Copyright & intellectual property rules for AI

EU — General TDM Exception with Rightholder Opt-Out (DSM Directive Art. 4)

Binds Anyone carrying out text and data mining on lawfully accessible works in the EU, including commercial AI model training (grants a permission that lapses for any work whose use the rightholder has expressly reserved under Art. 4(3)). Art. 4 requires Member States to allow reproductions and extractions of lawfully accessible works for text and data mining by anyone, for any purpose including commercial AI training, and lets copies be retained as long as the mining needs them. The permission applies only where rightholders have not expressly reserved the use in an appropriate manner — machine-readable means for content made publicly available online. This opt-out is the reservation that AI Act Art. 53(1)(c) then obliges general-purpose AI model providers to identify and respect.

LEGAL PERMISSION with an opt-out — not a compliance obligation in itself. Directive (EU) 2019/790 entered into force on 7 June 2019 (Art. 31: twentieth day after publication in OJ L 130 of 17 May 2019) and Art. 29(1) set the Member State transposition deadline at 7 June 2021, which is the date carried here; as a directive it takes effect through national implementing law, so the precise wording and any national nuance vary by Member State. Art. 4(1) verbatim: 'Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Article 5(a) and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 15(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions of lawfully accessible works and other subject matter for the purposes of text and data mining.' Art. 4(3) verbatim: 'The exception or limitation provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply on condition that the use of works and other subject matter referred to in that paragraph has not been expressly reserved by their rightholders in an appropriate manner, such as machine-readable means in the case of content made publicly available online.' Art. 2(2) defines text and data mining as 'any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information which includes but is not limited to patterns, trends and correlations'. Art. 4(4) preserves the separate scientific-research exception in Art. 3, which carries no opt-out.

Stated maximum penalty — N/A — permissive exception (no penalty attaches to mining within Art. 4; mining a work whose use has been reserved under Art. 4(3) falls outside the exception and is dealt with as ordinary copyright infringement under national law)

GPAI model provider obligations (Art. 53) — docs, copyright policy, training summary

Binds Providers of general-purpose AI models. Technical documentation (Annex XI), downstream-provider information (Annex XII), a copyright-and-related-rights policy identifying Art. 4(3) DSM rights reservations, and a public summary of training content on the AI Office template.

Stated maximum penalty — Up to 3% turnover or €15M

GPAI models placed on the market before 2 Aug 2025 — legacy compliance deadline (Art. 111(3))

Binds Providers of general-purpose AI models placed on the EU market before 2 August 2025. The AI Act's GPAI duties bite on legacy models on 2 August 2027: general-purpose AI models placed on the EU market before 2 August 2025 have until that date to be brought into line with the Regulation. Until then, legacy models sit outside the Chapter V obligations that have bound newly placed models since 2 August 2025.

Article 111(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, unchanged by the Digital Omnibus on AI: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 Article 1(39) amends only Article 111(2) (replaced) and adds Article 111(4) (synthetic-content marking retrofit, 2 Dec 2026) — paragraph 3 and its 2 August 2027 date are untouched (OJ L, 24.7.2026). This is the counterpart to the GPAI duties that bound new models from 2 August 2025 (Art. 53, Annex XI/XII, copyright policy, training-data summary) and to Commission enforcement powers live since 2 August 2026 (Art. 101). Scope is the model, not the system: a legacy model that is substantially modified is treated as newly placed on the market and loses the grace period.

Stated maximum penalty — Up to 3% turnover or €15M

Japan — AI Training / Information Analysis Exception (Copyright Act Art.30-4)

Binds Anyone in Japan reproducing or otherwise exploiting copyright works for information analysis, including AI model training (grants a statutory permission, subject to the Art.30-4 proviso and to Art.47-5 limits on downstream enjoyment use). Art.30-4 permits exploitation of a published or unpublished work, by any means and to the extent deemed necessary, where the purpose is not to enjoy the ideas or sentiments expressed in it — item (ii) names information analysis expressly, which covers machine-learning training. Subject to a proviso: the exception falls away where, in light of the type and use of the work and the manner of exploitation, it would unreasonably prejudice the copyright owner's interests. Legal permission, not a compliance obligation.

LEGAL PERMISSION — not a compliance obligation. Art.30-4 (Act No. 48 of 1970) in its current form was inserted by the 2018 amendment (Act No. 30 of 2018), whose supplementary provisions set entry into force at 1 January 2019 (Heisei 31). The chapeau allows exploitation 'to the extent deemed necessary' where the purpose is not self- or third-party enjoyment of the expressed ideas or sentiments; item (ii) covers information analysis, defined in the statute as extracting and comparing, classifying or otherwise analysing language, sound, image or other elements from a large number of works or a large volume of information. The proviso is the operative limit: no exception where the exploitation would unreasonably prejudice the copyright owner's interests in light of the type and use of the work and the manner of exploitation. Art.47-5(2) and Art.113(9) then withdraw the shelter from anyone who later uses an Art.30-4 copy for enjoyment purposes. Re-checked against the current consolidated e-Gov text on 2026-08-09: no amendment since 2024 touches Art.30-4 — the 2024-2026 amending Acts (Reiwa 6 No. 55, Reiwa 7 No. 27, Reiwa 8 Nos. 37 and 48) leave the article unchanged.

Stated maximum penalty — N/A — permissive exception (no penalty attaches to exploitation within Art.30-4; the general infringement ceiling is Art.119(1), up to 10 years' imprisonment and/or a JPY 10,000,000 fine, and Art.124(1)(i), up to JPY 300,000,000 for a corporate body)

Saudi Arabia — AI Training Exemption (Copyright Law Art.26)

Binds Developers of AI products and algorithms reproducing copyrighted works in Saudi Arabia (grants a statutory permission, conditioned on lawful publication of the work, lawful acquisition of the original copy, and copying limited to the purpose). Art.26(4) permits reproduction of an original work for developing AI products and algorithms without author authorization or compensation, subject to three statutory conditions: the work was lawfully published, the original copy was lawfully obtained, and copying stays within what the purpose requires. Legal permission, not a compliance obligation — relevant to enterprise data-sourcing strategy.

LEGAL PERMISSION — not a compliance obligation. Royal Decree No. M/169 (Copyright Law) Art.26(4) permits reproduction of an original work for AI product and algorithm development without author consent or compensation, on three statutory conditions (lawful publication; lawful acquisition of the original copy; copying limited to the purpose). IN FORCE since 12 Aug 2026. Art.61: the Law enters into force 180 days after publication in the Official Gazette (Umm Al-Qura issue 5144, 13 Feb 2026) = 12 Aug 2026. Art.60 Implementing Regulation (اللائحة التنفيذية لنظام حقوق المؤلف, 98 articles / 13 chapters) has now been published in Umm Al-Qura (https://www.uqn.gov.sa/decisions-and-regulations/4001498), ahead of the Law's 12 Aug 2026 entry into force, which has now occurred.

Stated maximum penalty — N/A — permissive exemption (no penalty attaches to a user acting within Art.26(4); the Law's general infringement ceiling is SAR 1,000,000 and/or 1 year, doubled on repeat offence)

Singapore — Computational Data Analysis Exception (Copyright Act 2021 s.244)

Binds Anyone in Singapore copying or communicating works or recordings of protected performances for computational data analysis, including training a computer program (grants a permitted use conditioned on single-purpose use, no onward supply, lawful access, and a non-infringing source copy). s.244 makes it a permitted use to copy a work or a recording of a protected performance for computational data analysis, which s.243 defines to include using the material as an example to improve how a computer program functions — i.e. model training. Four conditions: the copy serves only that purpose, it is not supplied onward except for result verification or collaborative research, the person has lawful access to the source copy, and that source copy is not a knowingly infringing one. No rightholder opt-out, and contract terms purporting to exclude the exception are void under s.187.

LEGAL PERMISSION — not a compliance obligation. Copyright Act 2021 (Act 22 of 2021) commenced 21 November 2021; s.2 of the Act is framed by reference to that date. s.243 defines computational data analysis to include (a) using a computer program to identify, extract and analyse information or data from the work or recording, and (b) using the work or recording as an example of a type of information or data to improve the functioning of a computer program in relation to that type of data — the statutory illustration is training a program to recognise images. s.244(2) conditions the permitted use on: the copy being made only for that analysis or for preparing the material for it; no other use of the copy; no onward supply except to verify results or for collaborative research or study; lawful access to the source copy; and the source copy being non-infringing (or the user neither knowing nor reasonably able to know otherwise). The statutory illustrations name circumventing paywalls and breaching database terms of use as defeating lawful access. s.244(3) confirms storage and retention count as copying; s.244(4) extends the permission to communication to the public of a copy made under s.244(1).

Stated maximum penalty — N/A — permissive exception (no penalty attaches to a permitted use under s.244; the Act's general criminal ceiling for wilful commercial-scale infringement is a fine and imprisonment under Part 9 Division 6, and civil remedies including statutory damages remain available for use falling outside the conditions)