Data transparency and copyright: opportunities and challenges

Transparency is widely recognised as a core principle of AI governance, yet its practical implementation remains challenging. The data transparency obligations in the EU AI Act, introduced to support copyright enforcement, illustrate the difficulty of designing transparency rules that are effective and capable of fairly balancing the interests of right holders and AI developers. This article argues that these measures are unlikely to achieve their intended objectives. In particular, the dataset summaries required by Article 53(1)(d) of the AI Act may provide useful information to creative sectors but are unlikely to enable individual right holders to identify infringements or effectively enforce their rights. As a result, the EU approach risks imposing significant compliance costs without delivering meaningful copyright protection. The article argues that other jurisdictions should carefully evaluate the EU model before adopting similar measures. Instead, transparency should form part of a broader reform of copyright law encompassing rights, exceptions, licensing mechanisms, and liability rules to achieve a more balanced framework for AI and copyright.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Law Innovation and Technology
Published
2026-08-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2026.2710953
Primary Topic
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Data transparency and copyright: opportunities and challenges

Paul Formosa, Rita Matulionytė, Alain Strowel, Tom Montefiore
Law Innovation and Technology
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
article

Data transparency and copyright: opportunities and challenges

Paul Formosa, Rita Matulionytė, Alain Strowel, Tom Montefiore
article en

Abstract

Transparency is widely recognised as a core principle of AI governance, yet its practical implementation remains challenging. The data transparency obligations in the EU AI Act, introduced to support copyright enforcement, illustrate the difficulty of designing transparency rules that are effective and capable of fairly balancing the interests of right holders and AI developers. This article argues that these measures are unlikely to achieve their intended objectives. In particular, the dataset summaries required by Article 53(1)(d) of the AI Act may provide useful information to creative sectors but are unlikely to enable individual right holders to identify infringements or effectively enforce their rights. As a result, the EU approach risks imposing significant compliance costs without delivering meaningful copyright protection. The article argues that other jurisdictions should carefully evaluate the EU model before adopting similar measures. Instead, transparency should form part of a broader reform of copyright law encompassing rights, exceptions, licensing mechanisms, and liability rules to achieve a more balanced framework for AI and copyright.

Law Innovation and Technology
UCLouvain (BE), Macquarie University (AU)
Australian Research Council
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.