Music creators reject EU AI Act: ‘Better No Code Than a Broken One’
Music creators reject EU AI Act: 'Better No Code Than a Broken One'
A large group of European creator and rightsholder organisations – including the independent music association IMPALA – has published a joint statement rejecting the latest draft of the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice. The group says this EU AI Act draft fails to protect artists, writers, musicians, and others whose work is being used to train AI systems.
The statement argues that the new draft goes against the goals of the EUâs AI Act and offers little to no real protection for copyright holders.
IMPALAâs Executive Chair Helen Smith explained the concerns like this:
âThe EUâs AI Act was meant to support responsible AI and give creators the tools to protect their rights. This draft does neither. We canât support it. As the statement says, we would rather have no Code at all than this unacceptable third draft.â
Table of contents
Whatâs the Problem with the proposed EU AI Act?
The EUâs AI Act was designed to ensure that creators have control over how their work is used in AI systems. It requires AI developers to follow copyright laws and be transparent about the content they use to train their models.
But according to the statement, the third draft of the Code weakens those rules. It uses vague terms like âreasonable effortsâ instead of clear legal obligations. This means AI companies could ignore copyright rules without facing real consequences.
Less Transparency, Fewer Rights
The draft also removes key transparency requirements. AI companies wouldnât have to say whether they respect an authorâs or artistâs choice to reserve their rights. It still treats robots.txt as the only valid method for reserving rights – even though itâs outdated and easy to ignore.
Other, better methods to protect content are left out or marked as optional. This directly goes against EU copyright law, the coalition argues.
Even the complaints process included in the draft is called âemptyâ. It allows creators to file complaints, but gives no clear path to fix problems when AI companies break the rules.
Ignored Feedback
The statement notes that creators and rightsholders gave detailed feedback during the drafting process. But the final version of the Code doesnât reflect any of their concerns. The same issues remain, affecting music, books, film, and other creative fields.
Another issue is the misuse of trade secret laws. Some AI companies claim they donât have to share information about training data because itâs âconfidentialâ. The coalition says this is just an excuse to hide possible copyright violations.
What Creators Want in the EU AI Act
The statement urges EU lawmakers to go back to the original goals of the AI Act. The Code of Practice should require AI companies to:
- Ask for permission before using copyrighted work
- Stop using content without approval
- Clearly explain what data they use for training
- Respect all forms of rights reservation, not just robots.txt
- Handle complaints seriously and transparently
The coalition also reminds lawmakers that the AI Act applies to any AI model offered in the EUâno matter where it was trained or who built it.
The groupâs conclusion is clear: the current draft of the GPAI Code of Practice is not good enough. It weakens copyright protections, ignores creators, and risks damaging Europeâs creative industries.
Their message to EU lawmakers: No Code is better than a broken one. Fix it – or scrap it.
Chief editor of Side-Line â which basically means I spend my days wading through a relentless flood of press releases from labels, artists, DJs, and zealous correspondents. My job? Strip out the promo nonsense, verify whatâs actually real, and decide which stories make the cut and which get tossed into the digital void. Outside the news filter bubble, Iâm all in for quality sushi and helping raise funds for Ukraineâs ongoing fight against the modern-day axis of evil.
Since youâre here âŠ
⊠we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading Side-Line Magazine than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. Unlike many news organisations, we havenât put up a paywall â we want to keep our journalism as open as we can - and we refuse to add annoying advertising. So you can see why we need to ask for your help.
Side-Lineâs independent journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we want to push the artists we like and who are equally fighting to survive.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as 5 US$, you can support Side-Line Magazine â and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
The donations are safely powered by Paypal.
