Copyright - Page 5 of 24

Text and Data Mining, Generative AI, and the Copyright Three-Step Test external link

IIC, vol. 57, iss. : 1, pp: 67–107, 2026

Abstract

In the debate on copyright exceptions permitting text and data mining (“TDM”) for the development of generative AI systems, the so-called “three-step test” has become a centre of gravity. The test serves as a universal yardstick for assessing the compatibility of domestic copyright exceptions with international copyright law. However, it is doubtful whether the international three-step test is applicable at all. Arguably, TDM copies fall outside the scope of the international right of reproduction and go beyond the ambit of the test’s operation. Only if national or regional copyright legislation declares the test applicable, the question arises whether copyright exceptions supporting TDM for AI training constitute certain special cases that do not conflict with a work’s normal exploitation and do not unreasonably prejudice legitimate author or rightsholder interests. As the following analysis will show, rules permitting TDM for AI training can satisfy all test criteria. An opt-out opportunity for copyright owners bans the risk of a conflict with a work’s normal exploitation and an unreasonable prejudice from the outset. A clear focus on specific policy goals, such as the objective to support scientific research, adds conceptual contours that dispel concerns about incompliance. In the case of TDM provisions covering commercial AI development, equitable remuneration regimes can be introduced as a counterbalance to avoid an unreasonable prejudice.

Links

Copyright, Generative AI, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Senftleben, M.
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026-02-13
T1  - Text and Data Mining, Generative AI, and the Copyright Three-Step Test
JO  - IIC
VL  - 57
IS  - 1
SP  - 67–107
UR  - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-026-01680-2
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-026-01680-2
AB  - In the debate on copyright exceptions permitting text and data mining (“TDM”) for the development of generative AI systems, the so-called “three-step test” has become a centre of gravity. The test serves as a universal yardstick for assessing the compatibility of domestic copyright exceptions with international copyright law. However, it is doubtful whether the international three-step test is applicable at all. Arguably, TDM copies fall outside the scope of the international right of reproduction and go beyond the ambit of the test’s operation. Only if national or regional copyright legislation declares the test applicable, the question arises whether copyright exceptions supporting TDM for AI training constitute certain special cases that do not conflict with a work’s normal exploitation and do not unreasonably prejudice legitimate author or rightsholder interests. As the following analysis will show, rules permitting TDM for AI training can satisfy all test criteria. An opt-out opportunity for copyright owners bans the risk of a conflict with a work’s normal exploitation and an unreasonable prejudice from the outset. A clear focus on specific policy goals, such as the objective to support scientific research, adds conceptual contours that dispel concerns about incompliance. In the case of TDM provisions covering commercial AI development, equitable remuneration regimes can be introduced as a counterbalance to avoid an unreasonable prejudice.
K1  - Copyright
K1  - Generative AI
K1  - Text and Data Mining (TDM)
K1  - three-step test
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Text and Data Mining, Generative AI, and the Copyright Three-Step Test},
	author = {Senftleben, M.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-026-01680-2},
	year = {2026},
	date = {2026-02-13},
	journal = {IIC},
	volume = {57},
	issue = {1},
	pages = {67–107},
	abstract = {In the debate on copyright exceptions permitting text and data mining (“TDM”) for the development of generative AI systems, the so-called “three-step test” has become a centre of gravity. The test serves as a universal yardstick for assessing the compatibility of domestic copyright exceptions with international copyright law. However, it is doubtful whether the international three-step test is applicable at all. Arguably, TDM copies fall outside the scope of the international right of reproduction and go beyond the ambit of the test’s operation. Only if national or regional copyright legislation declares the test applicable, the question arises whether copyright exceptions supporting TDM for AI training constitute certain special cases that do not conflict with a work’s normal exploitation and do not unreasonably prejudice legitimate author or rightsholder interests. As the following analysis will show, rules permitting TDM for AI training can satisfy all test criteria. An opt-out opportunity for copyright owners bans the risk of a conflict with a work’s normal exploitation and an unreasonable prejudice from the outset. A clear focus on specific policy goals, such as the objective to support scientific research, adds conceptual contours that dispel concerns about incompliance. In the case of TDM provisions covering commercial AI development, equitable remuneration regimes can be introduced as a counterbalance to avoid an unreasonable prejudice.},
	keywords = {Copyright, Generative AI, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test},
}

Save .bib

Comment of the European Copyright Society on the request for preliminary ruling in Case C-250/25 (Like Company) external link

Mezei, P., Kretschmer, M., Margoni, T., Peukert, A. & Quintais, J.

2026

Abstract

The reference in Like Company v Google (Case C-250/25) is seen as a potential landmark case, giving the EU’s highest court the opportunity to define the scope and conditions of permitted artificial intelligence (AI) training and develop an infringement test for AI outputs. The European Copyright Society (ECS) urges the Court of Justice (sitting as a Grand Chamber) to exercise caution. While the reference stems from a plausible complaint by a press publisher against the provider of an AI powered chatbot reproducing and communicating its editorial content, the implications of this problematic reference could be far-reaching. (1) The reference is factually murky with respect to the technology and services at stake, conflating concepts of ‘chatbot’, ‘large language model’, and ‘search engine’. (2) The reference fails to identify consistently the subject matter at stake, which is the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (2019/790/EU, hereinafter CDSMD), not authorial works. Specifically, the reference conflates questions relating to the training phase (Questions 2 and 3) with the legal characterisation of the use of press publications by an LLM-based chatbot (Question 4 but also Question 1, referring to the right of communication to the public and the right of reproduction under Directive 2001/29/EC, hereinafter InfoSoc Directive). If the reference is found admissible, it is suggested that the Court of Justice should address jointly Questions 4 and 1, which relate to the legal characterisation of the use of press publications in the display. Here it is important to correctly understand next-token prediction in large language models, augmented retrieval technology (where the use of data does not generally form part of the learning process) as well as ‘online use’, defining the scope of the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of the CDSMD. In the Opinion of the ECS, the ambiguous characterisation of a fast-moving technology may result in the failure to realise the societal benefits of AI as a potential general-purpose technology. There are risks that a rash decision will push Europe towards a licensing economy in which AI systems are offered as a service by (non-European) multinationals, without solving issues of equity such as creator consent and distribution of revenues.

Links

Copyright

RIS

TY  - BLOG
AU  - Mezei, P.
AU  - Kretschmer, M.
AU  - Margoni, T.
AU  - Peukert, A.
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026-03-03
T1  - Comment of the European Copyright Society on the request for preliminary ruling in Case C-250/25 (Like Company)
UR  - https://europeancopyrightsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ecs-comment-on-the-like-company-reference.pdf
AB  - The reference in Like Company v Google (Case C-250/25) is seen as a potential landmark case, giving the EU’s highest court the opportunity to define the scope and conditions of permitted artificial intelligence (AI) training and develop an infringement test for AI outputs. The European Copyright Society (ECS) urges the Court of Justice (sitting as a Grand Chamber) to exercise caution.
While the reference stems from a plausible complaint by a press publisher against the provider of an AI powered chatbot reproducing and communicating its editorial content, the implications of this problematic reference could be far-reaching.
(1) The reference is factually murky with respect to the technology and services at stake, conflating concepts of ‘chatbot’, ‘large language model’, and ‘search engine’.
(2) The reference fails to identify consistently the subject matter at stake, which is the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (2019/790/EU, hereinafter CDSMD), not authorial works.

Specifically, the reference conflates questions relating to the training phase (Questions 2 and 3) with the legal characterisation of the use of press publications by an LLM-based chatbot (Question 4 but also Question 1, referring to the right of communication to the public and the right of reproduction under Directive 2001/29/EC, hereinafter InfoSoc Directive).
If the reference is found admissible, it is suggested that the Court of Justice should address jointly Questions 4 and 1, which relate to the legal characterisation of the use of press publications in the display. Here it is important to correctly understand next-token prediction in large language models, augmented retrieval technology (where the use of data does not generally form part of the learning process) as well as ‘online use’, defining the scope of the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of the CDSMD.
In the Opinion of the ECS, the ambiguous characterisation of a fast-moving technology may result in the failure to realise the societal benefits of AI as a potential general-purpose technology. There are risks that a rash decision will push Europe towards a licensing economy in which AI systems are offered as a service by (non-European) multinationals, without solving issues of equity such as creator consent and distribution of revenues.
K1  - Copyright
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey,
	title = {Comment of the European Copyright Society on the request for preliminary ruling in Case C-250/25 (Like Company)},
	author = {Mezei, P. and Kretschmer, M. and Margoni, T. and Peukert, A. and Quintais, J.},
	year = {2026},
	date = {2026-03-03},
	abstract = {The reference in Like Company v Google (Case C-250/25) is seen as a potential landmark case, giving the EU’s highest court the opportunity to define the scope and conditions of permitted artificial intelligence (AI) training and develop an infringement test for AI outputs. The European Copyright Society (ECS) urges the Court of Justice (sitting as a Grand Chamber) to exercise caution.
While the reference stems from a plausible complaint by a press publisher against the provider of an AI powered chatbot reproducing and communicating its editorial content, the implications of this problematic reference could be far-reaching.
(1) The reference is factually murky with respect to the technology and services at stake, conflating concepts of ‘chatbot’, ‘large language model’, and ‘search engine’.
(2) The reference fails to identify consistently the subject matter at stake, which is the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (2019/790/EU, hereinafter CDSMD), not authorial works.

Specifically, the reference conflates questions relating to the training phase (Questions 2 and 3) with the legal characterisation of the use of press publications by an LLM-based chatbot (Question 4 but also Question 1, referring to the right of communication to the public and the right of reproduction under Directive 2001/29/EC, hereinafter InfoSoc Directive).
If the reference is found admissible, it is suggested that the Court of Justice should address jointly Questions 4 and 1, which relate to the legal characterisation of the use of press publications in the display. Here it is important to correctly understand next-token prediction in large language models, augmented retrieval technology (where the use of data does not generally form part of the learning process) as well as ‘online use’, defining the scope of the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of the CDSMD.
In the Opinion of the ECS, the ambiguous characterisation of a fast-moving technology may result in the failure to realise the societal benefits of AI as a potential general-purpose technology. There are risks that a rash decision will push Europe towards a licensing economy in which AI systems are offered as a service by (non-European) multinationals, without solving issues of equity such as creator consent and distribution of revenues.},
	keywords = {Copyright},
}

Save .bib

De AI-Verordening, de Code of Practice en het auteursrecht download

Hugenholtz, P.B.

Auteursrecht, iss. : 1, pp: 5-10, 2026

Abstract

De AI-Verordening, ook wel AI Act geheten, heeft op het eerste gezicht weinig met het auteursrecht van doen. Van de talloze regels van de Verordening heeft er precies één direct betrekking op het auteursrecht. Art. 53 lid 1 (c) AI-Vo verplicht aanbieders van algemene AI-modellen een beleid op te stellen “ter naleving van het Unierecht inzake auteursrechten en naburige rechten”. Dit artikel bespreekt de inhoud en reikwijdte van deze verplichting en onderzoekt de mogelijke extraterritoriale werking ervan. Tevens wordt ingegaan op de GPAI Code of Practice, waarin het auteursrechtelijke voorschrift van de AI-Verordening geconcretiseerd wordt.

Links

Auteursrecht_2026_1

AI Act, Artificial intelligence, code of practice, Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {De AI-Verordening, de Code of Practice en het auteursrecht},
	author = {Hugenholtz, P.B.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/de-ai-verordening-de-code-of-practice-en-het-auteursrecht/auteursrecht_2026_1/},
	year = {2026},
	date = {2026-02-26},
	journal = {Auteursrecht},
	issue = {1},
	pages = {5-10},
	abstract = {De AI-Verordening, ook wel AI Act geheten, heeft op het eerste gezicht weinig met het auteursrecht van doen. Van de talloze regels van de Verordening heeft er precies één direct betrekking op het auteursrecht. Art. 53 lid 1 (c) AI-Vo verplicht aanbieders van algemene AI-modellen een beleid op te stellen “ter naleving van het Unierecht inzake auteursrechten en naburige rechten”. Dit artikel bespreekt de inhoud en reikwijdte van deze verplichting en onderzoekt de mogelijke extraterritoriale werking ervan. Tevens wordt ingegaan op de GPAI Code of Practice, waarin het auteursrechtelijke voorschrift van de AI-Verordening geconcretiseerd wordt.},
	keywords = {AI Act, Artificial intelligence, code of practice, Copyright},
}

Save .bib

Music streaming debates series part 2: streaming and GenAI discussions in canon external link

Valk, E.G.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Abstract

Part 1 of this series gave a general overview of the copyright-related discussions regarding streaming services from the last year. In Part 2, we will gain a clearer picture of the expected challenges for fair remuneration and control over one’s artistry created by new GenAI music services. Also, the implications for “good old” streaming services will be examined. Some concrete legal solutions will be proposed, while also highlighting uncertainties that remain.

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/music-streaming-debates-series-part-2-streaming-and-genai-discussions-in-canon/

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, music, remuneration, streaming services

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

VPNs, Copyright Territoriality, and Why Borders Still Matter Online: AG Rantos’ Opinion in Anne Frank Fonds (C-788/24) external link

Izyumenko, E.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/vpns-copyright-territoriality-and-why-borders-still-matter-online-ag-rantos-opinion-in-anne-frank-fonds-c-78824/

Copyright, territoriality

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

EU copyright law roundup – fourth trimester of 2025 external link

Trapova, A. & Quintais, J.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/eu-copyright-law-roundup-fourth-trimester-of-2025/

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij HvJEU 24 oktober 2024 (Kwantum Nederland en Kwantum België) download

Hugenholtz, P.B.

Auteurs & Media, 2026

Abstract

Dit is een belangrijk arrest over de verhouding tussen het unierecht en het internationale auteursrecht. Volgens het Europese Hof van Justitie geldt de door Richtlijn 2001/29/EG (de ‘InfoSoc-richtlijn’) geharmoniseerde auteursrechtelijke bescherming voor alle werken ongeacht hun land van oorsprong en mogen de lidstaten van de Unie de reciprociteitsregel van art. 2 lid 7 van de Berner Conventie (‘BC’) daarom niet toepassen om werken van toegepaste kunst afkomstig uit de Verenigde Staten auteursrechtelijke bescherming te ontzeggen.

Links

Annotatie_AM_2026

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Music Recommender Systems And the Copyright Blind Spot: Conceptualising the Right to Be Heard external link

Szkalej, K.

pp: 15, 2025

Abstract

Digital music platforms project an image of unprecedented abundance, linguistic diversity, and borderless circulation, yet the infrastructures that organise musical discovery increasingly shape who is heard and who remains silent. This paper argues that while EU copyright law effectively secures lawful availability, rights management, and remuneration, it remains structurally indifferent to the allocation of cultural attention. As musical discovery is now mediated primarily through algorithmic recommender systems, visibility has ceased to be a by-product of access and has become a function of metadata, optimisation, and design. The resulting condition of being represented but not heard exposes a doctrinal blind spot in the European copyright acquis and raises broader constitutional concerns relating to artistic freedom, freedom of expression, and cultural participation. Against this backdrop the paper conceptualises a right to be heard as a relational and infrastructural dimension of cultural participation and explores whether prominence-based regulatory approach, inspired by the AVMS Directive, could offer a proportionate response to algorithmically mediated cultural exclusion in the internal market that is compatible with the freedom to conduct a business.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5967014

Copyright, music industry, recommender systems

RIS

TY  - UNPD
AU  - Szkalej, K.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-12-23
T1  - Music Recommender Systems And the Copyright Blind Spot: Conceptualising the Right to Be Heard
SP  - 15
AB  - Digital music platforms project an image of unprecedented abundance, linguistic diversity, and borderless circulation, yet the infrastructures that organise musical discovery increasingly shape who is heard and who remains silent. 
This paper argues that while EU copyright law effectively secures lawful availability, rights management, and remuneration, it remains structurally indifferent to the allocation of cultural attention. As musical discovery is now mediated primarily through algorithmic recommender systems, visibility has ceased to be a by-product of access and has become a function of metadata, optimisation, and design. The resulting condition of being represented but not heard exposes a doctrinal blind spot in the European copyright acquis and raises broader constitutional concerns relating to artistic freedom, freedom of expression, and cultural participation. 
Against this backdrop the paper conceptualises a right to be heard as a relational and infrastructural dimension of cultural participation and explores whether prominence-based regulatory approach, inspired by the AVMS Directive, could offer a proportionate response to algorithmically mediated cultural exclusion in the internal market that is compatible with the freedom to conduct a business.
K1  - Copyright
K1  - music industry
K1  - recommender systems
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey,
	title = {Music Recommender Systems And the Copyright Blind Spot: Conceptualising the Right to Be Heard},
	author = {Szkalej, K.},
	url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5967014},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-12-23},
	pages = {15},
	abstract = {Digital music platforms project an image of unprecedented abundance, linguistic diversity, and borderless circulation, yet the infrastructures that organise musical discovery increasingly shape who is heard and who remains silent. 
This paper argues that while EU copyright law effectively secures lawful availability, rights management, and remuneration, it remains structurally indifferent to the allocation of cultural attention. As musical discovery is now mediated primarily through algorithmic recommender systems, visibility has ceased to be a by-product of access and has become a function of metadata, optimisation, and design. The resulting condition of being represented but not heard exposes a doctrinal blind spot in the European copyright acquis and raises broader constitutional concerns relating to artistic freedom, freedom of expression, and cultural participation. 
Against this backdrop the paper conceptualises a right to be heard as a relational and infrastructural dimension of cultural participation and explores whether prominence-based regulatory approach, inspired by the AVMS Directive, could offer a proportionate response to algorithmically mediated cultural exclusion in the internal market that is compatible with the freedom to conduct a business.},
	keywords = {Copyright, music industry, recommender systems},
}

Save .bib