EU AI Act Under Fire: European Creators Warn of IP Risk and Regulatory Imbalance

Editor’s Note:Editor’s Note: The sharp pushback from 39 European creative industry organizations over the EU AI Act’s implementation spotlights a growing fault line between innovation and protection in the digital age. Their collective dissatisfaction—centered on Article 53 and the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice—underscores the mounting urgency to reconcile artificial intelligence development with the enforcement of intellectual property rights. For professionals in cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery, this evolving tension illustrates the profound impact regulatory misalignment can have on content provenance, digital accountability, and fair market competition across the EU. As enforcement timelines tighten, this discord signals more than a policy disagreement—it marks a pivotal moment for how Europe balances AI’s promise with its cultural and economic protections.

Industry News – Artificial Intelligence Beat

EU AI Act Under Fire: European Creators Warn of IP Risk and Regulatory Imbalance

ComplexDiscovery Staff

The formal dissatisfaction expressed by a coalition of 39 European creative industry organizations regarding the EU AI Act’s implementation has highlighted a significant rift between technological advancement and the protection of intellectual property rights. On July 30, 2025, this coalition expressed its dissatisfaction with the measures outlined in the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, the GPAI Guidelines, and the training data disclosure template, as specified in Article 53 of the AI Act. The coalition, spearheaded by the European Publishers Council, comprises diverse organizations from audiovisual firms to authors’ societies, spanning 34 countries and representing millions of Europe’s creators.

A central argument presented by the coalition revolves around the perceived inadequacy of Article 53(1)(c) and (d), which was originally designed to support copyright holders in enforcing their rights in the face of generative AI’s widespread, unlicensed use of protected works. Angela Mills Wade, Executive Director of the European Publishers Council, stated via professional networks that “the result is not a balanced compromise; it is a missed opportunity to provide meaningful protection of intellectual property rights in the context of GenAI.” The coalition’s discontent highlights a crucial issue that threatens the economic and cultural contributions of Europe’s creative sectors, which account for nearly 7% of the EU’s GDP and employ 17 million professionals.

Despite a series of consultations involving nearly 1,000 stakeholders from September 2024 to July 2025, the coalition claims that their concerns have been overlooked in favor of generative AI model providers. The formal statement emphasizes that existing provisions could potentially favor model providers at the expense of traditional content creators, thereby posing a risk to fair cultural and economic competition.

Representatives from the creative sectors argue that the extensive plagiarism facilitated by GenAI models imposes unfair competition, exploiting copyrighted content without appropriate remuneration or acknowledgement. Moreover, the coalition warns of the ongoing deployment of GenAI models across European markets, which leverage extensive scraping techniques detrimental to the creative industries.

The coalition’s stance has prompted divergent responses from tech giants regarding the voluntary GPAI Code of Practice. Notably, Microsoft has signaled its willingness to endorse the Code, whereas Meta has declined participation due to perceived legal ambiguities. Conversely, Google has affirmed its commitment to the framework, acknowledging its potential for enhancing AI tool access across European markets, with forecasts suggesting an 8% annual GDP increase by 2034 resulting from AI advancements.

At the crux of the coalition’s grievances lies the demand for meaningful benchmark criteria and accountability measures under the AI Act. The sentiment resonated in a statement that described the current process as a “betrayal” and urged for a reevaluation of the EU AI Act’s implementation approaches to ensure compliance with its original objectives. The coalition insists on the necessity of safeguarding intellectual property rights against unauthorized use, thereby securing the integrity of Europe’s cultural sectors.

The urgency expressed by the coalition is further informed by the consequential phases concerning the EU AI Act’s enforcement. Obligations pertaining to general-purpose AI models began effectivity on August 2, 2025, with a phased enforcement timeline extending to 2027, aiming to address the existing models already in the market. Evidently, the declarations and demands of these creative industries reflect a broader dialogue on striking a balance between fostering technological innovation and protecting established cultural and economic structures within the EU. As these conversations unfold, the importance of bridging the gap through collaboration and coherent policy-making becomes even more critical.

For professionals in cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery, the EU AI Act’s contested implementation offers a clear warning: regulatory gaps in AI governance can create real-world vulnerabilities in data integrity, auditability, and legal defensibility. As generative AI tools become increasingly embedded in enterprise workflows, ensuring that content sourcing and model training align with enforceable standards is no longer optional—it’s a necessity for sustainable digital risk management.

News Sources

• European Creators Reject AI Act Implementation Measures (PPC Land)
• “A betrayal of the EU AI Act’s objectives”: Joint Statement on the GPAI Code of Practice and the template by 40 organisations (European Writers Council)
• Creative industries slam EU AI Act implementation as ‘betrayal’ (Music Business Worldwide)
• Joint statement by a broad coalition of rightsholders active across the EU’s cultural and creative sectors regarding the AI Act implementation measures adopted by the European Commission (IFPI)
• A new European Parliament report addresses challenges to EU copyright law brought about by generative AI (Cineuropa)
• EU’s AI Act doesn’t do enough to protect artists’ copyright, creative groups say (Euronews)

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies

Additional Reading

• America’s AI Action Plan Sets the Stage for Global Technology Power Play
• European Commission Unveils General-Purpose AI Code of Practice Ahead of AI Act Enforcement
• Strategic AI and the Shifting Role of IT in Enterprise Innovation

Source: ComplexDiscovery OÜ