European Parliament’s GenAI Resolution Gains Support from Creators, Faces Opposition from Regional Tech Groups
The European Parliament has adopted a resolution aimed at creating a framework to enhance the integration of AI across Europe, while also safeguarding cultural sovereignty. The decision, made on Tuesday, has elicited a mixed response throughout the region.
The non-binding report, titled “Copyright and Generative Artificial Intelligence – opportunities and challenges,” was led by centrist Christian Democrat Union MEP Alex Voss. It outlines a framework for the European Commission regarding AI and copyright law.
Among its recommendations is the requirement for complete disclosure of all copyrighted works utilized to train AI models, along with automatic copyright infringement proceedings for those who fail to comply.
Other significant points include the establishment of a licensing framework that acknowledges collective management organizations, which would ensure fair compensation for creators whose works are used by generative AI tools. Additionally, the report proposes a system for immediate and appropriate remuneration for past uses of copyrighted work by AI providers.
The resolution’s approval comes as EU copyright law faces scrutiny in the lead-up to a comprehensive review of the 2021 Digital Single Market directive expected to commence in June.
The Federation of European Screen Directors (FERA), the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe (FSE), and the Society of Audiovisual Authors (SAA) issued a joint statement applauding the resolution’s adoption and urging the European Commission to turn its suggestions into actionable measures.
“Today’s vote confirms what Europe’s screenwriters and directors have been saying for years: the current framework is failing them. GenAI companies have built billion-euro businesses on the works of audiovisual authors without asking, paying, or disclosing,” stated SAA Chair Barbara Hayes. “The Parliament has now spoken with a clear majority. We call on the European Commission to swiftly introduce enforceable obligations that level the playing field.”
FERA Chair Bill Anderson emphasized the necessity of updating copyright legislation for the modern AI era. He noted, “Directors have always been early adopters of new technologies and many already work with AI. However, they are now seeing AI systems replicate their work. The Parliament acknowledges this threat to their livelihoods and gives it political weight. Now, we need the Commission to enforce rules so that European directors can continue to tell original stories that engage audiences worldwide.”
His sentiments were echoed by FSE President Jacob Groll, who argued that generative AI tools are unlawfully appropriating the works of screenwriters. “Every film, every series, every episode of television has a screenwriter behind it who spends months, most often years, bringing it to life. These words are taken unlawfully, without consent and without remuneration – stolen by generative AI systems to be used as a basis of their own product. This is not an abstract policy debate; it’s a fight for creatives to earn a living and for the diversity of stories offered to European audiences,” Groll stated.
The umbrella group GESAC, which includes 32 author and creator societies across the European Union, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland, also expressed support for the resolution. “Today’s vote sends a strong and timely political message,” said Director General Adriana Moscoso del Prado. She added that the JURI Committee has acknowledged the need for targeted EU intervention to rectify imbalances in the generative AI market and to ensure fair remuneration for European creators.
However, the resolution has not garnered universal approval. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) criticized the measures, warning that they could limit Europe’s access to innovative technologies. The association was particularly critical of calls for new legislation regarding how AI tools access existing content, arguing that the Copyright Directive’s text-and-data-mining exception is sufficient.
The CCIA maintained that the European Parliament’s call for prior authorization or broad licensing would introduce unnecessary complexity and legal uncertainties, effectively imposing a “compliance tax” on EU companies while hampering local startups attempting to navigate intricate licensing negotiations.
In its statement, the CCIA urged the EU Commission to refrain from altering the Copyright Directive and AI Act, advocating instead for effective implementation of current regulations. “Today’s non-binding report sends the wrong signal to innovators, and risks holding back Europe’s digital competitiveness on the global stage. The EU already has strong, future-proof rules that balance the interests of rightsholders with AI innovation,” said Boniface de Champris, CCIA Europe’s AI Policy Lead.
He concluded, “The last thing the EU needs right now is more complexity. It just needs to enforce the ones it already has. Let the Copyright Directive and AI Act do their job.”
