EU copyright directive: Media compensation, AI challenges in spotlight

By Seda Sevencan

ISTANBUL (AA) — The EU copyright directive, introduced in 2019, continues to spark debate over its effectiveness in securing fair compensation for media publishers and its potential implications for freedom of expression.

Speaking to Anadolu, Valentina Moscon, senior research fellow for intellectual property and competition law at the Munich-based Max Planck Institute, outlined both the directive’s achievements and its shortcomings.

According to Moscon, the directive holds symbolic significance, but its tangible impact remains unclear. “I think it's a bit early to give a statement because the directive was published in 2019 and then was implemented later, so we do not have empirical data.”

She added: “At least it has a symbolic meaning, even though, I believe — this is my personal opinion — the solution that has been found in Europe is not the best option.”

While the directive aims to strengthen the bargaining power of media publishers in negotiations with digital platforms, Moscon expressed skepticism about its current framework. “There are other models that could be followed, but yes, we do not have yet a final result, so I think we have to wait a couple of years to say something more.”

- Freedom of expression at risk?

Moscon also addressed one of the directive’s most contentious aspects: its potential impact on freedom of expression. She highlighted concerns surrounding Article 17, which assigns liability to online content-sharing platforms.

“There are certain provisions that put freedom of expression at risk. I'm thinking, for instance, of Article 17 concerning the liability of online content-sharing service provider.”

However, she noted that the European Court of Justice has mitigated these risks by clarifying the limits of the article. “We run the risk of having content monitoring, but the European Court of Justice mitigated this provision via its interpretation, and so I think this is helping to delineate the limits of this provision.”

- AI and copyright challenges

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a significant challenge to existing copyright frameworks, Moscon also argued.

“Actually, the Directive, for instance, I'm just thinking, my first thought goes to the provision on text and data mining. The question that may be posed is whether those provisions are applicable in the context of generative AI, and this is currently discussed at the European level.”

She continued: “In general, I think that generative AI poses many challenges also, for instance, with regard to remuneration of authors, liability for copyright infringement, etc. So, I think that poses many challenges that could be likely addressed in the coming years, also via a legislative intervention.”

Moreover, she said it might be too early to determine if the directive needs updates but highlighted areas where improvement could be considered.

“It's still early to say whether there is a need for revision or improvement. Since the directive has been adopted, a lot of things have happened, particularly with regard to generative AI, and I think that may be an issue that should be addressed.”

She also emphasized the need to revisit provisions related to the remuneration of authors and performers. “The further issue that should be dealt with is the remuneration of authors and performers.”

“We already had provisions in the DSM Directive aimed at guaranteeing authors and performers with a better remuneration, but I'm not sure these provisions are enough to reach the purpose.”