With all the hearings of Commissioners-designate in the books, we present to you our key insights for copyright policy. Unsurprisingly, copyright is only one among many concerns of von der Leyen’s second mandate. Nonetheless, it is a cross-cutting issue that will keep multiple members of her College busy. Two hearings stood out in particular:
Ekaterina Zaharieva, Commissioner-designate for Startups, Research and Innovation
The first notable hearing was with Ekaterina Zahrieva, designated to oversee the work of the Directorate-General on Research and Innovation. Among the most important goals outlined in her mission letter is to propose a European Research Area Act to guarantee a “fifth freedom,” namely the free movement of researchers, scientific knowledge and technology in order to reduce fragmentation of research and anchor innovation and research into the Single Market and unlock more of its potential.
During her hearing, Zaharieva expanded on the potential scope of the European Research Area Act, noting that the Act would re-commit to the 3% spending target of GDP on research and innovation as well as address brain drain. To this end, the Commissioner-designate emphasised the momentum that has been created by the Draghi and Letta reports.
Unfortunately, the hearing did not provide any further insight into concrete steps that would facilitate the work of research and educational organisations in Europe to empower them in the digital environment.
Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice-President-designate for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy
The second hearing of note was the one of Henna Virkkunen, one of three Executive Vice-Presidents-designate of the new Commission. If approved, Virkkunen will oversee the Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG Connect). DG Connect is the home of the Copyright Unit, so it should come as no surprise that her mission letter explicitly states the goal of “consider[ing] the need to further improve the copyright framework to address new challenges raised.”
This specifically relates to the new challenges posed by artificial intelligence, in particular challenges around the use of copyright-protected works for AI training and the remuneration of creators. This topic came up prominently in the hearing. Already in her opening statement, Virkkunen pledged to “ensure that creators are rewarded, also in the age of AI.”
MEP Kyuchyuk (Renew Europe) alluded to the most recent WIPO Conversation on the copyright protectability of AI-generated outputs. On behalf of JURI, he asked Virkkunen if the incoming Commission would initiate targeted measures, e.g. to facilitate the conclusion of licences between rightsholders and AI companies, or whether “a novel approach to copyright and generative artificial intelligence” was needed.
Virkkunen did not address the protectability of AI-generated outputs. She expressed her support for “the existing balanced system of rules where we have text and data mining exceptions” enshrined in the CDSM Directive. The incoming Commission would monitor closely whether, with the tools available under the AI Act, the creative sector and AI companies will be able to reach mutually satisfactory licensing agreements. When the CDSM Directive will be up for a review in 2026, this would be the appropriate time to discuss if further changes are needed to achieve fair compensation.
Two additional questions touched on copyright issues. MEP Rafowicz (S&D) asked about Virkkunen’s plans to support journalists and artists in the digital transition. Virkkunen replied that online platforms should not be able to make a business of other people’s work without compensation and that more transparency was needed. MEP Minchev (Renew Europe) questioned the Commissioner-designate about her plans to combat online piracy. Virkkunen indicated that if the existing tools (such as the Recommendation on combatting online piracy of sports and other live events adopted in 2023) were insufficient to contain piracy, she would consider additional measures.
Main takeaways
From a copyright perspective, there was nothing surprising or unexpected in the hearings. While we understand the heavy emphasis on generative AI, we would like to see more work being done to promote the public interest.
The commitment to the idea of a “fifth freedom” for knowledge and the support for a European Research Area Act are commendable. We fully support this proposal, but would encourage the incoming Commission to be even bolder and, in addition, propose a more comprehensive intervention – a Digital Knowledge Act – that benefits all kinds of knowledge institutions, including universities and research institutions, but also libraries, archives and cultural heritage institutions. If we want to unlock the full potential of European knowledge institutions, we need to address the barriers that currently prevent them from fulfilling their public service mission, including in the field of copyright.
