Science as Scapegoat? A Closer Look at the EUIPO’s Study on Generative AI and Copyright
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has recently published an extensive study on generative AI from a copyright perspective. Prepared by the University of Turin Law School and the Nexa Center for Internet & Society, the study provides a lengthy overview of the intersection between generative AI technologies and existing EU copyright law.
The report acknowledges several key challenges: the absence of a common standard for how rights holders can express their reservations under the 2019 Copyright Directive’s Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception, and the lack of harmonised solutions to identify and disclose synthetic content. It also notes that, while legal disputes are ongoing, agreements have been reached between some rights holders and generative AI developers. In its conclusions, the study suggests that public authorities could play a role in supporting the creation of rights reservation databases.
Among its many findings, the report also highlights concerns that certain actors may be using collaborations with research institutions to circumvent Article 4 of the Copyright Directive. Specifically, it raises the possibility that research exemptions under Article 3, which are intended for non-commercial scientific research, could be indirectly supporting commercial AI development.
Examining the “Bad Actors” Narrative
In its exploration of this issue (pp. 118–120), the study raises the spectre of so-called “bad actors” who might exploit the research exception to bypass the opt-out mechanisms available to rights holders under Article 4. This concept suggests that partnerships between research institutions and commercial actors could result in datasets, initially developed under non-commercial terms, ultimately supporting commercial AI models.
While the report carefully avoids making legal conclusions on specific cases, its framing invites reflection. Are we observing a systemic problem of rights circumvention, or is this a natural byproduct of the increasingly collaborative landscape between research and industry?
The reality is that public-private partnerships are now commonplace and often indispensable in both scientific research and technological development. These collaborations often bring essential resources and expertise to research projects that might otherwise remain underfunded. Casting doubt on their legitimacy risks oversimplifying a far more complex reality.
The LAION Case: A Convenient Example, Misunderstood
The study repeatedly cites the LAION case, where a German court ruled that LAION, despite receiving funding from commercial actors like Hugging Face and Stability AI, qualified as a research organisation under Article 3. The court found no decisive commercial influence, nor preferential access to the datasets LAION produced.
But rather than seeing this case as proof of the system working, where a court carefully assessed and confirmed the legitimacy of a research organisation, the study casts it as a cautionary tale. One can’t help but notice how this reinforces a copyright maximalist narrative: any cooperation between public research and commercial actors becomes inherently suspicious, if not outright condemned.
The Danger of Looking Through the Narrow Lens of Copyright
It is important to recognise that the study explicitly approaches these questions solely from a copyright perspective. While this focus is entirely legitimate given the EUIPO’s remit, it inevitably prioritises the interests and concerns of rights holders. Other fundamental rights and societal interests—such as access to knowledge, the free flow of information, and the promotion of scientific progress—receive less attention in this framework.
This narrower perspective can lead to a framing that views technological and scientific collaboration primarily through the lens of potential rights infringements, rather than as an engine for innovation and societal benefit.
Such a framing does more than just paint a misleading picture; it risks undermining legitimate collaborations that are essential to scientific progress. In today’s innovation landscape, public-private partnerships are a feature, not a bug. Suggesting that any financial relationship automatically taints the independence of a research organisation ignores the realities of modern research funding—and sets an impossibly high bar for what counts as “pure” science.
If anything, the LAION case underscores the need for clear, functional criteria for assessing research organisations—not a witch hunt against any institution that dares to accept funding from outside academia.
Towards a More Balanced Debate
The challenges raised by generative AI are real and complex. Questions of data provenance, rights reservation, and fair compensation for creators deserve thoughtful attention. But it is equally important to ensure that the discussion remains balanced, acknowledging the positive role that collaborative research plays in advancing science and innovation.
Rather than focusing on preventing all possible interactions between public research and commercial actors or vilifying public-private partnerships, the policy debate might more productively explore how to foster transparency and responsible collaborations. This could include:
- Clear guidelines for when and how public datasets can transition to commercial use.
- Transparency requirements for public-private partnerships, without outlawing them by stealth.
- Investments in open, well-documented datasets that serve as public goods..
Above all, we must resist the narrative that science is being hijacked by commerce. More often than not, it is this very partnership between the two that delivers the breakthroughs we all benefit from.
Closing Reflections
It is worth keeping in mind that the conversation around AI and copyright does not occur in a vacuum. It must be informed not only by the protection of creative works but also by the fundamental rights to education, research, and the progress of science; values that are enshrined in the EU’s own Charter of Fundamental Rights.
A balanced approach will be key to ensuring that Europe remains a leader in both protecting intellectual property and fostering the innovation that drives its future competitiveness.
Written by Caroline De Cock, LL.M. , Head of Research.
May 14, 2025
