A book becomes AI training material, a song feeds a music generator, and a news article turns into a chatbot answer. As disputes over the use of creative work mount, European lawmakers are asking whether the EU’s two-decade-old intellectual property enforcement rules can keep pace with the challenges of the digital economy.

The European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) continued discussions on modernising the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). Adopted in 2004, the directive establishes common procedures for enforcing intellectual property rights, including copyright, patents and trademarks.

But a European Commission study identified uneven enforcement across EU countries. This includes how courts assess injunctions and the costs faced by smaller rights holders. 

Greater transparency and payment

Reporting back from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Observatory’s September meeting, MEP Axel Voss (EPP/DEU) highlighted Gen-AI, copyright licensing and appropriate compensation as growing concerns. Mr Voss stressed the need to protect creativity and Europe’s cultural values while allowing technological innovation. The concerns build on a separate parliamentary resolution adopted in March.

“We need a balance of copyright protection, so that there’s protection of creativity and the cultural values of the European Union,” Mr Voss told the committee. “We also looked at the need for transparency,” he added, referring to “proper licensing and appropriate compensation”.

During the debate, René Repasi (S&D/DEU), presenting arguments attributed to fellow MEP Leire Pajín (S&D/ESP), mentioned that “patents exist to serve innovation, and innovation exists to serve society”. He argued that public interest should be considered, including consequences for public health, critical infrastructure and emergency response. Therefore, advocating for a case-by-case assessment.

The European Commission, represented by Denis Dambois, a senior expert on intellectual property at the Commission’s Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, indicated that problems may stem more from differences in national enforcement than from the directive itself.

“Addressing those divergences would require strengthened dialogue with EU countries, judicial cooperation, and the exchange of best practices, rather than rapid legislative reforms,” he said. “We should resist attempts to introduce separate criteria for different IP rights, as this would make their enforcement more complex and not necessarily more efficient.”

AI copyright disputes reach European courts

The debate comes as European courts increasingly confront disputes over the use of copyrighted material by AI companies. Some cases involve the culture and media sector.

Just one day before the committee meeting, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar at the EU Court of Justice issued an opinion in a case involving Google and Hungarian news publisher Like Company. The publisher alleges that Gemini used its articles without permission. Mr Szpunar advised that AI chatbots retrieving and reusing news publications to generate answers could, under certain conditions, infringe publishers’ rights.

In France, another dispute concerns payments to news publishers. The Paris Court of Appeal rejected Meta’s challenges, requiring the company to negotiate in good faith with French media organisations over the use of their content and provide information relevant to compensation.

However, cultural organisations argue that existing protections remain difficult to enforce. Culture Action Europe warned that the EU’s voluntary AI Code of Practice does not itself guarantee compliance with copyright law, potentially leaving artists dependent on costly litigation. Music creators ruled against AI music generator Suno in a case brought by German collecting society GEMA, finding infringements involving six protected compositions.

Will Brussels change the rules?

The discussion comes as the Commission considers broader changes to digital copyright policy. A consultation that closed on 3 November sought evidence on AI training, online piracy of live events, performers’ remuneration and copyright in scientific research.

The economic consequences of digital infringement are also substantial. A June 2026 EUIPO study estimated that monitored websites offering infringing content, goods or services generated €382 million in advertising revenue worldwide in 2025, including €28.5 million within 18 monitored EU countries.

The EU already has several relevant instruments. The 2019 Copyright Directive establishes rights for publishers and rules governing certain online content-sharing platforms. The Digital Services Act requires online intermediaries to provide mechanisms for reporting illegal content, while the AI Act introduces copyright-compliance and transparency obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models.