendment 39
- Amendment 40
- Amendment 41
- Amendment 42
- Amendment 43
- Amendment 44
- Amendment 45
- Amendment 46
- Amendment 47
- Amendment 48
- Amendment 49
- Amendment 50
- Amendment 51
- Amendment 52
- Amendment 53
- Amendment 54
- Amendment 55
- Amendment 56
- Amendment 57
- Amendment 58
- Amendment 59
- Amendment 60
- Amendment 61
- Amendment 62
- Amendment 63
- Amendment 64
- Amendment 65
- Amendment 66
- Amendment 67
- Amendment 68
- Amendment 69
- Amendment 70
- Amendment 71
- Amendment 72
- Amendment 73
- Amendment 74
- Amendment 75
- Amendment 76
- Amendment 77
- Amendment 78
- Amendment 79
- Amendment 80
- Amendment 81
- Amendment 82
- Amendment 83
- Amendment 84
- Amendment 85
- Amendment 86
- Amendment 87
- Amendment 88
- Amendment 89
- Amendment 90
- Amendment 91
- Amendment 92
- Amendment 93
- Amendment 94
- Amendment 95
- Amendment 96
- Amendment 97
- Amendment 98
- Amendment 99
- Amendment 100
- Amendment 101
- Amendment 102
- Amendment 103
- Amendment 104
- Amendment 105
- Amendment 106
- Amendment 107
- Amendment 108
- Amendment 109
- Amendment 110
- Amendment 111
- Amendment 112
- Amendment 113
- Amendment 114
- Amendment 115
- Amendment 116
- Amendment 117
- Amendment 118
- Amendment 119
- Amendment 120
- Amendment 121
- Amendment 122
- Amendment 123
- Amendment 124
- Amendment 125
- Amendment 126
- Amendment 127
- Amendment 128
- Amendment 129
- Amendment 130
- Amendment 131
- Amendment 132
- Amendment 133
- Amendment 134
- Amendment 135
- Amendment 136
- Amendment 137
- Amendment 138
- Amendment 139
- Amendment 140
- Amendment 141
- Amendment 142
- Amendment 143
- Amendment 144
- Amendment 145
- Amendment 146
- Amendment 147
- Amendment 148
- Amendment 149
- Amendment 150
- Amendment 151
- Amendment 152
- Amendment 153
- Amendment 154
- Amendment 155
- Amendment 156
- Amendment 157
- Amendment 158
- Amendment 159
- Amendment 160
- Amendment 161
- Amendment 162
- Amendment 163
- Amendment 164
- Amendment 165
- Amendment 166
- Amendment 167
- Amendment 168
- Amendment 169
- Amendment 170
- Amendment 171
- Amendment 172
- Amendment 173
- Amendment 174
- Amendment 175
- Amendment 176
- Amendment 177
- Amendment 178
- Amendment 179
- Amendment 180
- Amendment 181
- Amendment 182
- Amendment 183
- Amendment 184
- Amendment 185
- Amendment 186
- Amendment 187
- Amendment 188
- Amendment 189
- Amendment 190
- Amendment 191
- Amendment 192
- Amendment 193
- Amendment 194
- Amendment 195
- Amendment 196
- Amendment 197
- Amendment 198
- Amendment 199
- Amendment 200
- Amendment 201
- Amendment 202
- Amendment 203
- Amendment 204
- Amendment 205
- Amendment 206
- Amendment 207
- Amendment 208
- Amendment 209
- Amendment 210
- Amendment 211
- Amendment 212
- Amendment 213
- Amendment 214
- Amendment 215
- Amendment 216
- Amendment 217
- Amendment 218
- Amendment 219
- Amendment 220
- Amendment 221
- Amendment 222
- Amendment 223
- Amendment 224
- Amendment 225
- Amendment 226
- Amendment 227
- Amendment 228
- Amendment 229
- Amendment 230
- Amendment 231
- Amendment 232
- Amendment 233
- Amendment 234
- Amendment 235
- Amendment 236
- Amendment 237
- Amendment 238
- Amendment 239
- Amendment 240
- Amendment 241
- Amendment 242
- Amendment 243
- Amendment 244
- Amendment 245
- Amendment 246
- Amendment 247
- Amendment 248
- Amendment 249
- Amendment 250
- Amendment 251
- Amendment 252
- Amendment 253
- Amendment 254
- Amendment 255
- Amendment 256
- Amendment 257
- Amendment 258
- Amendment 259
- Amendment 260
- Amendment 261
- Amendment 262
- Amendment 263
- Amendment 264
- Amendment 265
- Amendment 266
- Amendment 267
- Amendment 268
- Amendment 269
- Amendment 270
- Amendment 271
- Amendment 272
- Amendment 273
- Amendment 274
- Amendment 275
- Amendment 276
- Amendment 277
- Amendment 278
- Amendment 279
- Amendment 280
- Amendment 281
- Amendment 282
- Amendment 283
- Amendment 284
- Amendment 285
- Amendment 286
- Amendment 287
- Amendment 288
- Amendment 289
- Amendment 290
- Amendment 291
- Amendment 292
- Amendment 293
- Amendment 294
- Amendment 295
- Amendment 296
- Amendment 297
- Amendment 298
- Amendment 299
- Amendment 300
- Amendment 301
- Amendment 302
- Amendment 303
- Amendment 304
- Amendment 305
- Amendment 306
- Amendment 307
- Amendment 308
- Amendment 309
- Amendment 310
- Amendment 311
- Amendment 312
- Amendment 313
- Amendment 314
- Amendment 315
- Amendment 316
- Amendment 317
- Amendment 318
- Amendment 319
- Amendment 320
- Amendment 321
- Amendment 322
- Amendment 323
- Amendment 324
- Amendment 325
- Amendment 326
- Amendment 327
- Amendment 328
- Amendment 329
- Amendment 330
- Amendment 331
- Amendment 332
- Amendment 333
- Amendment 334
- Amendment 335
- Amendment 336
- Amendment 337
- Amendment 338
- Amendment 339
- Amendment 340
- Amendment 341
- Amendment 342
- Amendment 343
- Amendment 344
- Amendment 345
- Amendment 346
- Amendment 347
- Amendment 348
- Amendment 349
- Amendment 350
- Amendment 351
- Amendment 352
- Amendment 353
- Amendment 354
- Amendment 355
- Amendment 356
- Amendment 357
- Amendment 358
- Amendment 359
- Amendment 360
- Amendment 361
- Amendment 362
- Amendment 363
- Amendment 364
- Amendment 365
- Amendment 366
- Amendment 367
- Amendment 368
- Amendment 369
- Amendment 370
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Articles 4, 16, 26, 114 and 118 thereof, | – having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Articles 4, 16, 26, 114, 118 and 179 thereof, |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, | – having regard to Articles 13 and 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| — having regard to Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, | – having regard to Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 (Resolution 217 A), which affirms both the right to freely participate in the cultural life and the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production, | – having regard to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 (Resolution 217 A), which affirms both the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, as well as the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production, |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, | – having regard to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works as amended on 28 September 1979 and the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations of 26 October 1961, |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the report “The future of European competitiveness” by Mario Draghi, of 9 September 2024; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, the European Economic And Social Committee And the Committee Of The Regions - “A Competitiveness Compass for the EU” of 29 January 2025, COM(2025) 30 final; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the Commission Communication (COM(2025)30 final) ‘A Competitiveness Compass for the EU’ of 29 January 2025, |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the Commission Communication of 16 June 2025 ‘State of Digital Decade 2025: Keep building the EU’s sovereignty and digital future’, |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – - having regard to the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice, and more particularly its Copyright Chapter, published by the European Commission on 10 July 2025 and in force from 2 August 2025, |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the joint European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade 2023/C 23/01 of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – - having regard to the Explanatory Notice and Template for the Public Summary of Training Content for GPAI published by the European Commission on 24 July 2025 and in force from 2 August 2025, |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the study of the EP Policy Department on Generative AI and Copyright |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having to EUIPO's study on the Development of Generative Artificial Intelligence from a Copyright Perspective |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the study from von Dornis/Stober on Copyright and Training of Generative, 2024 |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| A. whereas the right to property, including intellectual property, is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; | A. whereas the right to property, including intellectual property, is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and whereas respect for that right must be guaranteed at all stages of the digital transformation and of the development of generative artificial intelligence; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| A. whereas the right to property, including intellectual property, is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; | A. whereas the right to property, including intellectual property, is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and has been clearly qualified in case law; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| A. whereas the right to property, including intellectual property, is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; | A. whereas the right to property, including intellectual property, is governed by both EU and national law, and national legal provisions must be respected; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Aa. Stresses the urgent need, in view of the many recent challenges to the protection of copyright in the online and digital environment, to adapt the EU legal framework on copyright to meet the new technological realities, and in particular the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence, so as to ensure the protection of creators and the stimulation of innovation; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of AI technologies within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, and capacity for innovation; | B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of Generative AI technologies and services in the public interest within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, and capacity for innovation while staying true to its values and promoting ethical, sustainable and inclusive growth; whereas maintaining competitiveness in the race to improve Generative AI also requires access to high-quality content, underlining the importance of a fairly remunerated creative sector as a source for high-quality AI training data; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of AI technologies within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, and capacity for innovation; | B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of addressing international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas at the AI Action Summit in February 2025 in Paris, the Commission launched the objective of the AI Continent Action Plan to make Europe a world leader in artificial intelligence (AI); whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of AI technologies within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, and capacity for innovation; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of AI technologies within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, and capacity for innovation; | B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of AI technologies within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, and capacity for innovation, while ensuring that such technological development contributes to social progress, quality employment, and inclusive access to the benefits of AI for all citizens of the Union; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of AI technologies within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, and capacity for innovation; | B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of AI technologies within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, multi-linguistic culture and capacity for innovation; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas it is therefore essential to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of AI technologies within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, and capacity for innovation; | B. whereas the European Union faces the strategic challenge of lagging behind international developments in the field of artificial intelligence; whereas it is therefore important to promote, rather than impede, the advancement of AI technologies within the Union in order to safeguard Europe’s technological sovereignty, competitiveness, and capacity for innovation; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B a. Whereas the creative and cultural sector is essential to safeguard European values and cultural diversity, representing approximately 4% of EU value added and employs around 8 million people; whereas the detrimental substitution effect of AI-generated output provided through Generative AI services and increasingly used in the market to replace and compete with cultural and creative works requires additional considerations to be addressed at EU level; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B a. whereas that in order to properly implement EU law vis-à-vis alla Generative AI services to ensure that non -EU based Generative AI services do not gain an unfair competitive advantage over EU-based services by disprespecting EU law, application of the rules protecting and enforcing authors' rights at European and national level to all services in the EU market is absolutely essential. |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B a. whereas legal and ethical questions relating to AI technologies should be addressed through an effective, comprehensive and future-proof regulatory framework of Union law reflecting the Union’s principles and values as enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights to increase legal certainty for businesses and citizens alike; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B a. Considering that the concentration of power in the hands of a few large non-European companies increases the Union's dependence and undermines the ability of European creators and the European press to exercise and enforce their rights; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B b. whereas the Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade established the objective of ensuring a just, safe and secure digital environment, where everyone, including SMEs, should have the possibility to compete fairly and innovate; whereas this entails measures to promote the traceability, safety and compliance of products and services offered on the Digital Single Market; whereas the signatories commit to promote human-centric, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence systems, which are used in a transparent way and in line with EU values; whereas the Declaration insists that the digital transformation should contribute to a fair and inclusive society and economy, to promote cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as open technologies and standards as a way to further strengthen trust in technology as well as consumers’ ability to make autonomous and informed choices; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B c. whereas it appears that the EU’s Digital Decade objectives will not be achieved without a transformative shift in its investment landscape; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B d. whereas the Competitiveness Compass for the EU intends to boost innovation notably by creating a friendly environment for young companies in Europe to start and expand, with a dedicated EU start-up and scale-up strategy launched on 28 May 2025; whereas this should be accompanied by an ‘Apply AI’ initiative for companies of all sizes to accelerate the integration of AI technologies across strategic sectors and reinforce the EU’s technological sovereignty; whereas the cultural and creative sectors create new and skilled jobs, contribute to Europe’s economic growth, diplomatic power and the emergence of talents; whereas SMEs comprise the overwhelming majority of businesses in the creative sector; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to reproduce works and other subject matter and adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; | C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically without registration requirements and confer extensive exclusive economic rights to a variety of holders (authors, performers, producers, publishers, broadcasters), including those to authorize the reproduction of works and their adaptation, distribution and communication to the public, as well as moral rights; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to reproduce works and other subject matter and adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; | C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to authorise or prohibit the reproduction of works and other subject matter and their adaption, distribution and communication them to the public; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to reproduce works and other subject matter and adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; | C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to authorise or prohibit the reproduction of works and other subject matter and their adaptation, distribution and communication to the public; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to reproduce works and other subject matter and adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; | C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to authorise or prohibit the reproduction of works and other subject matter and their adaption, distribution and communication to the public; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to reproduce works and other subject matter and adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; | C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including the rights to permit or forbid the reprodcution of works and other subject matter and to adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to reproduce works and other subject matter and adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; | C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer moral rights as well as extensive exclusive economic rights, including those to reproduce works and other subject matter and adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas copyright and related rights come into effect automatically and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to reproduce works and other subject matter and adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; | C. whereas copyright and related rights apply automatically on the basis of current legislation, and confer extensive exclusive rights, including those to reproduce works and other subject matter and adapt, distribute and communicate them to the public; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C a. whereas there is great diversity in European cultural and creative industries, whose contractual practices, value chains, and types of content protected by copyright and related rights differ significantly; whereas in some sectors, rights holders organise collectively to defend their interests; whereas the works produced by this diverse range of actors are equally diverse and can therefore have different values; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C a. whereas the cultural and creative industries are one of Europe’s strongest assets, representing 6,9% of the EU’s GDP and underpinning Europe’s cultural diversity, social cohesion, values and democratic dialogue; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C a. whereas the copyright needs to face the development of new technologies in a legal and technical way; whereas a harmonisation of national copyrights regimes would be key in a digital world |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that, unlike traditional AI systems that only classify or predict, creates content, such as text, images, music, videos and code, often mimicking human creativity, thereby relying on pre-existing content, including copyright-protected materials; | D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that, unlike traditional AI systems, designed to primarily classify or predict, generates new content, such as text, images, music, videos and code; whereas GenAI outputs are created through predictions based on statistical models, often mimicking human creativity, and rely on pre-existing content, which would include copyright-protected materials; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that, unlike traditional AI systems that only classify or predict, creates content, such as text, images, music, videos and code, often mimicking human creativity, thereby relying on pre-existing content, including copyright-protected materials; | D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that, unlike other AI systems that only classify or predict, creates outputs, such as text, images, music, videos and code, often mimicking human creativity; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that, unlike traditional AI systems that only classify or predict, creates content, such as text, images, music, videos and code, often mimicking human creativity, thereby relying on pre-existing content, including copyright-protected materials; | D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) services and systems are types of artificial intelligence that, unlike traditional AI systems that only classify or predict, creates content, such as text, images, music, videos and code, often mimicking human creativity, thereby relying on pre-existing content, including copyright-protected materials; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that, unlike traditional AI systems that only classify or predict, creates content, such as text, images, music, videos and code, often mimicking human creativity, thereby relying on pre-existing content, including copyright-protected materials; | D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that generates content, such as text, images, music, videos and code, often mimicking human creativity, by relying on training data based on pre-existing content, including copyright-protected materials; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that, unlike traditional AI systems that only classify or predict, creates content, such as text, images, music, videos and code, often mimicking human creativity, thereby relying on pre-existing content, including copyright-protected materials; | D. whereas generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that, unlike traditional AI systems that only classify or predict, creates content, such as text, images, music, videos and code, as a general rule mimicking human creativity, thereby relying on pre-existing content, including copyright-protected materials; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E. whereas the development, the deployment and the use of artificial intelligence must be fully compliant with the existing legal framework; whereas it is unacceptable that such technological advancements disregard established rights, in particular those enshrined in copyright law; | E. whereas the development, the deployment and the use of artificial intelligence must be fully compliant with the existing legal framework; whereas the current systems for the reservation of rights (‘opt out’) over copyright-protected content are often impractical, may not cover all relevant acts of text and data mining, and lack the necessary transparency for effective implementation and enforcement; whereas the development of new technologies such as AI and maintaining established rights, including those enshrined in copyright law, should not be mutually exclusive but be advanced together; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E. whereas the development, the deployment and the use of artificial intelligence must be fully compliant with the existing legal framework; whereas it is unacceptable that such technological advancements disregard established rights, in particular those enshrined in copyright law; | E. whereas the development, the deployment and the use of artificial intelligence must be fully compliant with the existing legal framework; whereas it is unacceptable that such technological advancements disregard established rights, in particular those enshrined in copyright law; whereas trade secrets should not be invoked to prevent an AI model provider from offering full transparency on the content protected by copyright and related rights used to train its models; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E. whereas the development, the deployment and the use of artificial intelligence must be fully compliant with the existing legal framework; whereas it is unacceptable that such technological advancements disregard established rights, in particular those enshrined in copyright law; | E. whereas the development, the deployment and the use of artificial intelligence must be fully compliant with the existing legal framework; whereas it is unacceptable that such technological developments infringe upon existing established rights; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E a. whereas AI platform operators offer AI assistants which by inference, retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and finetuning ever more function like media services; whereas they directly substitute and replace original journalistic media sources and services by extracting respective information or content as such fully, automatically and in real-time from journalistic or media services material, be it texts, graphics, audios, videos and the like ; whereas they are not bound to any legal liabilites/ statutes and are not controled for their quality standards as original journalistic services do; whereas this endangers the existence and future development of media services, their providers as well as their respective business models; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E a. whereas there has been evidence of the consistent, wilful and widespread violation of copyright rules by Gen AI providers, including the unauthorised collection of works from the internet, the refusal to comply with rightsholders' TDM rights reservations, the massive use of pirated sources to obtain works as well as the refusal to seek licenses; whereas this pattern rules out reliance solely on the good faith of GenAI providers to respect copyright and demonstrates the need for strong measures to ensure that the AI ecosystem in Europe is fair and ethical. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E a. whereas creative sectors and industries are very different from each other, and flexibility is particularly valuable; whereas for most copyright sectors, such as music, books, scholarly publishing and audiovisual, voluntary bilateral or collective licensing on the basis of exclusive rights is the most appropriate mechanism for the use of copyright-protected content for training of generative AI models; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Ea. whereas there is a need for harmonised interpretation and, where necessary, to adapt the EU framework on copyright to the online and digital environment, and whereas one of the current challenges concerns the application of copyright law in the context of generative artificial intelligence; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E a. Considering that providers of generative AI services are exploiting protected works on a massive scale without authorisation or remuneration, which constitutes a clear violation of creators' fundamental rights and misappropriation of value to the detriment of the European cultural and information sector; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E b. whereas the GPAI Code of Practice and the mandatory summary of content used for GPAI model training under the AI Act have introduced new voluntary commitments to demonstrate compliance with copyright law and mandatory transparency obligations for GPAI model providers; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E b. Whereas it is necessary to establish strict ethical rules for generative artificial intelligence. |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law and what the status of AI-generated content should be; | F. whereas key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights are whether the use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law, what the legal status of AI-generated content should be, and how to ensure transparency, consent and fair remuneration of creators and rightsholders when their protected works and other subject matter are used in the generation, dissemination and distribution of AI outputs; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law and what the status of AI-generated content should be; | F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyright protected works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law and what the status of AI-generated content should be; nor is it provided in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive that rights holders shall receive fair compensation |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law and what the status of AI-generated content should be; | F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law and what the status of AI-generated content should be, and the level of transparency required from GenAI providers regarding the content used to train their models; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law and what the status of AI-generated content should be; | F. whereas the key legal question about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights includes whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law and what the status of AI-generated content should be; | F. whereas the AI Act clarifies about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights, confirming that the text and data mining (TDM) exception of the CDSM Directive covers AI training models, by explicitly referencing the CDSM Directive’s TDM exceptions in Article 53(1)(c) and Recital 106; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law and what the status of AI-generated content should be; | F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under Union and Member States' law and what the status of AI-generated content should be; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the key legal questions about the interplay between GenAI and copyright and related rights include whether the new kind of use of copyrighted works and other subject matter in training datasets is lawful under EU law and what the status of AI-generated content should be; | F. whereas there might be legal questions about the interplay between the development of new GenAI and copyright and related rights; whereas many of these legal questions is clarified in the AI Act and by referencing to the CDSM Directive's TDM exceptions in Article 53(1)(c) |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| G. whereas the reference to the CDSM Directive in the AI Act is inadequate and fails to provide an appropriate and proportionate solution; whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act; | G. whereas the reference to the CDSM Directive in the AI Act is inadequate and fails to provide an appropriate and proportionate solution; whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act; whereas the Code of Practice drafted to accompany the implementation of the AI Act, with regard to copyright, intoduces major legal uncertainty as well potential loopholes that AI porviders could exploit to disregard copyright; whereas the Transparency Template on training data proposed by the European Commission is highly insufficient and fails to require the information necessary for rightsholders to exercise or enforce their rights, thus thwarting the will of the co-legislators. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| G. whereas the reference to the CDSM Directive in the AI Act is inadequate and fails to provide an appropriate and proportionate solution; whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act; | G. whereas the AI Act does not aim to alter the existing legal framework applying to copyright and related rights; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| G. whereas the reference to the CDSM Directive in the AI Act is inadequate and fails to provide an appropriate and proportionate solution; whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act; | G. whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and in national legislation, are not overridden by the AI Act; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| G. whereas the reference to the CDSM Directive in the AI Act is inadequate and fails to provide an appropriate and proportionate solution; whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act; | G. whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act, which operates within the existing and sufficient legal framework; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| G. whereas the reference to the CDSM Directive in the AI Act is inadequate and fails to provide an appropriate and proportionate solution; whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act; | G. whereas the reference to the CDSM Directive in the AI Act can provide an appropriate and proportionate solution; whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act, which operates within the existing framework; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| G. whereas the reference to the CDSM Directive in the AI Act is inadequate and fails to provide an appropriate and proportionate solution; whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act; | G. whereas the implementation of Article 4 of the CDSM Directive and related provisions in the AI Act fails to provide an appropriate and proportionate solution; whereas copyright and related rights, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are not overridden by the AI Act; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| G a. whereas it is necessary to revise the AI Act’s implementation package, like the GPAI Code of Practice, the GPAI Guidelines, and the Template for sharing detailed summaries of training data, and to make sure that Article 53 of the AI Act is enforced effectively; whereas the sufficient detailed summary must necessarily render possible the enforcement of the copyright and whereas for this enforcement the disclosure of detailed information about the content used are absolutely necessary, whereas such detailed information must not necessarily be visible, but retrievable. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| G a. whereas copyright-intensive industries comprise a wide range of sectors, characterised by diverse licensing and remuneration practices, and thereby make a significant contribution to the diversity of the European Union’s cultural and creative landscape |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; | H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is an essential aspect of the business model of the creative sector in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without fair remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; whereas AI-generated content is increasingly used to substitute human-generated content; whereas this situation raises concerns about the future viability of the creative sector, which is essential for supplying the high-quality content needed to train Generative AI models; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; | H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without possibility to remuneration to rights holders, by reasonable licensing agreements created through market-based solutions, could create a imbalance in the copyright ecosystem, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; whereas there's ongoing effort to support the appropriate implementation of the CDSM Directive, which includes the development of technical solutions for opt-outs; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; | H. whereas rightsholders' exclusive right to the exploitation of their works is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without authorization or remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, the condition of lawful access in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive is ignored by AI model providers who rely on unauthorized use of copyright-protected content on a massive scale and the rightsholders' right to opt out from exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive cannot easily be enforced or verified due to the alck of transparency and good faith from Gen AI; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; | H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content and respect for authors' rights and their contractual freedom is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas cultural and creative works are essential data for training AI models; whereas the massive use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; | H. whereas commercial freedom and respect for copyright and exclusive rights for rightsholders to license their protected content for remuneration are the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the illegal use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without authorisation, creates systemic imbalance and injustice in the copyright ecosystem to the detriment of rightsholders, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders may find it difficult to exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, and to verify whether their opt-out has been respected and complied with; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; | H. whereas compensation for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry and of the economic stability of creators in Europe; whereas the illegal use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders who have reserved their rights under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; | H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor are they informed whether copyright-protected works have been used as training data for generative AI models; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H. whereas fair remuneration for the use of protected content is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the use of content protected by copyright and related rights as training data for generative AI models, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to their detriment, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders cannot easily or effectively exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, nor verify whether their opt-out has been respected; | H. whereas respect for copyright is the backbone of the creative industry in Europe; whereas the illegal use of content protected by copyright and related rights, without remuneration to rights holders, creates a systemic imbalance in the copyright ecosystem to the detriment of rightsholders, thereby undermining the economic sustainability of the creative sector in the European Union, particularly given that, at present, rights holders may find it difficult to exercise their right to opt out from the exception provided for in Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, and to verify whether their opt-out has been respected and complied with; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H a. whereas the legal framework for GenAI reflects the principle that licenses for the use of copyright-protected works in the training of commercial GenAI are the most important prerequisite for the development of innovative, technologically advanced European AI; whereas such licensing has the potential to strengthen European cultural and creative industries to the benefit of European cultural diversity; whereas such licensing has equally the potential to benefit the development of GenAI as GenAI constantly needs content; whereas any adjustment to the current legislation should support the licensing of European works from rightsholders as a vital element of European competitiveness; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H a. whereas licensing models for GenAI, whether direct or collective, will vary across and within sectors ans should always remain voluntary in order to leave flexibility for rightsholders to adopt the model that is best suited to them or to refuse to license their works; wheras licenses concluded for AI training should not automatically be deemed to redress past unauthorized uses of the copyright-protected content. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H a. whereas GenAI, by massively and inexpensively creating content that mimics that produced by human creativity, competes directly with the work of creators, particularly of cultural and media content; whereas this competition leads to a decline in the quality of online content as a result of creators disengaging, and thus to an overall decline in human cultural and creative production; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H a. whereas collective management provides an efficient solution for authors’ appropriate and proportionate remuneration, while ensuring the broadest possible access to high quality protected works necessary for the development and operation of Generative AI services with legal certainty. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H a. whereas the opacity of training datasets prevents rights holders, creators and regulators from verifying compliance with legislation and rights reservations under the CDSM Directive, thereby accentuating power asymmetries between platforms and rights holders; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Ha. whereas it may be important to examine whether an opt-in regime is more conducive to respecting copyright and related rights on the one hand and developing AI technologies on the other; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H b. whereas this risk of a gradual disappearance of the human dimension of creation in favour of AI-generated content, in addition to undermining the economic viability of the creative sector, poses an existential risk to European society and democracy, in that it blurs the boundaries between truth and falsehood, the perception of discourse and its authors, and disrupts cognitive faculties and critical thinking; whereas the AI Act takes these risks into account, but cannot be complete without robust protection of copyright and related rights; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H b. Whereas licensing models for Generative AI, whether implemented directly or through collective arrangements, might differ between and within sectors and must remain voluntary to preserve the flexibility of rightsholders to choose the model that best suits their interests or to prohibit the use of their works; whereas licenses granted for AI training purposes shall not be presumed to retroactively authorize or remedy any prior unauthorized use of copyright-protected content. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H b. Considering that it is essential to establish binding mechanisms for transparency and traceability of training data, as well as a mandatory and verifiable fair remuneration system for the benefit of rights holders; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| H c. Whereas rights holders suffer from a structural deficit in fair remuneration for the exploitation of their works; Whereas the rise of generative artificial intelligence risks exacerbating this imbalance, in particular due to the contractual freedom exercised by AI service providers; Whereas collective licensing is an effective tool for ensuring transparent and fair remuneration, enhancing traceability and control over the use of protected works, and thus helping to restore the balance between data-exploiting platforms and rights holders, while ensuring legal certainty and economic sustainability for the European creative, scientific, and information sector; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment and of where any use of protected content took place prior to such deployment or offer; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment and of where any use of protected content took place prior to such deployment or offer; | I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field among AI providers requires that Union and Member States’ rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union and where the output produced by the AI system is used in the Union, irrespective of their place of establishment and of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underpinning the training of those AI models took place prior to their deployment or offer; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment and of where any use of protected content took place prior to such deployment or offer; | I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that EU rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underpinning the training of their GenAI models take place; whereas enforcement of the law and fair remuneration for rights holders may require novel, voluntary collective licensing models to address issues such as market dominance and discrimination against smaller rights holders; whereas entering in new license agreements should not be misconstrued as redress for past unauthorised uses of copyright-protected content; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment and of where any use of protected content took place prior to such deployment or offer; | I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment and of where any use of protected content took place prior to such deployment or offer; whereas application of EU rules to all services available in the EU is of critical importance to maintain European sovereignity, to ensure the playing field between EU and non-EU providers, and to guarantee appropriate remuneration of creators for the sue of their works. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment and of where any use of protected content took place prior to such deployment or offer; | I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment and of where any use of protected content took place prior to such deployment or offer; | I. whereas ensuring proper enforcement of the law and a level playing field across the Union requires that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all Gen AI services deploying products or offering services within the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment and of where any use of protected content took place prior to such deployment or offer; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I a. Whereas the development of artificial intelligence that complies with Union law is essential to guarantee digital sovereignty, reduce dependence on a few large non-European companies, and promote innovation that complies with fundamental rights; Whereas, in particular, the protection of the press and news publishers, whose content is essential to pluralism and democratic debate, is jeopardized by the unauthorized appropriation of their publications by generative artificial intelligence models; Whereas safeguarding an independent, pluralistic, and economically sustainable media ecosystem is a necessary condition for the effective exercise of freedom of expression, citizens' right to information, and the proper functioning of European democracy; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I a. whereas application of EU rules to all services available in the EU is of critical importance to maintain European sovereignty, to ensure the playing field between EU and non-EU services, and to guarantee appropriate remuneration of creators for the use of their work; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I b. whereas artificial intelligence (AI), and generative AI in particular, is a fundamental and transformative technology that offers enormous opportunities across various sectors, driving scientific discovery, social progress and economic growth; whereas artificial intelligence is already enabling significant breakthroughs, from understanding diseases to mitigating climate change, and has the potential to significantly improve the quality of life for billions of people; whereas artificial intelligence also has exciting and promising applications in the creative and media industries, enhancing creativity and opening up new opportunities for artists, journalists and creators of all kinds by providing new tools and supporting new approaches to creative processes, thus serving as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, human creativity; whereas the responsible development of AI systems depends fundamentally on the freedom to learn from vast and diverse data sets, including publicly available information, which is crucial for obtaining high-quality, reliable and objective results and supporting innovation; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I b. whereas any AI provider placing a general-purpose AI model on the Union market shall remain responsible for verifying that the measures included in their copyright policy as outlined in the Code of Practice comply with Member States’ implementation of Union law on copyright and related rights, in particular but not only to identify and comply with the reservation of rights expressed by rightsholders pursuant to Article 4(3) of the CDSM Directive, before carrying out any copyright-relevant act in the territory of the relevant Member State as failure to do so may give rise to liability under Union law on copyright and related rights; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I c. Whereas the Code of practice is only of voluntary compliance, and not all AI providers have signed it, in particular its Copyright Chapter; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I d. whereas the global nature and exponential rate of AI training, deployment and offers on the one hand, and the territorial application of the rules pertaining to copyright and related rights on the other hand, create obstacles for obtaining licensing on the relevant rights and for making AI products and services complying with those rights available on the Union market, in a way similar to but dramatically increased to the digital non-AI era; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| I e. whereas case-law on the topic of the infringing use of copyrighted content for the training of AI models is still scarce, as a few court decisions should be expected in a near future, after judicial actions have been introduced by various rights holders in the EU and in the world against some AI providers; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| J. whereas Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced an exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; whereas Article 4 was neither drafted nor intended to regulate the specific practices involved in AI training; | J. whereas Articles 3 and 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced an exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; whereas Articles 3 and 4 were intended inter alia to regulate the specific practices involved in AI training, which has been confirmed by guidance from the European Commission, the AI Act and jurisprudence; the existing TDM exception under Article 4 CDSM provides a relevant legal framework for the use of protected works for AI training purposes; whereas the European Parliament's press release that was issued when the Directive was enacted states that Article 4 will "contribute to the development of data analytics and artificial intelligence"; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| J. whereas Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced an exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; whereas Article 4 was neither drafted nor intended to regulate the specific practices involved in AI training; | J. whereas Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced a mandatory exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; whereas such TDM exception shall apply on condition that the use of works and other subject matter has not been expressly reserved by their rightholders in an appropriate manner, such as machine-readable means in the case of content made publicly available online, without affecting the application of Article 3 of the CDSM Directive enshrining a mandatory exception for text and data mining for scientific research; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| J. whereas Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced an exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; whereas Article 4 was neither drafted nor intended to regulate the specific practices involved in AI training; | J. whereas Article 4 of the CDSM Directive introduced an exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| J. whereas Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced an exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; whereas Article 4 was neither drafted nor intended to regulate the specific practices involved in AI training; | J. whereas Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced an exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| J. whereas Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced an exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; whereas Article 4 was neither drafted nor intended to regulate the specific practices involved in AI training; | J. whereas Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced an exception for the reproduction and the extraction of works and other subject matter for the purpose of text and data mining (TDM), which, under Article 2 of that Directive, is defined as ‘any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information [...]’; whereas Article 4 wasn't drafted to specifically regulate the specific practices involved in AI training, however is still applicable. |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| J a. whereas this exception applies on condition that the use of works and other subject matter referred to in that paragraph has not been expressly reserved by their rights holders through so called ‘opt out’ in an appropriate manner; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| K. whereas this new and specific form of use (GenAI training) requires a clarification of the legal conditions under which such training may be conducted; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| K. whereas this new and specific form of use (GenAI training) requires a clarification of the legal conditions under which such training may be conducted; | K. whereas the TDM exceptions were originally not designed to address generative AI training and therefore are not applicable; whereas an application of these exceptions to generative AI training would not comply with the Three-Step-Test of European and International law; whereas a clarification of the legal conditions under which such training may be conducted is needed |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| K. whereas this new and specific form of use (GenAI training) requires a clarification of the legal conditions under which such training may be conducted; | K. whereas this new and specific form of use (GenAI training) is not covered by the exceptions set out in the CDSM Directive, and requires a clarification of the legal conditions under which such training may be conducted; considering that such clarification would benefit both rights holders and AI providers and deployers; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| K. whereas this new and specific form of use (GenAI training) requires a clarification of the legal conditions under which such training may be conducted; | K. whereas this new and specific form of use (GenAI training) is not covered by TDM exception, as these were not initially conceived to cover generative AI training, and such uses would conflict with the conditions of the Three-Step Test mandated under European and International copyright law; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| K. whereas this new and specific form of use (GenAI training) requires a clarification of the legal conditions under which such training may be conducted; | K. whereas this specific form of use (GenAI training) requires an assessment of the legal conditions under which such training may be conducted in order to both ensure effective enforcement of the CDSM Directive and to enable good conditions for AI training in the EU; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| K. whereas this new and specific form of use (GenAI training) requires a clarification of the legal conditions under which such training may be conducted; | K. whereas this specific form of use (GenAI training) requires a confirmation of the above legal conditions under which such training may be conducted; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| K a. whereas Article 3 of the CDSM Directive introduced an exception for reproductions and extractions made by research organisations and cultural heritage institutions in order to carry out, for the purposes of scientific research, text and data mining of works or other subject matter to which they have lawful access; whereas this exception for research and scientific activities should be maintained to support research and innovation in the EU; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; | L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; whereas copyright-protected works are extremely valuable for the purposes of training artificial intelligence, including from the point of view of properly reflecting European cultural and linguistic diversity; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; | L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential both for research and for the effective commercial development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful creation and use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; whereas innovation and the EU’s technological sovereignty should go hand in hand with reaffirming the principle of moral and economic rights of the creative sector; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; | L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union, which excludes pirated, unauthorised or otherwise infringing material, is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape and protecting Europe’s cultural and creative industries; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; | L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union on the basis of licensing by fair and non-waivable remuneration for the right holders concerned is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; | L. whereas high-quality, human-based (non synthetic) and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological and cultural sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets are essential for the effective development of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; | L. whereas high-quality and comprehensive training datasets, are essential for the effective development and training of GenAI systems and to secure high-quality and trustworthy outputs of GenAI systems; whereas enabling the lawful use of such datasets within the European Union is therefore crucial to fostering innovation, ensuring technological sovereignty, and maintaining the Union’s competitiveness in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L a. Whereas GenAI do not only rely on training data they collect themselves but also on dedicated datasets that were built by third parties and amy be hosted on dedicated public platforms; whereas copyright rules also apply to dataset creators and to platforms dedicated to hosting them; whereas platforms hosting third party datasets should be subject to a traceability obligation regarding their users who provide datasets for AI training; whereas Gen AI providers should have an obligation to ensure that third-party datasets they use are copyright compliant |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L a. whereas the development of generative AI systems must be accompanied by clear commitments from providers to ensure transparency, fair remuneration, and the avoidance of algorithmic bias or discrimination, so as to align technological progress with the Union’s fundamental rights and social objectives; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L a. whereas lawful use expressly excludes the use of pirated, unauthorised, or otherwise infringing material; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| L b. whereas the use of infringing datasets undermines both the reliability of AI outputs and the protection of Europe’s cultural and creative industries; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| M. whereas the upcoming launch of the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre would represent a timely and commendable initiative aimed at strengthening the interface between copyright and emerging technologies, particularly GenAI; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| M. whereas the upcoming launch of the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre would represent a timely and commendable initiative aimed at strengthening the interface between copyright and emerging technologies, particularly GenAI; | M. whereas the upcoming launch of the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre would represent a timely and commendable initiative aimed at strengthening the interfaceand becme a main point of contact between copyright and related rights' owners and representatives and stakeholders acting in the field of emerging technologies, particularly GenAI; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| M. whereas the upcoming launch of the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre would represent a timely and commendable initiative aimed at strengthening the interface between copyright and emerging technologies, particularly GenAI; | M. whereas the upcoming launch of the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre would represent a timely and commendable initiative aimed at providing useful and reliable information on copyright and at strengthening the interface between copyright and emerging technologies, particularly GenAI; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| M a. whereas the licensing models applicable to generative AI, whether direct or collective, are likely to differ across sectors; whereas these models must always remain voluntary in order to guarantee rights holders the freedom to choose the solution best suited to their situation, or even to refuse any licence; whereas, furthermore, licences concluded for the training of AI systems cannot be automatically interpreted as regularising previous unauthorised uses of protected works; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| M a. whereas digitalization especially when driven by large, monopoly-like platforms, requires a bigger bargaining power of the creative sector to defend its rights, a greater centralization and better coordinated structures for rights management are needed |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; | N. whereas, in addition to deploying state-of-the-art machine-readable opt-out protocols, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in voluntary, decentralised and interoperable registries, in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of reserved works from automated data crawling; whereas such voluntary registries should not lead to any presumption regarding unregistered works and should be accompanied with incentives to register reserved works, such as statutory damages in case of use of registered rights reservation; whereas EUIPO should be tasked with maintaining a centralised registry of crawlers used for GenAI purposes, in order to guarantee visibility for rightsholders and enable them to express their opt out; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; | N. whereas, in addition to a machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility, on a voluntary basis, to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling TDM users to act on a rights reservation when appropriate without undue burden, and ensuring that the registry respects the unconditional TDM exception that exists under Article 3 and do not overlook the existence of other relevant exceptions under the CDSM Directive; further facilitating the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; | N. whereas, in order to enable effective opt-outs, rights holders should be empowered to register such opt-out in a centralised or federated registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, including an itemised list of each opted-out piece of content, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) or through other effective, sector-specific registries, catalogues or dataspaces, thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling and providing legal certainty to both rights holders and AI providers; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; | N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders could also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; | N. whereas GenAI is an extremely fast-developing technology and rights holders must take this into account to ensure that their right of refusal is effective; whereas the EUIPO should therefore consider continuously monitoring and listing existing data crawling technologies, for the benefit of rights holders, in order to ensure the effectiveness and technological longevity of the refusals expressed; whereas any proposal for a new mechanism for expressing the right of refusal risks adding a new layer of complexity to the already complex architecture; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; | N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a decentralised registry, using sector specific technological standards and interoperable machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling, when the rightsholders want to reserve their rights; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; | N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to use an opt-out repository managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of copyright protected works from automated data crawling, this would in particular improve the situation of small right holders such as independent creators, freelancers and other small businesses who hold a copyright; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; | N. whereas, in addition to a standardised machine-readable opt-out, rights holders should also have the possibility to register such opt-out in a centralised registry, potentially as a complement to other methods, using a single technological standard and in machine-readable format, potentially managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), thereby enabling the effective exclusion of registered works from automated data crawling; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; | O. whereas any developer and provider of AI, including GenAI should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each content used for training; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for other purposes including inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; whereas uses such as inference and retrieval-augmented generation essentially happen continuously and in real-time and, in such cases, transparency should include the act of crawling itself whereby, on the one hand crawlers are required to identify themselves to the web operators, and on the other hand AI providers or deployers are required to maintain detailed records of their crawling activities; whereas a presumption that content has been crawled, including for inference and retrieval-augmented generation purposes, should apply where AI systems handle user queries ; whereas the mere information of the third-party content used by AI and GenAI providers and deployers does not constitute trade secrets under EU law; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; | O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; | O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency can be achieved by training AI models in such a way that rights holders whose copyright has been used are informed about such use; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; | O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training, in a way that is accessible, searchable, and comprehensible also to non-specialist rights holders, including individuals and SMEs, without creating disproportionate administrative burdens; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; | O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training; whereas this list should be made publicly available, especially to rightholders; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; | O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list, identifying each copyright-protected content used for training; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA and the Code of Practice on General Purpose AI, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O. whereas any GenAI provider should ensure full and detailed transparency concerning all copyright-protected content used to train that system, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underlying the training were performed; whereas this transparency shall consist in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training; whereas the same requirement should apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent use of content for inference, retrieval-augmented generation or fine-tuning not only by providers of AI models, as currently stipulated by Article 53 AIA, but also by providers or deployers of AI systems; | O. whereas GenAI providers should ensure transparency concerning copyright-protected content used to train their GenAI models to the maximum extent technologically feasible, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underpinning the training of their GenAI models take place; whereas this transparency and its practical implementation should ensure that rights holders can assess if their copyright-protected content was used for AI training purposes, including information such as source, date and time of collection and use, and the legal basis for using their content; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O a. Whereas allowing rights holdersnot only to verify that their opposition to the use of protected content has been taken into account, but also to derive economic benefits in terms of remuneration is essential. Whereas information relating to protected content used by generative AI service providers should not be classified as trade secrets within the meaning of European Union law. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O a. whereas providers of general-purpose AI models, to ensure compliance with the AI Act, should put in place a policy to comply with Union law on copyright and related rights, in particular to identify and comply with the reservation of rights expressed by rightsholders pursuant to Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O a. considering that the “sufficiently detailed summary” template requested from GenAI providers does not, in its current form, guarantee adequate transparency conditions regarding the content used to train their systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O b. Whereas the Commission’s Template for the public summary of training content for general-purpose AI models is of voluntary compliance and provides only for minimum requirements allowing to fulfil the transparency obligations of AI providers, where it is necessary to enable the exercise of rights protected under Union law in a meaningful manner as required by Article 53(1)(d) and Recital 107 of the AI Act; whereas the ‘sufficiently detailed’ public summary shall make it possible to identify the potential use of copyrighted content, based not only on the type of content but also on its sensitivity to legal rights; whereas the protection of trade secrets or confidential business information should not prevent to achieve the objective of the summary of providing meaningful public transparency and facilitating parties with legitimate interests to exercise and enforce their rights under Union law; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O c. Providers should go beyond the minimum requirements in the Template and disclose in the Summary more details than what is required by Article 53(1)(d) AI Act and the Template; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| O d. Furthermore, for domain names scraped or crawled from the internet that are not listed in the Summary, it is recommended that providers act in good faith and on a voluntary basis enable parties with a legitimate interest including rightholders, upon requests, to obtain information whether the provider has scraped and used for training content which includes protected works and other subject matter that rightholders have made available on specific internet domains; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; | P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to : |
| 1. assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; | |
| 2. require and analyze detailed transparency reports; | |
| 3. allow rights holders with a legitimate interest to access relevant information to monitor the use of their content; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; | P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary linked to a central, federal, or sector-specific opt-out registry, catalogue or database, which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to obtain licensing fees in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations and to arbitrate between rights holders and AI providers in case of disputes; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; | P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would serve as a support body to help right holders safeguard their interests; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; | P. whereas such transparency could be additionally facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; | P. whereas such transparency could further be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for notifying rights holders of the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; | P. whereas such transparency could be facilitated through a trusted intermediary, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would help rights holders to identify the use of their content, thereby enabling them to assert claims in relation to its use for training; such an intermediary should be endowed with the necessary powers and resources to assess whether providers and deployers comply fully with the transparency obligations; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; | Q. whereas in addition to the consultation to the aforementioned EUIPO repository, requiring Generative AI providers to cooperate in good faith with relevant collective management organisations and main rightholders would help to identify the copyright protected works and other subject matter and to comply with transparency requirements about the content used for GenAI training; whereas such transparency could also be achieved by requiring Generative AI providers to make available technical tools that allow for the detection of such protected works and other subject matters among the materials used for training as well as to use state-of-the-art tools to identify the reservation of rights on copyright protected works and other protected subject matter; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; | Q. whereas the EUIPO could be entrusted with leading the establishment of a single Union-level entry point serving as a one-stop shop for generative AI developers, which would centralise the relevant information and tools necessary to ensure compliance with transparency obligations; such a system should enable rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and require AI providers to make available search functionalities allowing for the detection of such watermarks in the materials used for training; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; | Q. whereas transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to and others to use and make available search tools that allow for the detection among the materials used for training; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; | Q. whereas, in addition to the aforementioned registers, catalogues or databases, transparency should also be facilitated by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to keep such watermarking unaltered, and to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; | Q. whereas, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark or attach dedicated metadata, combined with blockchain technologies or industry identifiers, to their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available and deploy search tools that ensure robust traceability of protected works among the materials used for training; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; | Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by requiring AI providers or deployers to allow rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q. whereas, as an alternative to the aforementioned EUIPO register, transparency could also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; | Q. whereas, a transparency should also be achieved by enabling rights holders to watermark their works and other protected subject matter, and by requiring AI providers to make available search tools that allow for the detection of such watermarks among the materials used for training; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Q a. Believes that collective management organisations (CMOs), thanks to their experience in representing a wide range of rights-holders for large-scale licensing, notably at international level, could play a central role in licensing the mass-scale uses of copyright-protected works for training GenAI to facilitate the legal exploitation of works and deliver remuneration to the authors and other rightholders, while offering a central contact point for AI providers for licensing; in particular, calls CMOs to engage further into efficient technical solutions for the exchange of information between them internationally and cross-creative sectors, notably within the framework of their reciprocal agreements; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of full transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI providers or deployers to provide complete transparency shall give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that any relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; | R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of transparency, concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there's a growing demand for market-based solution regarding licensing and remuneration systems; whereas the AI Act contains requirements to help rightholder to exercie their rights. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of full transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI providers or deployers to provide complete transparency shall give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that any relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; | R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of full transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI providers or deployers to provide complete transparency shall give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that any relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder or the organisations representing them on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of full transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI providers or deployers to provide complete transparency shall give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that any relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; | R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI system providers or deployers to provide complete transparency may give rise to apresumption that a relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses should be borne by the AI system provider, without prejudice to applicable national law; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of full transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI providers or deployers to provide complete transparency shall give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that any relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; | R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI developers, providers or deployers to provide complete transparency shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that any relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of full transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI providers or deployers to provide complete transparency shall give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that any relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; | R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of full transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI providers or deployers to provide complete transparency shall give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that any relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all legal costs and other reasonable and proportionate expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of full transparency concerning copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, the failure by AI providers or deployers to provide complete transparency shall give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that any relevant copyrighted work or other protected subject matter has been used for training purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; | R. whereas, in addition to the obligation of full transparency, there is a need to establish a mechanism whereby, the failure by providers or deployers of AI models and systems to provide complete transparency shall give rise to an irrebuttable presumption that any relevant copyright protected work or other protected subject matter has been used for training, inference, retrieval-augmented generation, fine-tuning or other purposes, thereby triggering all applicable legal consequences under Union and national law for the infringement of copyright or related rights; whereas, where a court finds in favour of a rights holder on the basis of either such a presumption or of submitted evidence, all reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses shall be borne by the AI provider; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| S. whereas there is a knowledge gap among GenAI providers, especially smaller firms, regarding their copyright obligations under EU law; | S. whereas there is a knowledge gap among GenAI providers, especially smaller firms, regarding their copyright obligations under EU law; whereas there is a need for building capacity and knowledge among GenAI providers, in particular smaller firms, regarding their obligations and license options; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| S. whereas there is a knowledge gap among GenAI providers, especially smaller firms, regarding their copyright obligations under EU law; | S. whereas there is a need for capacity and knowledge development programmes for GenAI providers, especially smaller firms, regarding their copyright obligations and how they can properly license the protected works they use for their services under EU law; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| S. whereas there is a knowledge gap among GenAI providers, especially smaller firms, regarding their copyright obligations under EU law; | S. whereas there is a knowledge gap among AI providers, especially smaller firms, regarding their copyright rights and obligations under EU law; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| S. whereas there is a knowledge gap among GenAI providers, especially smaller firms, regarding their copyright obligations under EU law; | S. whereas increasing knowledge among GenAI providers about current EU copyright legislation is the responsibility of the Member State concerned; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| S a. whereas voluntary, sector-specific collective licensing agreements could provide a balanced and efficient framework for ensuring the fair remuneration of rights holders while enabling access to high-quality training data for AI providers; whereas such collective licensing agreements should foster fairness, transparency and legal certainty for all parties involved, in particular smaller rights holders and small and medium-sized enterprises, while preventing the fragmentation of licensing practices and addressing the risk of unilateral or discriminatory licensing terms; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; | T. whereas the media services sector hold a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that AI assistants and their providers do not engage in selective processing of information or content as such that favours certain publications over others, thereby hampering the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas AI assistants must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of media services content to uphold fundamental democratic values of media pluralism and diversity as well as fairness in public discourse; whereas AI assistants must be designed to not display information or content in general factually incorrect; whereas providers of AI assistants shall be obliged to adhere to the principle of source and brand attribution, thereby clearly identifying original journalistic source material used, fully and correctly, for the purpose of fostering transparency, authenticity and trustworthiness in the communication process; whereas there is insofar a need to establish clear quality standards for AI assistants; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; | T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; whereas attention should be given to supporting local and regional press outlets to ensure pluralism is preserved across all Member States, including in less digitally developed regions; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; | T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must incorporate and consider a diverse spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; | T. whereas the press and audiovisual sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems, including so called "AI assistants" do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of journalistic media publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; | T. whereas freedom of the press holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; | T. whereas the media sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain news media over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of news media to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; | T. whereas the media sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain news media over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of news media to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T. whereas the press sector holds a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain publications over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of press publications to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; | T. whereas the media hold a vital role in safeguarding democracy and the democratic structure within the European Union; whereas it is essential to ensure that GenAI models and systems do not engage in selective processing that favours certain news media over others, thereby preserving the plurality and impartiality of information; whereas GenAI models and systems must be designed to incorporate and consider the full spectrum of news media to uphold fundamental democratic values of diversity and fairness in public discourse; whereas there is a need to establish clear quality standards for GenAI models and systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T a. whereas the use of press publications, including but not limited to textual articles, audiovisual material, and video content, should be accompanied by a clear and visible indication of the source and, where applicable, a direct link to the original work; whereas this obligation should apply systematically, irrespective of whether the material is reproduced, transformed, or incorporated as part of a generated output; whereas such transparency is essential to safeguard copyright and ensure fair recognition of journalistic and creative work as well as ensuring and upholding the integrity of the information ecosystem and ensuring access to pluralistic content of quality. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T a. whereas the use of general-purpose AI models and systems for the aggregation and summarisation of news content can divert audiences away from original press outlets, thereby reducing both readership and associated advertising or subscription revenues; whereas such effects may disproportionately impact local and regional media, further endangering media pluralism in the Union; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| T b. whereas certain forms of journalism, such as war reporting, investigative journalism, and on-the-ground coverage in high-risk or conflict zones, rely on human presence, judgment, and contextual understanding that cannot be replicated by artificial intelligence; whereas safeguarding these forms of journalism is essential to ensuring accurate, first-hand information, protecting democratic discourse, and countering disinformation; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| U. whereas transparency regarding the output generated by artificial intelligence systems is essential to enable proper classification of works as ‘human-created’ or otherwise; whereas such classification entails significant legal consequences, including for the applicability of copyright protection and the determination of rights and liabilities; | U. whereas citizens’ trust in AI can only be built on an ethics-by-default and ethics-by-design regulatory framework, which ensures that any AI put into operation fully respects and complies with the Treaties, the Charter and secondary Union law; whereas explainability, auditability, traceability and transparency are essential to ensuring citizens’ trust in those technologies; whereas transparency on the use of AI in creative processes is necessary to ensure the ethical use of the technology in the context of the creative sector; whereas output generated by artificial intelligence systems should be clearly labelled in order to enable proper classification of works as ‘AI generated’ or ‘human-created’, depending on whether the output meets the established criteria for copyright protection; whereas such classification entails significant legal consequences, including for the applicability of copyright protection and the determination of rights and liabilities; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| U. whereas transparency regarding the output generated by artificial intelligence systems is essential to enable proper classification of works as ‘human-created’ or otherwise; whereas such classification entails significant legal consequences, including for the applicability of copyright protection and the determination of rights and liabilities; | U. whereas transparency regarding the output generated by artificial intelligence systems is essential to enable proper classification of works as ‘human-created’ or otherwise, and to protect consumers from deception, safeguard democratic discourse, and ensure that human creativity remains visible and valued in the digital space; whereas such classification entails significant legal consequences, including for the applicability of copyright protection and the determination of rights and liabilities; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| U. whereas transparency regarding the output generated by artificial intelligence systems is essential to enable proper classification of works as ‘human-created’ or otherwise; whereas such classification entails significant legal consequences, including for the applicability of copyright protection and the determination of rights and liabilities; | U. whereas transparency regarding the output fully generated by artificial intelligence systems is essential to enable proper classification of works as ‘human-created’ or otherwise; whereas such classification entails significant legal consequences, including for the applicability of copyright protection and the determination of rights and liabilities; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| U. whereas transparency regarding the output generated by artificial intelligence systems is essential to enable proper classification of works as ‘human-created’ or otherwise; whereas such classification entails significant legal consequences, including for the applicability of copyright protection and the determination of rights and liabilities; | U. whereas transparency regarding the output generated by artificial intelligence systems is essential to enable proper classification of outputs as ‘human-created’ or otherwise; whereas such classification entails significant legal consequences, including for the applicability of copyright protection and the determination of rights and liabilities; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| V. whereas the generation of outputs, characteristic of GenAI, can infringe the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public, or of communication to the public; whereas the TDM exception as provided for in article 4 of the CSDSM does not cover the right of making available to the public or the right of communication to the public; | V. whereas the generation of outputs, characteristic of GenAI, can infringe the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public, or of communication to the public; whereas the TDM exception as provided for in article 4 of the CSDSM does not cover the right of making available to the public or the right of communication to the public; whereas the generation of outputs by GenAI trained on copyright-protected works already has a destabilising effect on the commercial market of some cultural and creative sectors; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| V. whereas the generation of outputs, characteristic of GenAI, can infringe the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public, or of communication to the public; whereas the TDM exception as provided for in article 4 of the CSDSM does not cover the right of making available to the public or the right of communication to the public; | V. whereas the generation of outputs characteristic of GenAI, can infringe the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public, or of communication to the public; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| V. whereas the generation of outputs, characteristic of GenAI, can infringe the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public, or of communication to the public; whereas the TDM exception as provided for in article 4 of the CSDSM does not cover the right of making available to the public or the right of communication to the public; | V. whereas the generation of outputs, characteristic of GenAI, can in extraordinary cases infringe the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public, or of communication to the public; whereas the TDM exception as provided for in article 4 of the CSDSM does not cover the right of making available to the public or the right of communication to the public of GenAI outputs; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| V a. whereas the generation of outputs by GenAI trained on copyright-protected works already has a destabilising effect on the commercial market in certain sectors by flooding it with competing AI-generated works, often without disclosing their nature to consumers, thues threatening the normal exploitation of works; whereas this leads some sectors to legitimately refuse to license their works to Gen AI in order to protect the viability of the market for huma creators; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| X a. whereas GenAI may also be used to aid in the enforcement of copyright law; whereas automated copyright enforcement tools have been abused by malicious actors to curtail fundamental rights such as press freedom; whereas such use should therefore preclude automated take-down of content online through GenAI without effective safeguards ensuring full respect for fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of the press; whereas the use of GenAI for copyright enforcement should be subject to human oversight; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Y. whereas inconsistent international regulation regarding the copyright eligibility of AI-generated content poses a risk to the global coherence of intellectual property law and may give rise to regulatory arbitrage or undermine the competitiveness of the Union’s creative and AI sectors; whereas international convergence and the establishment of a global regulatory framework would provide a more effective and coherent alternative to the current fragmentation of legal approaches; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Y. whereas inconsistent international regulation regarding the copyright eligibility of AI-generated content poses a risk to the global coherence of intellectual property law and may give rise to regulatory arbitrage or undermine the competitiveness of the Union’s creative and AI sectors; whereas international convergence and the establishment of a global regulatory framework would provide a more effective and coherent alternative to the current fragmentation of legal approaches; | deleted |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Y. whereas inconsistent international regulation regarding the copyright eligibility of AI-generated content poses a risk to the global coherence of intellectual property law and may give rise to regulatory arbitrage or undermine the competitiveness of the Union’s creative and AI sectors; whereas international convergence and the establishment of a global regulatory framework would provide a more effective and coherent alternative to the current fragmentation of legal approaches; | Y. whereas inconsistent international regulation regarding the copyright eligibility of AI-generated content poses a risk to the global coherence of intellectual property law and may give rise to regulatory arbitrage or undermine the competitiveness of the Union’s creative and AI sectors; whereas the current geopolitical landscape hinders international convergence and the establishment of a global regulatory framework; whereas EU regulation on AI and copyright should not be impacted by external political pressure; whereas in this context, the EU must offer a strong and united response to secure the functioning of its internal market, to protect its workforce and competitiveness, to strengthen is tech autonomy and set global standards in the field of intellectual property; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle of territoriality needs to be adapted for the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle of territoriality needs to be adapted for the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle of territoriality needs to be adapted for the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; | Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle of territoriality needs to be adapted for the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; whereas this principle is fundamental to ensuring remuneration for European creators and rights holders and thus the cultural and creative vitality of the Union, but also to ensuring fair competition between European and non-European providers of GenAI systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle of territoriality needs to be adapted for the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; | Z. whereas, in line with the EU and international law, the existing principle of territoriality of copyright protection needs to be applied in such a way that the copyright relevant acts involved in the training and development of Generative AI services available in the European Union are subject to European copyright law even if they occur outside the EU; whereas this is essential for leveling the playing field between EU and non-EU-based Generative AI services and appropriate protection of authors’ rights; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle of territoriality needs to be adapted for the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; | Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle that AI systems deployed in the EU must respect European copyright law, as stated in Recital 106 of the AI Act, applies in its entirety to the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; stresses that GenAI systems not meeting this standard should be barred from operation within the EU and this principle robustly enforced; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle of territoriality needs to be adapted for the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; | Z. whereas, in line with EU and international law, the existing principle of territoriality of copyright protection needs to be adapted for the training and development of GenAI services available in the EU in order to ensure that are subject to European copyright law even if they occur outside the EU in order to ensure a level playing field between EU and non-EU based Generative AI services, as well as appropriate protection and fair remuneration of creators for the use of their works; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle of territoriality needs to be adapted for the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; | Z. whereas the existing principle of territoriality needs to be respected; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z. whereas, to the extent permitted by international law, the existing principle of territoriality needs to be adapted for the training of GenAI systems in order to ensure that training with European content is subject to European law even if it is realised outside the EU; | Z. whereas AI providers should put in place a policy to comply with the reservation of rights expressed by rightsholders pursuant to Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underpinning the training of their GenAI models take place. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z a. whereas providers of AI systems may, in addition to their commercial activities, also develop models for the purpose of scientific research; whereas, as such, these models may benefit from the exception provided for in Article 3 of the CDSM Directive; whereas rights holders may not opt out of the text and data mining carried out in their catalogues under this Article; whereas text and data mining carried out under Article 3 may not be used for the development of AI models for commercial purposes by circumventing the possibility for rights holders to opt out; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z a. whereas the rapid advancement of GenAI has significantly increased the possibilities to create and disseminate realistic manipulated digital image, audio or video content, including artists' works and performances, that resembles or imitates existing persons, ‘deep fakes’, which falsely appear to be authentic or truthful; whereas the misuse of such content poses a risk to individual’s fundamental right to their identity, including their own body, facial features and voice; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Z a. wheras it shall be presumed that the offering of AI systems within the Union constitutes a communcation to the public of the training works |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Recommends that the Commission, independently of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive and without presupposing the need for legislative revision, urgently conduct a thorough assessment of whether the existing EU copyright acquis adequately addresses the legal uncertainty and competitive effects associated with the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, as well as the dissemination of AI-generated content that may substitute human-created expression; | 1. Recommends that, as part of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive, the Commission conducts a thorough assessment of the existing EU copyright acquis, without presupposing the need for legislative revision. This assessment should take a holistic approach, considering the needs of all stakeholders, including researchers, universities, libraries, cultural organisations, European AI start-ups, news outlets and the creative sector, in relation to the use and development of AI. It should also address potential legal uncertainty and possible competitive effects associated with using protected works and other subject matter to train generative AI systems, and disseminating AI-generated content that could replace human-created expression. |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Recommends that the Commission, independently of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive and without presupposing the need for legislative revision, urgently conduct a thorough assessment of whether the existing EU copyright acquis adequately addresses the legal uncertainty and competitive effects associated with the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, as well as the dissemination of AI-generated content that may substitute human-created expression; | 1. Recommends that the Commission, independently of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive and without presupposing the need for legislative revision, urgently conduct a thorough assessment of whether the implementation of the existing EU copyright acquis adequately addresses the legal uncertainty and competitive effects associated with the use of protected works, territoriality implications and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, as well as the dissemination of AI-generated content that may substitute human-created expression or freely and publicly available resources such as online encyclopaedias, libraries or archives; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Recommends that the Commission, independently of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive and without presupposing the need for legislative revision, urgently conduct a thorough assessment of whether the existing EU copyright acquis adequately addresses the legal uncertainty and competitive effects associated with the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, as well as the dissemination of AI-generated content that may substitute human-created expression; | 1. Recommends that the Commission, independently of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive and without presupposing the need for legislative revision, urgently conduct a thorough analysis and assessment of whether the existing EU copyright acquis adequately and comprehensively addresses the legal uncertainty and competitive effects, and impact on fair competition conditions EU-wide, associated with the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, as well as the dissemination of AI-generated content that may substitute human-created expression; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Recommends that the Commission, independently of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive and without presupposing the need for legislative revision, urgently conduct a thorough assessment of whether the existing EU copyright acquis adequately addresses the legal uncertainty and competitive effects associated with the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, as well as the dissemination of AI-generated content that may substitute human-created expression; | 1. Recommends that the Commission, independently of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive and without presupposing the need for legislative revision, urgently conduct a thorough assessment of whether the existing EU copyright acquis adequately addresses the legal uncertainty and competitive effects associated with the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, the sustainability of other publicly available ressources as well as the dissemination of AI-generated content that may substitute human-created expression; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Recommends that the Commission, independently of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive and without presupposing the need for legislative revision, urgently conduct a thorough assessment of whether the existing EU copyright acquis adequately addresses the legal uncertainty and competitive effects associated with the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, as well as the dissemination of AI-generated content that may substitute human-created expression; | 1. Recommends that the Commission, in light of its planned review of the copyright framework and the CDSM Directive and without presupposing the need for legislative revision, urgently conduct a thorough assessment of whether the existing EU copyright acquis adequately addresses the legal uncertainty and competitive effects associated with the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, as well as the dissemination of AI-generated content that may substitute human-created expression; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. Calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth study of the artificial intelligence value chain ecosystem in order to assess the appropriateness and modalities of introducing a duty of care applicable to platforms hosting databases. This duty of care should include, in particular: | |
| a) obligations to know your uploaders (KYU); | |
| b) mechanisms to ensure traceability; | |
| c) systematic verification of the origin of data posted online; | |
| d) the obligation to remove or block access to databases containing content protected by copyright or related rights when posted online without authorization. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. This assessment should include a holistic approach which considers the needs of all actors, including researchers, universities, libraries, cultural organizations, European AI Start-ups and news outlets when using and developing AI. |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; | 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which transparency is ensured on the use of copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for TDM purposes, and fair remuneration mechanisms for such use enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production, as well as the public information ecosystem to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation, while also supporting the sustainable growth of the EU AI sector; notes that the Code of practice is a temporary tool for demonstrating compliance with the AI Act until harmonised standards are developed, as underlined in the guidelines published by the AI Office on 18 July 2025; invites the AI Office to further facilitate the work towards EU highest standards for efficient compliance with the requirements at stake; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; | 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework where licensing and enforcement of copyright holders' rights to obtain adequate remuneration enable the generation of resources necessary for the development of European artistic and creative production in the context of global transformation driven by artificial intelligence, without prejudice to the rightsholders’ position to decide whether and in what form to license their content for the uses related to generative AI; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; | 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair and proportionate remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; stresses the urgency of ensuring these conditions in order to avoid the growing risk of human creativity gradually disappearing in favour of content generated by AI systems; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; | 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to propose a framework in which informed choice of whether or not to authorise the use of copyright protected works and fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production, media and press content to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; | 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production, and European media to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation, and for the sustainability of the public information ecosystem; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; | 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic, journalistic, and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework in which fair remuneration mechanisms enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; | 2. Further recommends that such assessment aims to uphold a framework to enable the generation of the resources needed for European artistic and creative production to thrive in the context of AI-driven global transformation; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Calls for the proper implementation of the Code of Practice and its monitoring to ensure that European rules on copyright and related rights apply uniformly to all AI providers deploying products or offering services within the European Union, regardless of their place of establishment or of where the use of protected content occurred prior to such deployment or offer; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Calls on the Commission to create a High-Level Group on AI training and copyright, bringing together experts and representatives of AI developers and the cultural and creative sectors, with a mandate to foster dialogue, exchange good practices and propose recommendations for a licensing system that balances copyright protection with access to quality data; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Further encourages that the assessment considers the special needs of researchers and innovators, as well as the critical role of the text and data mining (TDM) exception in supporting their work and advancing Europe’s competitiveness and future discoveries. |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely on protected content without authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that imitates or directly draws upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly compete with those of the rights holders; | 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely on protected content without authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that infringes upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped in real time by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly and unfairly compete with those of the rights holders, including through illegal self-preferencing of gatekeepers, and therefore calls for the establishment of a coherent licensing framework to enable the fair remuneration of creators for the exploitation of their copyright-protected content by Generative AI; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely on protected content without authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that imitates or directly draws upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly compete with those of the rights holders; | 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely on protected content without authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that imitates or directly draws upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices result in the provision of products and services that directly compete with those of the rights holders, causing financial harm to the latter; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely on protected content without authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that imitates or directly draws upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly compete with those of the rights holders; | 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely on protected content without authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that imitates or directly draws upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly compete with those of the rights holders and may also benefit from self-preference; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely on protected content without authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that imitates or directly draws upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly compete with those of the rights holders; | 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely on protected content without legal basis, authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that imitates or directly draws upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly compete with those of the rights holders; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely on protected content without authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that imitates or directly draws upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly compete with those of the rights holders; | 3. Notes the use of generative AI systems that rely massively on protected content without authorisation from, or compensation to, the rights holders affected by such use, particularly when integrated into search engines or other digital services that enable the generation, often in real time and at marginal cost, of content that imitates or directly draws upon original works and other protected subject matter on which the models were trained or that was scraped, including in real time, by such models; is alarmed that these practices may result in the provision of products and services that directly compete with those of the rights holders; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Calls on the Commission to take immediate action to establish a High-Level Group on AI training and copyright made of experts and representatives of AI developers and cultural and creative sectors, including Collective Management Organisations (CMOs), with a six-months mandate to facilitate a mutual understanding of the respective challenges of both sides, develop good practices and deliver recommendations to develop a licensing market and remuneration schemes reconciling respect for copyright and related rights with access to quality data; encourages the Commission in such concertation exercise to initiate an evaluation of Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing to further adapt multi-territorial licensing to new challenges across sectors, but also to increase transparency and accountability rules applying to CMOs in order to ensure a trustworthy context of licensing negotiations; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Recalls that voluntary licensing, whether direct or collective, is the cornerstone of the creative sectors' success, enabling the necessary sectorial and individual flexibility to adopt the model best suited to a particular use. Recalls that rightsholders are also free to refuse to license their works to Gen AI, considering that in some cases such works would feed competing services provided by AI operators. Stresses that such freedome must remain the rule, including for Gen AI licensing, in order to enable each sector to find the best model and to protect the market from negative side-effects that would threaten the viability of the sectors. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Urges the Commission to take urgent action to establish a dynamic and fair licensing market, ensuring full transparency of AI providers and deployers and encouraging, European rights holders and the organisations representing them to voluntarily, with clear incentives, grant licences for the training of GenAI systems, in exchange for fair and proportionate remuneration and the guarantee that their right of refusal will be respected; emphasises that this process must include a dialogue in good faith between AI model providers and rights holders or their representatives, with the political support of the European Commission; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Calls on the commission to explore mechanisms for fair retroactive remuneration for right-holders whose works had been used for AI-driven search results or training purposes prior to the introduction of clear consent and compensation frameworks, particularly where such use continues to generate ongoing revenues; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 a. Asks the Commission to develop concrete proposals to ensure continuous remuneration of human creators, where such AI generated content is used in the market to substitute and compete with the original works of creators |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 b. Recommends that, given that smaller, local, regional, and independent rights holders may lack the bargaining power to negotiate licensing agreement terms with AI companies on an equal footing with larger publications, appropriate safeguards should be introduced to ensure their protection, including scrutiny of contractual practices, fair remuneration, and the preservation of diversity of sources in real-time search and indexing services; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 b. Calls on the Commission, based on the findings of the High-Level Group on AI training and Copyright, to explore the possibility to impose a remuneration obligation on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems in respect of the novel use of content protected by copyright or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 b. Considers that Generative AI proposes services that involve several copyright relevant acts not covered by the TDM exception which are subject to exclusive right of creators and other rightholders and require prior consent and/or licensing from creators and rightholders to ensure their appropriate remuneration; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 c. Calls on the Commission, as an immediate solution and in support of the work of the work of the High-Level Group on AI training and Copyright, to support the development of a licensing market by encouraging providers of artificial intelligence models to seek licenses from rights holders, and stresses that effective and comprehensive transparency regarding copyright-protected works and content used to train AI models is an essential prerequisite for the development of such a market; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 d. Recalls that voluntary licensing, whether individual or collective, is the cornerstone of the success of the creative sectors, allowing for the sectoral and individual flexibility necessary to adopt the model best suited to a particular use; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 e. Emphasizes that rights holders remain free to refuse to grant a license for the use of their works by generative artificial intelligence systems, particularly in cases where such works could feed into competing services offered by AI operators; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3 f. Highlights that rightsholders must be entitled to decide the amount of remuneration, including in relation to licenses for generative AI, in order to enable each sector to define the most appropriate model and to protect the market from negative effects that could threaten the viability of the creative sectors and the European press; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | 4. Calls on the Commission to impose, within a reasonable period of time, but in 3 months at the latest, a remuneration obligation on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems in respect of the novel use of content protected by copyright or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted, and considers that it is neither feasible nor desirable to impose the remuneration obligation retroactively; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | 4. Calls on the Commission to immediately impose on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems an obligation to cooperate in order to comply with transparency obligations and to require consent and remuneration of creators and rightholders in respect of the use of content protected by copyright or related rights though the establishment of a functioning licensing market, including a voluntary, sector-specific collective licensing agreements; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | 4. Calls on the Commission, in accordance with rightsholder estimation and without prejudice to their right to refuse to license their works, to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure rightsholders license their protected content, and to strengthen enforcement and transparency obligations for AI developers using such content; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | 4. Calls simultaneously on the Commission to immediately impose a remuneration obligation on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems in order to compensate retroactively the novel use of content protected by copyright or related rights carried out on the works and content of rights holders without their consent and in the absence of a licence; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure rightsholders’ freedom to license their protected content is respected, and to strengthen enforcement and transparency obligations for AI developers using such content; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | 4. Calls on the Commission to immediately impose a complementary remuneration obligation on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems in respect of the novel use of content protected by copyright or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Calls on the Commission to 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 or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; | 4. Calls on the Commission to impose a remuneration obligation on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems in respect of the novel use of content protected by copyright or related rights, with such obligation applying until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Stresses, that Small and Medium-sized Enterprises are the backbone of the European economy and form the majority of the technology sector in Europe, providing high quality jobs and bringing high added value. Providing a positive legal environment in which they can thrive is crucial to maintaining Europe’s competitiveness in the global economy and prosperity of our citizens. All measures taken by the Union must therefore foremost safeguard the viability of European AI developers and providers, and have in mind the long term development of the European tech sector, as a key enabler of our successful future. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure specific protection for educational content, including works created by teachers, researchers, and other educational content creators, so that their materials cannot be exploited by generative AI systems without their knowledge and fair remuneration; stresses that revenues generated by platforms from the use of such educational content must be shared in a fair, proportionate, and non-discriminatory manner with the original creators, in order to safeguard both their intellectual property rights and the quality and sustainability of education in the Union; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Calls on the Commission to support the growth of a licensing market by encouraging providers of AI models to seek license from rightsholders and acknowledges that effective and full transparency regarding the copyrighted works and content used train AI model is a pre-requisite for such a market to develop. Calls on the European Commission to identify the new forms of abuse of dominantposition by AI providers on the market and to prevent the emergence of a new "value gap" between AI providers and the creative industries. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Notes that the operation of Gen AI services involves several copyright relevant acts that require prior licensing from creators and rightholders; considers, in this respect, that collective management would provide the most efficient and viable structure to ensure appropriate and proportionate remuneration of creators, while ensuring broad access to culturally diverse high-quality content for smooth operation of Generative AI services with legal certainty. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Opposes, in this regard, any proposal for a framework based on AI providers obtaining a global licence for training their GenAI models in exchange for a flat-rate payment; considers that the value of content protected by copyright or related rights must be proportionate and determined on a case-by-case basis, through negotiations in good faith between rights holders or their representatives and AI providers; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 a. Further invites the Commission to identify potential new forms of abuse of dominant position by AI providers in the market and to take the necessary measures to prevent the emergence of abuse of dominant position. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 b. Calls on the Commission to introduce meaningful preferences and exceptions for European SMEs in any future legislative proposals, ensuring they are not overly burdened by financial and administrative obligations that will endanger their economic position, especially in relation to competitors in other jurisdictions. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4 c. Acknowledges different licensing and remuneration practices in the context of generative AI; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; | 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; Calls the European Commission or EUIPO to create an indicative list of existing technological opt-out protocols across the various creative sectors in order to improve awareness and diligent search on the part of GenAI providers. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; | 5. Welcomes the establishment of the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre and encourages the Commission and the EUIPO to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides as well as to create awareness among copyright holders, providing useful and reliable information on copyright; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; | 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts and funding to support the development of an EU standard for the opt-out and on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; | 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright, particularly on the issue of the right to opt out, among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; | 5. Encourages the Commission and the EUIPO to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; | 5. Encourages the Commission to coordinate efforts on raising awareness on copyright among AI developers and providers, which may include compliance checklists, legal and technological toolkits, and technical guides; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that any legal framework governing the use of copyright-protected works and other protected subject matter for the training of generative AI systems includes clear obligations for proactive communication with rights holders whose works are used; stresses the importance of providing these rights holders with accessible, timely, and comprehensible information on such use, accompanied by targeted education and awareness initiatives at both Union and national level, in order to enhance understanding of their rights, available opt-out mechanisms, and potential licensing opportunities; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5 a. Supports the establishment of an EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre, as it will play a vital role in guiding the use of copyright in the age of GenAI by raising awareness, promoting legal clarity, and fostering a balanced framework that supports creativity, innovation, cultural preservation, and European competitiveness. |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5 a. Supports the establishment of a structured dialogue at EU level between AI providers and rights holders to promote mutual understanding of the respective challenges facing these two ecosystems, and to highlight common interests, and identify best practices. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5 b. Calls on the Commission to require online platforms and search engines to apply clear labeling of all AI-generated content, ensuring the system is simple and not burdensome for creators, while promoting transparency, protecting personal data, and safeguarding the rights of creators against misuse of their works, voices, or likenesses; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. Supports the clarification of the TDM exception under Article 4 CDSM as regards the main flaws and ambiguities detected thus far in its application, especially as concerns the establishment of a clear machine-readable standard for the opt-out and the concept of ‘lawful access’; | 6. Supports the clarification of the TDM exception under Article 4 CDSM as regards the main flaws and ambiguities detected thus far in its application, especially as concerns the establishment of a clear machine-readable standard for the opt-out and the concept of ‘lawful access’, and, in line with the clarification of Article 4 of the Copyright Directive, advocates the introduction of an opt-in regime; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. Supports the clarification of the TDM exception under Article 4 CDSM as regards the main flaws and ambiguities detected thus far in its application, especially as concerns the establishment of a clear machine-readable standard for the opt-out and the concept of ‘lawful access’; | 6. Notes the ambiguities detected thus far in the application of the TDM exception under Article 4 CDSM through the development of agreed standards or guidelines for implementing opt-outs that are not overly burdensome to implement for researchers and innovators, especially as concerns the establishment of a clear machine-readable standard for the opt-out, and the concept of ‘lawful access’, |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. Supports the clarification of the TDM exception under Article 4 CDSM as regards the main flaws and ambiguities detected thus far in its application, especially as concerns the establishment of a clear machine-readable standard for the opt-out and the concept of ‘lawful access’; | 6. Recommends a clarification of the TDM exception under Article 4 CDSM as regards the main flaws, inadequate implementation and ambiguities detected thus far in its application, especially as concerns the establishment of a clear machine-readable standard for the opt-out and the concept of ‘lawful access’; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Condemns the ongoing use of protected works by Gen AI services without transparency , consent and remuneration; acknowledges that authors' rights are protected as a fundamental right under the Charter, and appropriate and proportionate remuneration of authors should be ensured whenever their works are used, including by GenAI services. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | 7. Believes that only through effective cooperation of Generative AI providers with creators and other rightholders, a functioning licensing market and fully satisfactory opt-out regime can be achieved. Expects that any legal framework to be proposed by the Commission would aim to stopping the ongoing infringements of copyright law and effectively persuading Generative AI services to either to obtain licences for usage, including through voluntary, sector-specific collective licensing agreements, or where such licences are not concluded to effective removal of protected works of their services; Stresses that right holders shall have the right to opt-out, mainly as a tool to exercise authors' rights through licences, including through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | 7. Calls for an effective and meaningful implementation of the existing copyright framework; stresses that rights holders have the right to opt out through, machine-readable mechanisms; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | 7. Believes that a proper and well-coordinated implementation of the already existing copyright framework, alongside the AI Act is necessary; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | 7. Believes that Article 4 of the CDSM Directive encompasses the training of GenAI, but calls for clarification to enable its effective implementation; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; such a mechanism should be easy to use even for non-specialists, and supported by awareness campaigns at EU and national level; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | 7. Believes that pending judicial decisions of CJEU, the acts performed to engage in GenAI should be deemed to fall outside the scope of TDM exception under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive and remain fully subject to the exclusive rights of rightsholders, since such an exception would contravene the Three-Step Test enshrined in Article 5(5) of the InfoSoc Directive and in the Berne Convention. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; | 7. Believes that a legal framework for GenAI should be established via a regulation either through the introduction of a dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction, distinct from that provided for TDM under Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, or by expanding the scope of that provision to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI, which is currently not covered; stresses that rights holders shall have the right to opt out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Equally believes that a new framework is necessary to ensure that rightsholders from the press and media sector have full control over the use of their content, for purposes beyond training and related to the continuous learning of AI, including inferencing and retrieval-augmented generation by systems and applications as well as for purposes conducive to the production of AI-generated, competing offerings in the primary markets of rights holders; believes that the use of protected content for such purposes can take place only with the expressed consent of the rights holders concerned and after obtaining from them the necessary licences based on an unconditional, non-waivable right to remuneration; believes that this right may also be managed under a voluntary collective licensing, whereby a presumption of collective rights management on behalf of rights holders with respect to AI related uses of their content could be envisaged, without prejudice to the right of rights holders to opt for individual licensing; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Considers that no legal framework governing the training of GenAI on works and other objects protected by copyright and related rights should be put in place without establishing full transparency regarding the use of such data and restoring the absolute right of creators to exercise their right to opt out, thereby restoring their full bargaining power with a view to obtaining appropriate and proportionate remuneration; stresses that the establishment of an effective and fair licensing market should be given priority over the creation of a new exception to copyright; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Stresses that an exclusive and inalienable right specific to AI-related uses should be introduced, covering any exploitation of protected works and objects for the purposes of training, inference, retrieval-augmented generation, fine-tuning, or other similar uses; Insists that this right must be technologically neutral and adaptable to the evolution of AI technologies, and ensure that any use is subject to prior authorization by the rights holder, without the latter's refusal in any way resulting in a loss of visibility or access to their content; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 b. Believes that Artikel 4 of the CDSM Directive is not applicable to the new kind of usage. | |
| For this new kind of usage, the content must be licensed through a voluntary licensing scheme. | |
| Furthermore, consultation of the registry is required to determine which content should be licensed and which content is prohibited from use. Licenses can be acquired directly by machine via the registry if the rightholder proposes this option. | |
| Additionally, and apart from from the registry an opt-out mechanism, to be established and defined by the Commission, must be duly respected and implemented. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 b. Supports the prohibition of any contractual waiver of remuneration rights of the authors for the use of their works in the context of artificial intelligence, in order to prevent buy-out or blanket transfer of rights practices and guarantee authors a fair share of the revenue generated by the exploitation of their works by AI; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Recommends that the Commission ensures the compatibility of this new GenAI legal framework with the three-step test of Article 5(5) InfoSoc Directive; | 8. Recalls that any exception to existing rights under the copyright acquis, including on AI, must be in line with the three-step test of Article 5(5) InfoSoc Directive and the Berne Convention; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Recommends that the Commission ensures the compatibility of this new GenAI legal framework with the three-step test of Article 5(5) InfoSoc Directive; | 8. Recommends that the Commission ensures the compatibility of the GenAI legal framework and any remuneration scheme with the three-step test of Article 5(5) InfoSoc Directive; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Recommends that the Commission ensures the compatibility of this new GenAI legal framework with the three-step test of Article 5(5) InfoSoc Directive; | 8. Calls on the Commission to ensure the compatibility of this new GenAI legal framework with the three-step test of Article 5(5) InfoSoc Directive; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Recommends that the Commission ensures the compatibility of this new GenAI legal framework with the three-step test of Article 5(5) InfoSoc Directive; | 8. Recommends that the Commission ensures the compatibility of the GenAI legal framework with the three-step test of Article 5(5) InfoSoc Directive; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 a. Urges the Commission to assess in view of audio and audiovisual productions typically including various other works or protected subject matters the need for developing in the AI context discussed here additional or new mandatory collective management solutions for the purpose of facilitating the licensing of productions by their rightsowners and for securing that licensing is not hindered, prevented or made unnecessarily burdensome by interventions of outsiders holding rights in individual parts of the production, thereby threatening the use of respective materials in the interest of various stakeholders in the process and the development of a vibrant AI industry in the EU; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 a. Calls on the Commission to facilitate the establishment of voluntary collective licensing agreements per sector, including but not limited to news media, music, book publishing, academic and research publishing and the audiovisual sector, to enable the lawful use of copyright-protected content for AI training; believes that such agreements, which might be linked either to input or output of content, could provide a balanced and efficient framework for ensuring the fair remuneration of rights holders while enabling access to high-quality training data for AI providers; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 b. Recommends collective licensing agreements as the default commercial mechanism for licensing copyright-protected content for AI training purposes in the EU, ensuring fairness, transparency and legal certainty for all parties involved, while preventing the fragmentation of licensing practices and the risk of unilateral or discriminatory licensing terms; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 c. Calls on the Commission to ensure that collective licensing agreements are accessible to all stakeholders, including small and medium-sized enterprises and individual creators, and urges the Commission to establish safeguards to prevent abuse of dominant market positions, guaranteeing that licensing terms are reasonable, proportionate and reflective of the value of the licensed content; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 d. Clarifies that the participation in collective licensing agreements should remain voluntary for both AI providers and rights holders, thereby preserving their freedom to decide whether to license or use copyright-protected content for AI training purposes; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 e. Notes that the negotiation of collective licensing agreements may be subject to refusal of one or multiple parties to engage in good faith and therefore calls on the Commission to explore the feasibility of mandatory rate-setting through a trusted third party as a measure of last resort; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 f. Suggests the creation of effective tools for opt-out management, including the assessment of the feasibility of central, federated or sector-specific registers of opt-outs managed by a trusted intermediary as an efficient framework for rights holders to both opt-out their protected works in line with Article 4 of the CDSM Directive and to signal objection to their respective sectoral collective licensing agreement, recommends that such registers or tools should contain an itemised list of opted-out content for the purposes of AI training, facilitating compliance for AI providers and preventing accidental use of opted-out copyright-protected content for AI training; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | deleted |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; recommends that this register be extended to incorporate a dedicated, interoperable module for the registration, validation, and real-time consent management of individuals' personal visual identity and biometric data, such as facial images and voice, in a machine-readable format; this module should function as a verifiable mechanism for generative AI platforms to ensure explicit consent or respect opt-out decisions before generating content involving human faces or voices, thereby proactively safeguarding fundamental rights, including the right to image and privacy (Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, GDPR) and complementing the obligations of the AI Act and eIDAS 2.0; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; further considers that maintaining such a database may be expensive and time-consuming. The Commission shall therefore foster research and the development of standards for innovative technological solutions that enhance the ability to verify data set information. Examples include cryptographic watermarks. |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Recommends that the Commission assigns the EUIPO responsibility for monitoring the implementation of effective tools for opt-out management, such as central, federated or sector-specific registers, catalogues or dataspaces, and, where necessary, for mediating sector-based, voluntary collective licensing agreements between the representatives of rights holders and AI providers, and for arbitrating disputes, so as to streamline relations between AI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s creative sector and its competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register, catalogue or dataspace; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of crawlers for GenAI and, where necessary, for supporting the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies or causing a risk to the enforceability of eclusive rights; Further recommends that a voluntary and decentralised registry of opt out be stablished, with EUIPO serving as a gateway access, accompanied by measures to further disincentivise the disregarding of registered rights resevations, such as heavy statutory damages for each instance of infringiment; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO as a potential part, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Expresses scepticism about the creation of a central register of opt-outs; emphasises that participation by a rights holder in any new register should be incentivised, voluntary, uncomplicated and without additional cost; recalls that participation in any new opt-out mechanism should not invalidate any opt-outs previously expressed; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing an opt-outs repository and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies, and without entailing disproportionate administrative burdens; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Suggests looking into the possibility of assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a voluntary register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a central register of opt-outs and, where necessary, for mediating the licensing process, so as to streamline relations between GenAI providers and rights holders, establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that both opt-out declarations and licence offers be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register; | 9. Recommends assigning the EUIPO responsibility for setting up and managing a decentralized register of opt-outs,in view of contributing to establishing a workable, innovation-friendly framework that supports the Union’s competitiveness without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies; further recommends that opt-out declarations be recorded in machine-readable form in the same register and communicated without delay to the relevant Collective Management Societies; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9a. Calls on the Commission to develop and implement mechanisms for the extraterritorial application of EU copyright rules so that AI models trained outside the EU but designed to access the EU market are required to fully comply with EU rules on the use and licensing of protected content; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 a. Emphasizes that digital watermarking, which involves discreetly inserting a signature, code, or specific information directly into protected content—whether text, image, video, or audio—is an innovative and robust tool for protecting copyright and related rights; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 a. Recommends also that the EUIPO be tasked with maintaining a register of existing data crawling technologies, in order to ensure the effectiveness and technological sustainability of refusals expressed by rights holders; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 b. Notes that this technique makes it possible to track the distribution of works, verify their origin, identify their use, and detect any unauthorized use, thereby facilitating the implementation of effective protection mechanisms adapted to current challenges; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 c. Stresses the need for mapping existing technical solutions for marking/identifying and labelling AI-generated content, in order to monitor the implementation of the transparency obligations by platforms offering creative content to detect and signal the existence of AI generated content to their users; calls on the Commission to issue a EU Code of Practice on content labelling by the Commission without delay; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; | deleted |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; | 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the additional transparency and source documentation rules for deployers and providers of general-purpose AI models and systems as necessary, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for opt-out compliance in line with Article 4 of the CDSM Directive, inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information and ensuring, however, that such protections are not misused to unduly hinder transparency or to avoid legitimate disclosure obligations; furthermore stresses that the AI Office’s template for the Public Summary of Training Content should be amended to require more detailed information from AI model providers in order to allow a proper assessment of possible infringements of the EU copyright acquis; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; | 10. Calls on the Commission to establish the obligation for full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any content for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, and for this information to be directly and unconditionally accessible by rights holders; believes that for purposes that require continuous and real-time crawling such as inferencing and retrieval-augmented generation, such transparency should be complemented by an obligation for crawlers to be identifiable to the web operator and for AI companies to maintain detailed records of any crawling activities carried out |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; | 10. Calls on the Commission to focus on the implementation of the transparency requirements of the AI Act, including the Code of Practice and the template to help general-purpose AI providers summarise the content used to train their model; recommends the European Commission to continue working with AI providers and relevant stakeholders to improve the template of training data and consider a simplified version of the template for SMEs, startups, mid-caps, and research organizations, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information., in accordance with the AI Act; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; | 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; however, such protection must not be misused to evade transparency obligations or undermine the rights of creators; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; | 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems placed on the market in the European Union, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; | 10. Calls on the Commission to propose full, actionable transparency through an information obligation on providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected work or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; | 10. Calls on the Commission to propose the full, actionable transparency and source documentation by Generative AI services available in the EU, with regard to the use of any copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter for any purpose, including for inferencing, retrieval-augmented generation, or fine-tuning, taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10 a. Urges the Commission to present a legal proposal for a specific related right (neighbouring or ancillary right) for providers of media services which is justified and necessary in view of the repeated and fully automated extraction and re-utilization of their services in and by AI assistants, thus substituting and replacing media services and their providers to the detriment of sustaining and fostering media pluralism and diversity as well as democratic discourse in the EU and its Member States; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10 a. Calls on the Commission to assess and, where appropriate, propose mechanisms ensuring that providers of general-purpose AI models or systems which demonstrably divert traffic and revenue from press outlets compensate such outlets in a fair, proportionate and non-discriminatory manner, with particular attention to local and regional media; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10 a. Recommends to entrust the EUIPO with leading the establishment of a single Union-level entry point serving as a one-stop shop for GenAI developers, which would centralise the relevant information and tools necessary to ensure compliance with transparency obligations; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10 a. Calls on the Commission to develop benchmarks for and defining principles of ethically responsible use of AI technologies, in particular a clear liability regime for AI services and products; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10 a. Considers that trade secrets cannot be invoked to oppose the transparency obligations incumbent on suppliers and providers of generative AI service; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Emma Rafowicz, Sandro Ruotolo, Hannes Heide, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; | 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of a rebuttable presumption requiring any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market to demonstrate full compliance with copyright protection rules and exceptions if their transparency obligations have not been fully complied with or if they do not agree to license through relevant collective licensing agreements; recommends that, where substantiated indications of unauthorised use of copyright-protected works exist, appropriate measures and procedures be established to ensure compliance with copyright law, including mechanisms to identify, obtain, and preserve related evidence in full respect of applicable data protection and privacy rules; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; | 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; Statutory damages for each instance of an infringiment by a GenAI over a registered rights reservation should also be introduced to repair the damage caused to rightsholders and further disincentivise unlawful behaviour from GenAI providers. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; | 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; | 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any AI model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for copyright-relevant purposes, including for training, inferencing or retrieval augmented generation, where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system, as applicable |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; | 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an rebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; | 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder or the organisation representing them succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; | 11. Calls on the Commission to consider the establishment of a presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the transparency obligations set out within the European legal framework have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system, without prejudice to national laws; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; | 11. Calls on the Commission to propose the establishment of an irrebuttable presumption that, for any general-purpose AI (GenAI) model or system placed on the Union market, works and other subject matter protected by copyright or related rights have been used for its training where the statutory transparency obligations set out in this resolution have not been fully complied with; further recommends that, where a rights holder succeeds in legal proceedings either on the basis of this presumption or through submitted evidence, any legal costs and other reasonable and proportionate expenses incurred in enforcing such rights shall be borne by the provider of the AI model or system; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11 a. Considering that any protected object is presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have been used for the training or operation of an AI system when there are serious and consistent indications, which may include: | |
| 1. the passage of web crawlers over content; | |
| 2. the presence of similar protected content in public databases or databases known to have been used for training or specialization of models; | |
| 3. substantial similarities between the protected object and the content generated by the AI system; | |
| 4. the mention, even if erroneous, of a credit to a rights holder in the generated content; | |
| 5. public admissions or statements acknowledging the use of protected content or data sets containing such content; | |
| 6. the ability of the AI system to generate content “in the style” of a protected object or a specific rights holder; | |
| 7. the defendant's refusal to disclose evidence to a competent authority. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11 a. Calls also on the Commission to establish a rebuttable presumption of use of cultural content by GenAI systems where, in the absence of an agreement with a rights holder on the use of their content for training the system, the AI-generated output displays clear and indentifiable elements dereived from one or more of their copyright-protected content; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11 a. Calls on the European Commission to ensure that the AI Office share information with rightsholders whenever they come across any indication of copyright infringiment by AI providers when enforcing the AI Act. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11 b. Notes that nothing in this proposal should be intended to affect scientific, medical or research activities. |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Insists that AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined; | 12. Insists that AI-generated content which does not meet they copyrightability criteria that are well established in the EU acquis and case law should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such content be clearly determined; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Insists that AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined; | 12. Insists that AI-generated content that does not meet the established criteria for copyright protection and related rights should remain ineligible for this protection and related rights, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Insists that AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined; | 12. Insists that fully AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection and should also not qualify for protection under related rights, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Insists that AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined; | 12. Insists that content fully generated by generative AI should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Insists that AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined; | 12. Insists that fully AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12 a. Expresses concern about possible overlap between the exceptions set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the CDSM Directive; calls on the European Commission to affirm that the exception provided for in Article 3 should not pave the way for commercial exploitation of research results by GenAI providers or deployers; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13. Calls on the Commission to explore measures to counter the infringement of the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public and of communication to the public through the production of GenAI outputs; | 13. Calls on the Commission to explore measures to counter the infringement of the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public and of communication to the public through the production of GenAI outputs, provided that such measures do not result in the prevention of the production of GenAI outputs that include works or other subject matter that do not infringe copyright and related rights, including for private use, quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche, and incidental inclusion; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13. Calls on the Commission to explore measures to counter the infringement of the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public and of communication to the public through the production of GenAI outputs; | 13. Urges the Commission to explore measures to counter the infringement of the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public and of communication to the public through the production of GenAI outputs, while preserving the right to create GenAI output that does not infringe copyright and related rights, including for reproduction for private use, or for quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche, and incidental inclusion; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13. Calls on the Commission to explore measures to counter the infringement of the rights of reproduction, of making available to the public and of communication to the public through the production of GenAI outputs; | 13. Calls on the Commission to ensure that generative AI outputs respect existing copyright law, which provides tools to address potential infringement; stresses that additional legislation is not necessary at this stage, and that effors should focus on effective implementation and support for industry-led technical solutions, in line with the AI Act Code of Practice for GPAI models. |
Brando Benifei, Tiemo Wölken, René Repasi, Leire Pajín, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Victor Negrescu, Sandro Ruotolo, José Cepeda
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 a. Stresses that the Code of Practice, guidelines, and templates should be treated as living documents requiring regular updates to address emerging challenges in copyright protection and AI development; expresses deep concern at the opacity and insufficient consultation of rightholders in the drafting of the first GPAI Code of Practice and the training data summary template, and regrets the disproportionate influence of a narrow set of stakeholders during discussions; calls on the Commission to embed inclusive AI governance with meaningful, systematic participation of creators, cultural industries and rightholders at every stage of implementation, with open agendas, balanced representation, and public reporting to safeguard legitimacy and trust; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 a. Stresses that, in the light of increasing use of GenAI systems for the enforcement of copyright claims, takedown requests and content removal need to be subject to meaningful human review; highlights that automated systems including GenAI may fail to recognize legitimate uses of copyrighted material, such as satire, pastiche, criticism, or parody, which are protected under the EU copyright acquis; emphasizes that human oversight is essential to prevent the occurrence of erroneous removal of legitimate content and to safeguard freedom of expression, particularly in cases involving press reporting, artistic expression, or public interest content, |
Brando Benifei, Tiemo Wölken, René Repasi, Leire Pajín, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Victor Negrescu, Sandro Ruotolo, José Cepeda
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 b. Expresses disappointment with the training data summary template under Article 53(1)(d) which fails to effectively facilitate rightsholders' ability to exercise and enforce their rights under Union law; notes with concern that the template's reliance on narrative descriptions, disclosure of only the top percentile of scraped domains, and broad trade secret exemptions renders it insufficient for rightsholders to verify whether their protected content has been used for training GPAI models or to pursue effective legal remedies against potential infringements; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that text and data mining activities conducted for scientific research, educational purposes or non-commercial innovation should not be restricted, in line with the principle of Article 13 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; |
Brando Benifei, Tiemo Wölken, René Repasi, Leire Pajín, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Victor Negrescu, Sandro Ruotolo, José Cepeda
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 c. Welcomes the direction of travel in the GPAI Code of Practice’s copyright chapter, including commitments on dataset documentation, opt-outs and complaint handling, while noting remaining shortcomings; calls on the AI Office to enforce these provisions robustly, notably as regards the reproduction and extraction of lawfully accessible copyright-protected content when crawling the web, and urges signatories to adopt a public copyright policy and to operate an accessible, time-bound complaint mechanism that provides effective redress for rightholders; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 c. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to accelerate measures and secure investments to achieve the commitments of the Digital Decade declaration, ensuring that fundamental rights are protected, users rights and consumer protection in the Digital Single Market are ensured, and responsibilities of platforms, especially large players and gatekeepers, are well enforced; |
Brando Benifei, Tiemo Wölken, René Repasi, Leire Pajín, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Victor Negrescu, Sandro Ruotolo, José Cepeda
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 d. Calls on the AI Office to work closely with the EUIPO, leveraging the AI Act Service Desk and the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Center, to issue joint guidance, model workflows and practical FAQs that clarify copyright-related obligations for developers, providers and deployers, with a strong focus on the needs of SMEs; encourages common tooling and templates, helpdesk coordination, and outreach actions that promote lawful licensing pathways and reduce compliance fragmentation across the internal market; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 d. Is mindful of the adverse impact of massive data usage on the environment and of the need to balance it in order to achieve the twin digital and green transitions as outlined in the European Green Deal; encourages therefore the EUIPO and its European Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN), as well as international organisations such as the WIPO, to intensify efforts from public bodies and industries in the IP sector to promote energy-efficient data centres and sustainable digital solutions. |
Brando Benifei, Tiemo Wölken, René Repasi, Leire Pajín, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Victor Negrescu, Sandro Ruotolo, José Cepeda
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 e. Deeply regrets the Commission’s withdrawal of the AI Liability Directive, which would have provided harmonised procedural rules and avoided fragmentation across 27 regimes; notes that significant gaps persist, as the PLD excludes pure economic loss and the AI Act creates no civil remedies, leaving rightholders exposed when copyrighted works are used without authorisation in training or when AI outputs substitute originals; calls on the Commission to table a revised AILD so Parliament’s debates can resume, incorporating targeted evidence-disclosure duties, rebuttable presumptions, calibrated burden-of-proof and value-chain responsibilities, with confidentiality safeguards to secure redress while preserving innovation and competitiveness; |
Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, René Repasi, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Lara Wolters, Victor Negrescu
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 e. Calls on the Commission to swiftly address any violations of the Digital Markets Act with regard to potential self-preferencing practices by gatekeepers benefitting their AI services and harming fair competition with business users; |
Brando Benifei, Tiemo Wölken, René Repasi, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Victor Negrescu, Sandro Ruotolo, José Cepeda
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 f. Notes with concern that rightsholders face technical and practical barriers to effective TDM opt-outs for AI training; observes that current machine-readable controls lack interoperability, depend on unreliable crawler self-identification, are inconsistently enforced, and offer insufficient granularity to refuse AI training while permitting search indexing; stresses that these deficits, alongside poor integration with web infrastructure, undermine control and discoverability; supports Commission engagement with IETF AI Preferences work and urges robust, interoperable, purpose-specific signals with verifiable enforcement across the ecosystem; |
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 f. Calls on the Commission to investigate measures to protect individuals against the dissemination of manipulated and AI-generated digital text, image, audio or video content, including artists' works and performances, imitating their personal characteristics, ‘deep fakes’, without consent; highlights that digital service providers shall have a clear obligation to act against such illegal use of an individual’s right to their own body, facial features and voice and intellectual property right; |
Connections
The dossier, the decisions on this text and its other versions.
No connections found for this item.
Sources & citation
Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.
- Data source
- Licensed CC BY 4.0.
- Retrieved
- 25 September 2026
Cite as
European Parliament (2025). “AMENDMENTS 1 - 370 - Draft report Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges”. Text, 15 September 2025. docId JURI-AM-777015. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/JURI-AM-777015 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Data: EP Open Data API: document record, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/documents/JURI-AM-777015 (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX
@misc{epw-text-juri-am-777015,
author = {{European Parliament}},
title = {{AMENDMENTS 1 - 370 - Draft report Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges}},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-09-15},
howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/JURI-AM-777015}},
url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/JURI-AM-777015},
urldate = {2026-09-25},
publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
note = {Text. docId JURI-AM-777015. Data: EP Open Data API: document record (CC BY 4.0)}
}