European Parliament resolution: MEPs want to strengthen copyright protection to meet the challenges of generative artificial intelligence

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2026 on copyright and generative artificial intelligence- opportunities and challenges (2025/2058(INI))

On the initiative of rapporteur Alex Voss, MEP, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on 10 March 2026 to regulate the use of content generated by generative artificial intelligence (GAI). Its aim: to establish full transparency, strengthen legal certainty and ensure fair remuneration for creators. Before the vote, the rapporteur emphasized: “GAI must not be exempt from the rule of law (…) Innovation cannot come at the expense of copyright; the two can and must coexist”.

The resolution highlights the fundamental nature of intellectual property rights, the protection of which must be guaranteed at every stage of digital transformation. It emphasizes the importance of the creative and cultural sector at European level, which accounts for 4% of European added value and 6.9% of the European Union’s (EU) GDP, supporting around 8 million jobs.

For several years now, general GAI models have been trained on thousands of protected contents within a legal framework that is still under construction. The resolution highlights, particularly, a lack of transparency regarding the use of this protected content. The MEP’s report also considered that ‘The General-Purpose AI Code of Practice’, published by the European Commission on 10 July 2025, is not sufficiently effective, mainly because it is voluntary and non-binding nature. However, the resolution points out that much of this protected content forms part of Europe’s cultural heritage, thereby threatening European cultural sovereignty. MEPs therefore wish to preserve European values and cultural diversity by creating conditions for balanced and negotiated agreements.

The resolution considers that the balance of power between AI providers and creators in the EU is asymmetrical and will remain so until providers disclose the content they use. Without this information, no negotiations or agreements can be viable. Parliament therefore seeks to create the best possible conditions to ensure transparency, consent and fair remuneration for creators whose content is used by GAI (production, broadcasting and distribution).

The adopted text calls on the Commission to put in place specific measures, including in particular:

A requirement for transparency regarding the use of content: in particular, AI providers and operators should publish a detailed list of protected works used by the GAI ;
In the absence of sufficient transparency: the establishment of a rebuttable presumption that GAI has used the works, thereby shifting the burden of proof in legal proceedings in favor of rights holders ;
Fair remuneration for creators and rights holders to support the sector, as well as the consideration of an immediate solution for fair and proportionate remuneration for past uses;
The creation of a system of voluntary individual or collective licenses by sector, accessible to all, expressly excluding blanket licenses that are unsuitable for the use of various protected content;
A genuine opportunity for creators and rights holders, including press services, to refuse or consent to the use of their works by GAI;
The absence of copyright for content generated entirely by AI, in accordance with European law, with an obligation to label such content (publication of a European code of practice on content labelling, etc.), to inform and warn the public.

According to MEPs, any AI model marketed in Europe must comply with European copyright requirements, regardless of where the AI model was trained. In these proposals, they envisage holding AI providers liable in the event of non-compliance with the rules. The resolution also proposes an operational framework with concrete tools. For instance, specific tasks could be entrusted to the EUIPO, such as acting as a trusted intermediary responsible for identifying exceptions to the use of protected content or supporting the development of voluntary sector-specific licensing processes.

This resolution is one of the first building blocks of future European legislation on GAI and copyright. The recommendations aim to strengthen the effectiveness of existing European legislation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the 13 June 2024 on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Directive (EU) 2019/790 of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights), by specifically addressing the challenges linked to copyright and GAI, without unduly hindering the development of AI technologies and ensuring that scientific research or teaching activities are not restricted.

However, it is important to fully appreciate the significance of this vote: the resolution is not legally binding and imposes no obligations. It remains a call for legislation on the matter, as well as a warning to AI companies regarding their potential future obligations in the European market.

Nowadays, similar initiatives are being taken at Member State level. In France, a bill tabled in the Senate on 12 December 2025 proposes to introduce into the Intellectual Property Code the conditions for a rebuttable presumption of the use of protected content by AI providers. Unlike the MEPs’ resolution, this initiative does not address the labelling of AI-generated content or reporting mechanisms but focuses solely on the evidential aspect in a litigation context. The text will be examined in a public session on 8 April in the Senate. Although it is more limited in scope than the resolution, for reasons aimed at ensuring its compliance with European Union law, this text demonstrates an awareness of the issues at stake.

This growing awareness at both European and national levels is essential in a context where the EU continues to take a back seat on the international stage. By comparison, in the United States, the legal framework—based largely on ‘Fair use’—is assessed on a case-by-case basis, with some uses falling within the scope of Fair use and others not, against a backdrop of frequent litigation and the development of licensing solutions, which help to structure the market.

Marine BENTOUMI