Are 420 million euros as compensation for damages done by AI for all authors and artists in Europe enough? EWC analysis of the adopted resolution on "Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges" (2025/2058(INI)) – Committee on Legal Affairs – Rapporteur: Axel Voss.
Overall, the EWC welcomes in particular:
The European Writers' Council (EWC) welcomes several key aspects of the adopted resolution. This includes the explicit demand for formal clarification regarding the scope of the Text and Data Mining Exception, which appears five times in the resolution. It also supports the new option for academic and scientific authors to 'opt out' of AI development when their non-commercial research works are shared with commercial entities. The resolution emphasizes that licensing for AI use shall be voluntary for authors and rightsholders, allowing for both individual and collective administration. Furthermore, the EWC appreciates the calls for title-specific transparency within documentation templates, an obligation crucial for authors to examine and exercise their rights. The clarification of territoriality, asserting that EU copyright rules apply where works are used for AI development and subsequent uses regardless of training location, is also a significant positive. Lastly, the EWC supports the report's call for the Commission to establish labeling guidelines that go beyond existing AI Act provisions.
We continue to regard the following as red lines:
Despite the welcomed provisions, the EWC identifies several 'red lines' or critical concerns. The first is the resolution's stance on establishing a 'registry' for rights reservations under the EUIPO, which the EWC fears could create a technical hurdle undermining copyright protection. Another concern is the potential for a new legislative initiative that might be overly business-friendly, possibly introducing regulations that could negatively impact authors' sovereignty and income. The EWC also remains wary of discussions around compensating authors with a lump sum or flat fee via Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) for AI output, particularly if this compensation mechanism is linked to a sui generis right that would grant AI products intellectual property-like rights, which the EWC deems unacceptable.
The following are to be debated:
Certain aspects of the resolution are considered open for further debate by the EWC. One such point is the demand for a 'retro perspective copyright global license fee' for past AI uses, proposed at 5-7% of turnovers, estimated around 420 million euros. The EWC believes this amount is insufficient to cover the actual damages incurred from lost licenses, competition from AI-generated products, lost commissions, and subsequent declines in pension and social security payments. They argue that this percentage could also set an inappropriate precedent for future licensing. Additionally, the suggestion for the EUIPO to function as a 'licensing hub' for AI or GenAI rights requires further discussion and input from EWC members, including its CMO members, to assess its feasibility and implications.
