The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Copyright and AI training data—transparency to the rescue?
Abstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) models must be trained on vast quantities of data, much of which is composed of copyrighted material. However, AI developers frequently use such content without seeking permission from rightsholders, leading to calls for requirements to disclose information on the contents of AI training data. These demands have won an early success through the inclusion of such requirements in the EU’s AI Act. This article argues that such transparency requirements alone cannot rescue us from the difficult question of how best to respond to the fundamental challenges generative AI poses to copyright law. This is because the impact of transparency requirements is contingent on existing copyright laws; if these do not adequately address the challenges presented by generative AI, transparency will not provide a solution. This is exemplified by the transparency requirements of the AI Act, which are explicitly designed to facilitate the enforcement of the right to opt-out of text and data mining under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. Because the transparency requirements do not sufficiently address the underlying flaws of this opt-out, they are unlikely to provide any meaningful improvement to the position of individual rightsholders. Transparency requirements are thus a necessary but not sufficient measure to achieve a fair and equitable balance between innovation and protection for rightsholders. Policymakers must therefore look beyond such requirements and consider further action to address the complex challenge presented to copyright law by generative AI.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Finally, the survey by Buick (2025) constitutes a notable analogous study.”
From Generative AI and intellectual property: a systematic literature review of possible issues and mitigations (2026) · cites this paper as Buick (2025)
In the citing paper
“It serves as a complement to Ren et al. (2024) by focusing primarily on potential regulatory frameworks.”
From Generative AI and intellectual property: a systematic literature review of possible issues and mitigations (2026) · cites this paper as Buick (2025)
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, while that study specifically targets transparency obligations concerning the input stages of GenAI systems, this work adopts a more comprehensive scope, investigating the copyright implications across both the input and output pipelines of generative systems.”
From Generative AI and intellectual property: a systematic literature review of possible issues and mitigations (2026) · cites this paper as Buick (2025)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sustainable AI: Emerging Trends, Impacts, and Future Challenges
Philipo, A. G., Ning, H., Sarwatt, D. S., Mohamed, J. A., Yusufu, A. S., Shi, F., Urenje, S., & Ding, J. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing · doi:10.1109/tsusc.2025.3611272 · Cited by 9
Arnaudo, A., Coppola, R., Morisio, M., Vetrò, A., Borghi, M., Raso, R., & Khan, B. (2026) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.3928 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Buick, A.
- ORCID
- Buick, Adam
- Venue
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-12-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 182-192
- ISSN
- 1747-1532
- 1747-1540
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.