On 29 September 2026, the European Commission launched a new consultation to assess whether EU copyright rules remain fit for purpose in light of technological developments. Open until 3 November 2026, the consultation covers four areas: the use of protected works in the development of artificial intelligence systems, piracy of live events, the remuneration of music performers and producers, and copyright in scientific research. This article examines the aspects of the existing EU copyright framework that the consultation brings back under scrutiny, and the legal and commercial implications it may have for technology companies and investors.
1. Regulatory Framework and Scope of Application
The review centres on the existing legislative framework, in particular Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the “DSM Directive”) and Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (the “AI Act”). The consultation launched by the Commission assesses whether these rules need to be strengthened in response to technological and market developments.
Türkiye-based game studios and technology start-ups that offer products or services on the European market must also take into account the EU obligations that fall within the scope of their activities. The process is therefore relevant not only to EU-based companies but also to Turkey-based businesses operating in the European market.
2. Where Do the Current Rules Fall Short?
The DSM Directive provides for two separate exceptions for text and data mining (TDM). Article 3 permits research organisations and cultural heritage institutions to carry out TDM, for the purposes of scientific research, on works to which they have lawful access. Rightholders cannot override this exception by reserving their rights. Article 4, by contrast, establishes a broader exception that also extends to commercial uses. However, rightholders may prevent the application of this exception by expressly reserving the use of their works for such purposes. For content made publicly available online, this reservation must be made by machine-readable means. Which methods are sufficient under this mechanism, commonly referred to as the “opt-out”, remains a matter of debate. How the mechanism operates in practice is therefore of particular significance for technology companies working with large datasets.
Separately, Article 53 of the AI Act requires providers of general-purpose AI models to put in place a policy to comply with Union copyright law and to make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training their models. As a general rule, these obligations have applied since 2 August 2025. The Commission’s powers to supervise and enforce these obligations, including through sanctions, became applicable on 2 August 2026. Transitional provisions nevertheless apply to certain models placed on the market before that date.
These transparency obligations do not, in themselves, demonstrate that a licence has been obtained for every work in a dataset, or that the use of a work is lawful in all circumstances. Accordingly, the existing rules do not resolve all of the difficulties rightholders face in tracking the use of their works, conducting licensing processes and obtaining appropriate remuneration.
3. Legal Assessment and Practical Implications
A. The Need for Licensing and Transparency
The Commission’s consultation addresses the difficulties rightholders face in identifying where and how their works are used, conducting licensing processes and securing fair remuneration. The matters under consideration include greater transparency in information sharing, mechanisms to facilitate licensing, and options for the remuneration of rightholders.
However, the consultation does not yet impose any new legal obligations. Its significance lies in gathering views on whether the existing framework will change in the future and, if so, in which direction. At this stage, rather than assuming that new obligations have been settled, businesses should monitor the potential regulatory options.
B. Operational Contract Management
For technology companies, game studios and digital publishers, the issue is not limited to potential copyright infringement. The sources from which images, music, software and other digital content are obtained, the licence terms under which they are used, and how usage rights are documented are equally important.
Practical steps companies can take in these areas include recording content sources, monitoring licence terms, and reviewing the ownership, liability and indemnification provisions in supplier agreements. In particular, for content obtained from freelance developers, external service providers or third-party application programming interfaces (APIs), clearly defining the scope of usage rights and the allocation of liability in the event of infringement helps manage commercial risk.
C. The Investor Perspective: Legal Due Diligence
In mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and investment transactions, where intellectual property rights play a significant role in company valuation, the legal history of the content and technologies used is among the matters to be examined. The following questions are particularly relevant to investors' assessments:
Text and data mining and reservation of rights: Are the TDM tools used by the company capable of identifying and respecting valid reservations of rights made by rightholders in relation to the works concerned?
Chain of title and content sources: Can the sources and licence terms of the datasets, images, music and other content used in developing digital products offered on the European market be documented retrospectively?
Contractual risk allocation: Do the agreements with freelance developers, content providers and API providers clearly address intellectual property rights, potential infringements, indemnification obligations and risks arising from regulatory changes?
The answers to these questions can help assess uncertainties relating to the company's intellectual property portfolio and identify in advance the risks that may arise post-investment. Nevertheless, each company's obligations must be assessed separately, depending on the technology it uses, its field of activity and the scope of the applicable legislation.
For Türkiye-based companies, the task is not to apply potential changes in the EU as though they were already in force, but to ensure the traceability of content sources, licence terms and contractual liabilities. Such preparation facilitates not only compliance with potential regulatory changes but also the assessment of intellectual property-related uncertainties in investment processes.
Sources
European Commission, Commission seeks feedback on challenges and way forward in the area of effect of technology on copyright, press release, 29 September 2026 (last updated 27 October 2026).
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-seeks-feedback-challenges-and-way-forward-area-effect-technology-copyrightDirective (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 92.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32019L0790Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), OJ L, 2024/1689, 12.7.2024.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1689European Commission, General-purpose AI obligations under the AI Act, fact page (last updated 1 August 2025).
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/general-purpose-ai-obligations-under-ai-actEuropean IP Helpdesk, European Commission seeks feedback on possible changes to EU copyright rules, 16 October 2026.
https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/european-commission-seeks-feedback-possible-changes-eu-copyright-rules-pokemon-wordle-closes-2026-10-16_en