Cross-posted from C4C’s LinkedIn page – see the original article

Caroline De Cock, Coordinator of the Coalition for Creativity (C4C), recently had the opportunity to speak at the EU general-purpose AI Code of Practice plenary meeting of Working Group 1 – Copyright. She addressed key concerns about the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). Her intervention highlighted the need for a balanced approach that fosters innovation, respects existing laws, and avoids overreach. Below is a summary of the key points she shared.

Copyright and the Code of Practice: Drawing the Line

At its core, the Code of Practice must respect existing boundaries—it should not expand copyright law or impose obligations beyond those established by the AI Act. Any uses that do not infringe copyright must remain outside its scope. Equally important is preserving the critical role of copyright exceptions and limitations, which are essential for research, education, and creativity.

Transparency and Due Diligence: Complex Ideals in an Opaque Environment

While transparency is vital, it must also be practical. Copyright law is notoriously complex, with low originality thresholds, fragmented territorial rules, and no universal registration system. Metadata on rights ownership is often incomplete or missing. In such an environment, requiring granular transparency or extensive due diligence is simply unworkable. The Code of Practice must recognise these limitations to ensure that compliance is achievable.

Opt-Outs: Respect Without Overreach

Opt-out mechanisms, such as the Article 4 reservation of rights in the 2019 Copyright Directive, play a role in AI’s interaction with copyright. However, their current implementation raises unresolved questions:

• How should opt-outs be expressed?
• How can their legitimacy be verified?

These challenges remain a work in progress and should not be preempted by the Code of Practice. Additionally, an opt-out represents a reservation of rights, not an outright prohibition. For instance, lawful uses permitted by copyright exceptions and limitations should remain valid even when an opt-out is in place.

Broadening the Focus: Beyond Entertainment

Generative AI offers transformative potential across sectors, yet discussions around General-Purpose AI (GPAI) often focus narrowly on the entertainment industry. This risks neglecting other critical domains, such as research and education, which are pivotal to societal progress. Unfortunately, voices from the research community remain underrepresented in the development of this Code. To achieve fairness and inclusivity, we must ensure that their needs, particularly regarding access to knowledge, are not overshadowed.

Learning from Article 17: The Danger of Output Filters

A major concern is the potential for Measure 2.9 of the Code to introduce “output filters”—tools that could block AI-generated content based on copyright concerns. This is an alarming step beyond the upload filters debated under Article 17 of the 2019 Copyright Directive. Unlike upload filters, which apply to public contexts, output filters would target private, exploratory uses of AI, effectively introducing pre-emptive censorship of thought and experimentation. This poses a serious threat to freedom of thought and expression in the EU and must be avoided at all costs.

A more detailed overview of our concerns on this point can be found in this Tech Policy Press article.

Conclusion: Striking the Right Balance

As we navigate the rapidly evolving relationship between copyright and AI, it is imperative to create a framework that is balanced, practical, and inclusive. This means respecting the boundaries of existing laws, ensuring feasible transparency, and broadening the discussion beyond entertainment to include sectors like research and education.

Let’s continue this critical conversation to shape an AI framework that serves everyone.

Get the TL;DR version 👆