The AI Act Provisions Relating to Copyright: Private Enforcement in Germany
The AI Act introduces significant changes to the landscape of copyright enforcement, particularly regarding the possibilities for private enforcement. This study explores the implications of these provisions with a focus on Germany’s legal framework.
1. Overview of the AI Act
The AI Act’s provisions aim to create a level playing field among providers of general-purpose AI models. It emphasizes the necessity for compliance and monitoring, ensuring that market participants are protected from unfair business practices.
2. Enforcement Mechanisms
Two primary mechanisms for enforcement are explored: Section 823(2) of the German Civil Code and Section 3a of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG).
2.1 Enforcement via Section 823(2) BGB
This section provides a foundation for claims for damages related to violations of the AI Act. The principle of restitution in kind ensures that the injured party is restored to their pre-damage position. However, this method does not offer the flexibility of broader claims that might be available under competition law.
2.2 Enforcement via Section 3a UWG
Section 3a UWG offers a more dynamic route for enforcement, allowing competitors to assert claims as part of their competitive rights. It provides for prohibitory injunctive relief and the possibility of compensation. The section is particularly noteworthy for its allowance of competitor standing, which may extend to authors and rightholders in certain contexts.
3. Key Requirements for Enforcement
For a provision to be enforceable under Section 3a UWG, it must:
- Regulate market conduct in the interests of market participants.
- Not provide an exhaustive system of sanctions.
3.1 Article 53(1)(c) AI Act
This provision is designed to ensure fair competition among AI providers. It protects competitors by regulating market conditions, thus fulfilling the requirement for suitable conduct regulation.
3.2 Article 53(1)(d) AI Act
Article 53(1)(d) facilitates the enforcement of rights by copyright holders and emphasizes the dual function of market regulation. It aims to create an environment where legitimate interests can be exercised effectively.
4. Comparison of Legal Consequences
The differing approaches of Section 823(2) BGB and Section 3a UWG lead to varied legal consequences:
- Section 823(2) primarily offers claims for damages based on individual rights.
- Section 3a UWG includes broader claims for injunctive relief and can address multiple infringements collectively.
5. Conclusion
The analysis indicates that private enforcement of the AI Act’s provisions is feasible under both Section 823(2) BGB and Section 3a UWG. However, Section 3a UWG appears more advantageous, as it allows for claims across a wider array of infringements, making it a powerful tool for rightholders and competitors alike.
In summary, the AI Act could facilitate actions against violations of EU AI training rules, even in cases where the training occurs outside the EU. This sets a precedent for robust enforcement mechanisms in the evolving landscape of AI and copyright.
