2025 has seen copyright and AI issues come to the fore with litigation on the rise and significant court decisions in both the EU and UK. At the same time, review of the current regimes is ongoing and may lead to changes in 2026.
AI and copyright: litigation, litigation, litigation
With the US still clearly in the lead in terms of number of cases, Europe is catching up. The complex interface between copyright and artificial intelligence has captured headlines, and cases are being litigated across Europe. Proceedings have been and are still ongoing in Hungary, France, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic. Most recently in the UK, we saw the Getty v Stability AI decision discussed below, and in Germany, music collecting society GEMA scored a victory over OpenAI, claiming unlawful uses both in the model and in ChatGPT’s output.
Most of the recently decided cases in this area are moving on to higher courts. The Court of Justice of the European Union will also have its say. It is currently dealing with a case referred to it from Hungary (discussed below) and other cases on AI and copyright issues are more likely than not to follow.
Topics at the heart of litigation include the scope of the text and data mining exception and the conditions for valid opt-outs, machine readability of opt-outs, 'memorisation' and reproduction, as well as the important distinction between training and AI output (see more here).
You can stay up to date in 2026 with our AI & Copyright Case Tracker.
Copyright cases before the CJEU – it's not only about AI
The CJEU will continue to be an important source of copyright case law in 2026, shaping the evolving landscape of copyright law in the EU across a range of issues beyond AI. Important proceedings likely to be opined on by the AG or decided during 2026 include:
Utility objects and copyright – Mio/Konektra
Preliminary ruling proceedings are ongoing in USM Haller v Konektra and Mio AB v Galleri Mikel (commonly referred to as Mio/Konektra), tackling the recurring question of what constitutes a copyright-protected work in the specific context of design and applied art (e.g. furniture). In particular, the CJEU has been asked in the USM Haller case to rule on the relationship between design protection and copyright protection in the case of works of applied art, and the criteria for “originality” for copyright purposes. In Mio, the referring Swedish court is also seeking clarification on the protection of applied art under copyright and which factors should be considered, such as the factors surrounding the creative process, or those relating to the subject matter itself, and on the degree of originality of the work for the scope of the work’s protection.
AI and copyright - Like company v. Google
The CJEU is considering the first referral on AI and Copyright regarding the question of whether AI services that reproduce or summarise copyrighted works without authorisation, as seen in Gemini’s reproduction of a Hungarian news article, violate EU copyright law. This referral was made in April 2025 and there is a chance it will be decided in late 2026.
Copyright and social media
On 14 May 2024, the Romanian Supreme Court referred two questions to the CJEU in Case C-598/24 concerning copyright protection for social media posts.
The case involves a teacher who posted a text on Facebook expressing her views on inappropriate social practices in schools. An online newspaper published an article containing the complete reproduction of the teacher's post without prior consent. The first question asks whether text posted on a social network expressing an opinion on social practices can be considered a copyright-protected work under Article 2(a) of the InfoSoc Directive, while the second question concerns the scope of the exception regarding the reporting on “current” events in the same Directive.
CDNs as cache providers under the DSA?
The German Federal Supreme Court issued a decision in July 2025, referring two questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of the InfoSoc Directive in conjunction with the e-Commerce Directive and Article 5(1) of the Digital Services Act (DSA).
The case involves a music album made available through a service called "D." that linked to file-sharing platforms, with the defendant operating a Content Delivery Network (CDN) that facilitated access to this service.
The court specifically asks whether the CJEU's criteria for public communication by video-sharing or share-hosting platform operators also apply to Content Delivery Network (CDN) operators who may be exempt from liability under the e-Commerce Directive or the DSA.
The never-ending Pelham saga: samples as pastiches?
This case, dating back 20 years, revolves around the legality of sampling a sequence from a song by the German band Kraftwerk. In its first decision in 2019, the CJEU ruled that a phonogram producer’s exclusive reproduction right allows them to prevent sound samples, even if very short. In its second referral issued in 2023, the German Federal Supreme Court is asking whether the pastiche exception under Article 5(3)(k) of the InfoSoc Directive can cover music sampling, and whether the concept of pastiche is subject to limiting criteria, such as the requirement of humour, stylistic imitation or tribute. With AG Emiliou having delivered his Opinion in June 2025, a decision by the CJEU may be coming in 2026.
The AI Act in action
2025 has seen important developments for copyright in the AI Act. In July 2025, the GPAI Code of Practice was published by the European Commission’s AI Office and several key players have already subscribed. Under the AI Act, providers of “General Purpose AI” (GPAI) models face a broad set of obligations. GPAI model providers must fulfil certain documentation and transparency obligations and implement a policy on compliance with copyright law (Article 53 AI Act). Key concepts include the identification of and compliance with opt-outs from the TMD exception under the DSM Directive (see our deep dive and one-pager). Although the copyright provisions in the AI Act have been in force since 2 August 2025, the European Commission’s enforcement powers will only kick in a year later and the Commission has indicated a respective grace period for providers who adhere to the Code in its FAQ. In that context, the Commission has announced a collaborative approach leading to expectations that consultation will (initially at least) prevail over fines.
On a related topic, the template for the public summary of training content for GPAI models was issued in July 2025 in line with Article 53(1)(d) of the AI Act. Providers of GPAI models therefore have to draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary about the content used for training of their GPAI model according to that template. Again, enforcement will not commence before mid-2026 and it remains to be seen what approach the Commission will take.
European copyright law review: reforms ahead?
The European Commission is required to conduct an overall assessment of the DSM Directive no sooner than 7 June 2026. This upcoming review may represent a significant milestone for evaluating the effectiveness of controversial provisions in EU copyright law.
Article 17 of the Directive, redefining the liability of online content-sharing service providers, has been one of the most discussed changes brought about in 2019. The Commission’s 2024 assessment of Article 17(6) of the DSM Directive regarding limited lower standards for startups will feed into the overall review of the DSM Directive.
Articles 18-23 on "fair remuneration", also a topic of intense debate, have been implemented across Member States with varying approaches, creating some noteworthy specifics in different jurisdictions, such as Germany's 'red button' mechanism and provisions on "presumedly permitted uses".
The European Parliament published a draft report on “Copyright and generative artificial intelligence” in June 2026. In its explanatory statement, MEP Axel Voss asserts that the report is “an attempt to bring a workable balance between new technology and copyright closer”, requiring “a combination of legal, technical and technological solutions”. Key issues include the training of AI models with copyright-protected content, with the report taking the view that the current text and data mining (TDM) exception without remuneration creates an imbalance that should be addressed going forward. The report further argues that a dedicated legal framework for GenAI should be established, extending or amending the current TDM exception, and introducing opt-out through a standardised, machine-readable mechanism.
UK – changes ahead in 2026?
As in the EU, the UK is grappling with issues around AI and copyright, while also considering wider changes, including to the UK designs framework. We expect to see a number of important developments during 2026 including:
Text and data mining reform
The government will continue to try to find a negotiated solution to its Copyright and AI consultation. It has seemingly abandoned its preferred option of introducing a broad TDM exception with a rights reservation mechanism, which would have allowed TDM for any purpose by anyone, while allowing rights holders to expressly opt out. Objections from rights holders and difficulty implementing the technical aspects of this approach have led to a rethink. The government has established four technical working groups to bring together stakeholders to explore alternative ways forward and aims to report to Parliament by the end of 2026. It's possible that the government will choose to maintain the status quo and do nothing, although the High Court's ruling in the Getty v Stability case suggests that the whole of the UK's primary and secondary liability regimes now need further thought.
The fall-out from the Getty decision
Getty may well appeal the first instance ruling, although – even if an appeal is successful – it is unlikely to give Getty the full solution it would want (more here). Meanwhile, we can expect to see AI developers continuing to ensure that they train and host AI models outside the UK, as well as investing further in filtering unwanted content and implementing technical measures to reduce memorisation of training data. The challenge for rights holders will be to show that potentially infringing acts touch on the UK jurisdiction. If there is another dispute, we can expect it to come against an AI developer who has more obviously trained its model in the UK or from an entity whose visual assets or content are really distinctive.
Protection for computer-generated works abolished
The Copyright and AI consultation also considered whether copyright protection for computer-generated works without a human author (CGW) should be retained, amended, or abolished, with the same question being examined for designs in a separate consultation. The government's preferred option is to abolish copyright and design protection for such works, which would have substantial impacts on businesses that currently rely on these protections (more here). While this probably won't happen in 2026, businesses should factor in the potential loss of copyright (and design) protection for wholly AI-generated works to their processes and strategies.
Intersection between copyright and designs clarified
The consultation on changes to the UK's designs framework also considered potential reforms to the intersection between design and copyright protection, particularly for works of artistic craftsmanship. Although the government's preferred option is to do nothing, it's possible that some aspects of copyright law will be amended to clarify whether (and under what circumstances) copyright protection is available for functional products.
Will 2026 be a year to remember?
Copyright compliance is likely to feature high on the agenda of market players in 2026 and will, more than ever, require regular monitoring of developments in case law and regulation to mitigate risks. With AI as the ultimate disruptor, copyright regimes around the world are having to adapt. The EU and UK have already begun the process of legislative review, even as cases continue to progress through the courts. The outcome of these reviews and the impact of judicial decisions are likely to become clearer in 2026.
