Under what conditions should copyright-protected content be used for AI training?
🗣️We know this is a topic many of you feel strongly about.
We want to hear your views on issues related to the use of copyright-protected content for training AI models, for research, and more.
📝Consultation open until 3 November 2026.
@EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu
Either its licensed for that use in particular or public domain
Legally speaking teachers cant just play a movie in a classroom! Same stuff
@EUCommission you wouldn't download a car...
@EUCommission It’s simple: pay me a royalty and a licence fee.
Oct 4, 2026, 7:57 AM@DaraghOBrien Exactly: the normal rules of copyright and intellectual property law apply, no exceptions.
I photograph a lot of under-funded community events & festivals, way below a reasonable pay rate.
Those photos would be used on the events socials / websites / press & for future applications.
Today, ‘I have to’ consider including an ai / social media / OS tax €€€s because those photos will be vacuumed up without my or anyones permission...
… cont next post….
…
No, the event organisers, can’t afford it, and definitely the ai / social media companies / OS platforms will not pay the balance for what they take & manipulate.
Or.
Not share them at all.
Or.
Not photograph them at all.
This Bluesky link will open in a browser, watch the video and tell us how we all get paid appropriately for this type of copyright infringement or why we should accommodate any ai company for copyright protected work?
I’ll wait.
The link:
https://bsky.app/profile/natebowling.com/post/3mx55bokvuc24
@clickhere @DaraghOBrien @EUCommission Apparently there is a text and data mining exception (TDM) but copyright holders have the right to opt out. The same dark pattern the EU forbids in other cases (online purchases).
Oct 4, 2026, 7:22 AM@EUCommission
Only when it is also freely available for humans to train themselves on, i.e. to read.
Oct 4, 2026, 10:14 AM@a_cubed @EUCommission that's not enough. If you use the (freely available) output from an LLM without knowing of the people who produced the material the LLM was trained on, the entire aspect of community building and human connection is disrupted. I've build so many connections in the tech industry by interacting with people online, reading their blogs, etc. - all of that is gone and stripped from people when LLM use all the info with no crediting sources.
@a_cubed @EUCommission they're not taking feedback in the form of mastodon replies
Hello @nicolas17 @a_cubed!
Taking part in the public consultation is the best way to ensure that policy-makers actually hear what you have to say. We do read our comments, we try to reply where we can, and we also regularly pass feedback from the internet on to our colleagues. Comments on social media also help to generate more engagement and visibility, and give people a chance to debate amongst each other. But again, taking part in the consultation is the most effective path of action.
@EUCommission @nicolas17 @a_cubed The most effective part to action will be a lawsuit. Is this proposed exception even compatible with the Berne Convention?
Under the same conditions I'm allowed to publish them. WHEN THE RIGHTSHOLDER GRANTED THE RIGHTS?
You know, exactly what is law?
But hey, torrenting everything in the world is only an issue if you do it WITHOUT monetary interests. If you do pirate stuff for financial gains it is totally fine apparently (see e.g. Meta, OpenAI, Antropic, ...)
It's really fascinating how in technical context it's always "AI is just another piece of software" but then when the same kind of AI enthusiasts talk about policy they think they're above the law and can just do whatever they want tbh...
If I'm not allowed to just up- and download research papers, norms, standards, movies, songs, songtexts, books ... for free from e.g. Annas Archive or The Pirate Bay then so should all of the AI companies...
But hey, if you change the laws I too will be downloading all of Anna's Archive "to train my AI" of course. Not to read it myself or to provide it to others except for them to also "train their AI".
It's just a clown show. You can't be against piracy when normal people do it but pro-piracy when companies do it for financial gains.
@EUCommission
Never.
The LLM are parasitical toys.
@EUCommission Under no condition. And what was that story about expropriating EU citizens' data?
The core problem is copyright itself. In a world of zero-friction copies, the entire premise is bullshit.
I'm disgusted by all the carrying on about copyright. Remember Aaron Swartz
@tuban_muzuru @EUCommission Ideally, everything would be free as in freedom, libre.
Everything created is building on the past and that should be normal.
As should everything be redistributed / published for others to learn and build on.
LLM private owners are exactly the opposite, they take without consent and close the knowledge down, change it in nontransparent ways. While copyright is complicated and burdensome compared to all being free, this is much worse.
Destroying public knowledge.
Ideally, we'd have a working government to enforce the laws we do have. Beyond that, all such arguments sound like the Aaron Sorkin accusers.
@tuban_muzuru What does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Sorkin have to do with... anything discussed here? Do you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz ?
My apologies, Aaron Swartz.
"perhaps my brains are old and scrambled" - Eno
Okay, principle 1: artists must be paid. Creative work will soon be at a hefty premium, already is.
We're already fooling around with imaginary money with bitcoin etc. We cannot allow the price of anything to vary without some form of market regulation, both from the inside and the outside, just like risk markets in anything. As varies risk, so must vary regulation.
Anyone who presently holds a copyright, nothing changes. But anyone can apply for a certified provenance for their work, rather like how older Chinese paintings bear the seals of their owners. The provenance of anything could be easily proven. Use rights would be negotiated with the creator and his certified provenance.
I don't go as far as Aaron Swartz, in many respects. I subscribe, during COVID, there was one jazz artist who was on tour, I helped support this guy and his composer in Chile. I believe in artists' rights.
I just don't believe in the copyright. It isn't working and we need something that does
@EUCommission A hefty monthly royalty fee.
They might steal, I mean download, once, but use it daily. So, that means paying.
And as it will be impractical to specify the use, the monthly licence fee is an appropriate solution.
@EUCommission O, and obviously only after a written contract.
Oct 4, 2026, 7:44 AM@EUCommission
Copyright is Copyright. If the AI Company wants to buy the stuff, a custom agreement with a custom price could be made between the copyright holder and the ai company if the copyright holder wants to do this.
Oct 4, 2026, 7:47 AM@EUCommission
When the compensation is fair enough to avoid me to go bankrupt
@EUCommission When they begin to pay fair royalties for the usage of the content they don’t own.
Digitally signed license agreements and auditable fair usage of the non-owned content and legal system of tracking of the royalty payments.
Make them pay, too.
Oct 4, 2026, 7:53 AM@EUCommission I doubt the commission reads replies here, so please also give them your input at the link they posted, under "consultation", https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/targetedconsultationcopyright .
@jjj @EUCommission they read, and even answer. Which I find quite awesome. That's so rare. Amazing social media team.
Hi @gunstick, we appreciate it, thank you very much😍
Hi @jjj, rest assured, we read your comments and do our best to reply🙂
Oct 4, 2026, 8:51 AM@EUCommission Oh, hi! Good to know, happily surprised to hear that! Thanks for correcting me!
Oct 4, 2026, 9:46 AM@jjj @EUCommission That said, I think it's safe to assume the the social media team of the Commission is separate from the decision-makers conducting this survey, so you're still correct that rights holders should fill out the (rather technical) questionnaire rather than just voice their grievances on Mastodon.
@brekke @jjj Indeed, it is important to actually take part in the open public consultation, as this is one of the best ways in which citizens can affect EU policy.
Comments on social media are useful in furthering the debate amongst people online, and the engagement generates more visibility for the post. We do read our comments and report back to policy makers on a regular basis, but as you said, taking part in the consultation is the best way to ensure your voice is heard.
@EUCommission @jjj ...but do mastodon comments actually get carried through to decision makers the same way responses on the website do?
Hi @LionsPhil, comments on social media are useful in furthering the debate amongst people online, and the engagement generates more visibility for the post. We do read our comments and report back to policy makers on a regular basis, but taking part in the consultation is the best way citizens can affect EU policy 🙂
Under what conditions should copyright-protected content be used for AI training?
I'm so tempted to say “never”, given my disdain for the current state of affairs. But on a less emotional note:
how about under the terms specified in the licence the content is available under?
And yes, by that I mean mandatory attributions for stuff like #CreativeCommons and mandatory open sourcing for GPL'd stuff. If the training cannot do that, it is breaking the author's rights, by definition. And if the company is willing to pay for a different licensing terms and all the authors agree, so be it (at least that way the profits are returned back to the authors).
(it's funny that Anthropic can comply with licences when it comes to [destroying] printed books, hmm?)
@EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu The kondition is called konsent.
I'm koncerned you even needed to ask. :neofox_o_o:
@EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu Just to be clear, a yes is konsent. Not saying no isn't konsent.
If you are still konfused about konsent, the NZ police made a helpful video: https://youtu.be/pZwvrxVavnQ
@EUCommission even if I buy a book, I am not allowed to reproduce parts of it. That's what AI do, so no copyrighted material should ever be used.
Open source code material: for several license types, the original sources have to be cited. AI can't do that, the just invent inaccurate references.
That leaves only public domain stuff.
Private pictures automatically are copyrighted, so they are not allowed as well.
@EUCommission another idea: if AI companies can use the material as they wish, then everyone else can as well. 😂
Unfortunately that will put all copyright companies and lawyers out of business. A small price to pay for the advancement of LLM slop and humanity! /sarcasm
Don’t put ideas in their heads!
Oct 4, 2026, 9:36 AMI'm wondering if we still want a "robust copyright framework" or it's time to finally get rid of copyright for everyone. Maybe this trend , it's a good step to make it a history and allowing the wild-west on both side and not only for the AI conglomerate.
@adulau @EUCommission a long time ago, Sony attacked everyone by putting their root kit on CDs. That day I stopped buying any protected media. So I pirated the music. I was trying to pay the creator via other means: impossible. You HAVE to buy the corporation media which then gives almost nothing to the musician.
Maybe make it legally required to have the iban/wero/paypal of the artist on every media or on their website.
"Under what conditions should copyright-protected content be used for commercial purposes" Is the right and boring question to ask.
A company using content for AI training is not a special category.
Oct 4, 2026, 8:00 AM@EUCommission I tried to participate, but found it unreadable
@EUCommission
It's simple really : using copyrighted material by generative ai is piracy AND theth.
Both are punished by heavy fines worth billions. Let's enforce this.
Oct 4, 2026, 8:08 AM@EUCommission nos consultáis las chorradas, pero con quién queremos comerciar, a quién no queremos enviar armas, a quien queremos comprar el gas, ni se os pasa por la cabeza
Oct 4, 2026, 8:11 AM@EUCommission
Those questions though.
So many feel like "Is it important to you as a creator of copyright works that AI companies are facing competition between themselves to use your work without your knowledge or consent. Why do you hate the AI companies?"
Written by lawyers, for lawyers.
@EUCommission For the love of... "Copyright-protected" means "labor". Cultural, artistic labor. What you're asking is "would you be angry if we allow tech companies to profit from other people's labor wether they want it or not" and yeah, we would.
There's a law already. If negotiating licenses with the copyright holders is too much of a hassle for those techbros, why should the EU help?
@EUCommission I'm not a big fan of copyright, as is. I think creators should have a reasonable amount of time to monetize their work. Life of author + 50 years ain't it though. With digital distribution, I can't really see a reasonable justification for copyright to last more than 2 years, past that, it's public domain as far as my personal ethics are concerned.
Having said that, AI, as it stands, has more ethical issues than just copyright violations, so it should not be supported either way.
@EUCommission never.
Dump the AI before the bubble bursts and gets us in a crisis many times bigger than the dot com and the subprime ones.
@EUCommission in case you didn't already see it - there is an EU consultation about AI training with copyright protected content - CC to:
@davidrevoy @ralphruthe @fernandez
@marcuwekling
@EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu Under the conditions of fair and impartial negotiations with the copyright holders, during which all involved parties (no proxies) have come to a mutually satisfactory agreement.
The legislation already exists; politicians have no grounds on which to "legalise" theft.
None. There are NO circumstances in which copyright law does not apply to AI and the companies & individuals who let it loose on the world.
Make them pay. Make it prohibitively expensive so they don’t just keep stealing.
Yes, stealing.
@EUCommission I do not recall the EU Commission asking "under what conditions should copyright-protected content be allowed to be downloaded via torrent by 14 year old working class kids?" during the "piracy is theft" era.
Your allegiance is leaking.
@EUCommission None.