On 10 March 2026, the European Parliament adopted recommendations calling for fair remuneration where copyrighted works are used to train generative AI, greater transparency about training uses, a new licensing market, and mechanisms to enable rightsholders to exclude their works from AI training. Parliament also stated that content fully generated by AI should not be protected by copyright. These recommendations are not binding law, but they are a clear indication of the direction of the European debate.
The legal framework remains unsettled. Under the DSM Copyright Directive, some text and data mining is permitted unless rights have been expressly reserved, while the AI Act adds copyright-related compliance obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models. The European Commission has also launched consultation work on technical protocols for reserving rights from text and data mining under the AI Act and the GPAI Code of Practice.
So where does that leave artists and galleries today?
Firstly, rights management now requires closer attention. Artists should not assume that copyright alone will necessarily answer the question of how their works may be used in the AI context. How works are published, licensed, archived and made accessible online may all become increasingly relevant. Galleries, estates and foundations may likewise wish to review image licences, website terms, archive access conditions and consignment documentation with this issue in mind.
Secondly, clear contractual and licensing arrangements matter more than before. The practical issues are not only theoretical. They concern rights reservation, licensing strategy, digital access, authority to license reproductions, and the evidential record around how works are distributed and exploited. In that context, careful legal analysis can help artists and rightsholders better understand their position and make more informed choices about how their works are managed.
Thirdly, creators should think not only in terms of ownership, but also in terms of control. Owning copyright is one thing; preserving practical control over training uses is another. As the European debate moves toward transparency, opt-outs and licensing mechanisms, it becomes increasingly important for creators and their representatives to know what rights they hold, what uses they permit, and what they may wish to reserve.
The prudent approach is therefore a practical one: to review how works are made available online, to use clear contractual language, to consider whether rights should be expressly reserved where possible, and to treat copyright strategy as part of broader rights management.
One thing is clear: the changing relationship between creativity, commerce and technology places a growing premium on legal literacy. For the next generation of artists, a basic understanding of intellectual property, licensing, contractual rights and the management of digital uses is becoming an increasingly important part of protecting artistic work and navigating the market with confidence. In the years ahead, artists and galleries are likely to be better placed where creative practice is supported by informed and well-considered legal strategy.