The Data (Use and Access) Act (the “DUA Act”) was enacted in the UK on 19 June 2025, reforming the General Data Protection Regulation and addressing copyright issues related to generative AI. The Act’s passage followed extensive parliamentary debate, particularly concerning the use of copyright works for training AI models without consent.
The legal framework governing copyright is facing significant challenges due to the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) that produces creative works without human authorship. As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, policymakers and legal experts must address the question of ownership and copyright protections for these outputs.
ABBA’s Björn Ulvaeus and other EU creators are advocating for creators’ rights in the generative AI market, highlighting concerns over potential loss of ownership of their works under the EU’s AI Act. They emphasize the need for legislation that protects creators’ interests while fostering innovation in the tech industry.
YouTube is supporting the NO FAKES Act, which aims to regulate the use of AI-generated replicas of individuals’ likenesses without their consent. The bill, backed by Senators Chris Coons and Marsha Blackburn, seeks to balance protection for individuals with innovation in AI technology.
A recent court ruling has determined that AI-generated art does not qualify for copyright protection, meaning creators do not own the rights to their works. This ruling highlights that only human authors can hold copyright, leaving AI-generated creations free for anyone to use without attribution or compensation.
The GPAI Code of Practice outlines the requirements for compliance with EU copyright law for providers of General-Purpose AI models. The third draft emphasizes proportional compliance based on the provider’s size and capacities, with significant changes to copyright policy measures compared to the previous draft.
This post discusses the complexities of intellectual property (IP) in the context of AI solutions, emphasizing the need for a tailored due diligence approach. It highlights critical questions regarding ownership, licensing rights, and the assessment of training data to mitigate risks associated with IP infringement.
LAION successfully defended itself against copyright infringement claims in a German court case brought by photographer Robert Kneschke. The court ruled that LAION’s actions fell under legal exceptions for text and data mining, and thus no copyright infringement occurred.
The EU is being criticized for leaving a significant copyright loophole in its Artificial Intelligence Act, which could leave writers and creatives unprotected against generative AI systems. Lawmakers and cultural organizations are calling for legislation to address this “irresponsible” legal gap that favors big tech over protecting European creative content.
This post examines the potential for private enforcement of the AI Act’s public-law product safety provisions under German law, specifically through Sections 823(2) of the German Civil Code and Section 3a of the German Act Against Unfair Competition. It concludes that such enforcement should be possible, highlighting the advantages of claims for injunctive relief under the UWG compared to those under the BGB.
Take the first steps in your transformation towards international AI compliance.
Our expert sales team is here to answer your questions, just leave your email and we’ll get in touch.
