Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law |
| Volume | 56 |
| Early online date | 10 Mar 2025 |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 10 Mar 2025 |
Abstract
The training of generative artificial intelligence (AI) models requires the collection and analysis of a staggering amount of data, most of which consist of copyright-protected works. To date, the question whether reproductions of these works are created inside the models during their training has seldom been discussed. This is a serious blind spot in the debate given that such reproductions – e.g., inside ChatGPT’s or Stable Diffusion’s models – could be made available to end users and, therefore, to the public when AI services are offered online. Under the InfoSoc Directive, this might be copyright infringement. EU Member States’ national copyright laws would then apply and their national courts would have international jurisdiction. Seen in this light, the widely propagated narrative that non-EU AI developers are not subject to EU copyright law is an illusion.
Keywords
- Choice of law, Copyright, Generative AI, InfoSoc Directive, Jurisdiction, Making available to the public
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences(all)
- Political Science and International Relations
- Social Sciences(all)
- Law
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol. 56, 10.03.2025.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Generative AI, Reproductions Inside the Model, and the Making Available to the Public
AU - Dornis, Tim W.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2025.
PY - 2025/3/10
Y1 - 2025/3/10
N2 - The training of generative artificial intelligence (AI) models requires the collection and analysis of a staggering amount of data, most of which consist of copyright-protected works. To date, the question whether reproductions of these works are created inside the models during their training has seldom been discussed. This is a serious blind spot in the debate given that such reproductions – e.g., inside ChatGPT’s or Stable Diffusion’s models – could be made available to end users and, therefore, to the public when AI services are offered online. Under the InfoSoc Directive, this might be copyright infringement. EU Member States’ national copyright laws would then apply and their national courts would have international jurisdiction. Seen in this light, the widely propagated narrative that non-EU AI developers are not subject to EU copyright law is an illusion.
AB - The training of generative artificial intelligence (AI) models requires the collection and analysis of a staggering amount of data, most of which consist of copyright-protected works. To date, the question whether reproductions of these works are created inside the models during their training has seldom been discussed. This is a serious blind spot in the debate given that such reproductions – e.g., inside ChatGPT’s or Stable Diffusion’s models – could be made available to end users and, therefore, to the public when AI services are offered online. Under the InfoSoc Directive, this might be copyright infringement. EU Member States’ national copyright laws would then apply and their national courts would have international jurisdiction. Seen in this light, the widely propagated narrative that non-EU AI developers are not subject to EU copyright law is an illusion.
KW - Choice of law
KW - Copyright
KW - Generative AI
KW - InfoSoc Directive
KW - Jurisdiction
KW - Making available to the public
U2 - 10.1007/s40319-025-01582-9
DO - 10.1007/s40319-025-01582-9
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:86000797882
VL - 56
JO - IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
JF - IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
SN - 0018-9855
ER -