EU Commission call for evidence on EU copyright rules
25 June 2026
Contributions
The SAA response to the European Commission's call for evidence on EU copyright rules focuses on the challenges that the growing use of and investment in generative AI poses to audiovisual authors and their collective management organisations (CMOs), arguing that the AI Act and its subsequent implementation measures have not solved these issues, instead leaving authors and most rightsholders without control over their works and without any form of remuneration for their use for AI purposes.
The SAA welcomes the Commission's stated aim of supporting licensing in the AI framework and improving authors' remuneration conditions, while making clear that only a regulatory intervention, if done right, can bring real improvement.
The response sets out the persistent challenges authors and their CMOs face: the overly broad interpretation of the text and data mining (TDM) exception, which was never designed for generative AI and does not cover acts such as communication to the public at the output stage; the total lack of transparency on the use of protected works, with the GPAI training-data template proving useless and works hidden behind vague trade-secret claims; and the substitution effect and market dilution caused by AI outputs, with a CISAC-commissioned study estimating a 21% loss in revenue to audiovisual authors by 2028. These issues, the SAA argues, also expose the wider shortcomings of the EU copyright framework, where the promise of appropriate and proportionate remuneration under Article 18 DSM has been far from kept, and where the Streamz case (C-663/24) now before the CJEU is expected to have an impact across Europe.
To address these problems, the SAA calls for a series of measures: limiting the scope of the TDM exceptions and confirming that they do not cover generative AI, with an absolute fence between Articles 3 and 4 DSM; introducing real transparency obligations, including data sharing with rightsholders and CMOs under NDAs and a rebuttable presumption of use; and establishing a remuneration right for the use of protected works in the AI context, collectively managed by CMOs, covering each training activity and the subsequent use of works to generate outputs. The SAA also calls for the principles of Article 18 to be anchored in more decisive language and for a remuneration right for all uses, including by streaming platforms and operators covered by Article 17. Throughout, the SAA stresses that the presence of audiovisual authors' CMOs is essential to any remuneration mechanism, and that voluntary measures such as mediation or arbitration will not bridge the significant bargaining power gap between AI companies, streaming platforms and the creative community.
Download the contribution below to read the SAA's full response.