Permissibility of Reproductions by Research Organisations for AI System Training

Permissibility of Reproductions by Research Organisations for AI System Training

Journal article

1 electronic resource (page 887–895)

Extract Copyright Act, Secs. 44a(1), 44b(1), 44b(2) first sentence, 60d(1), Sec. 60d(2) No. 1 – Laion v Robert Kneschke Official headnotes (translated from the German by David Wright-Policepayeh) 1. A reproduction is not deemed to be ephemeral if data is automatically deleted during an analysis process, but where the deletion does not occur ‘user-independently’ and instead as a result of a corresponding deliberate programming of the analysis process. Nor is downloading merely an undertaking process to the analysis performed if the data is to be analysed by specific software (para. 62). 2. An act of reproduction is subject to the exception provision of Sec. 44b(2) Copyright Act if it is carried out for the purpose of text and data mining. A teleological reduction of the exception provision because the European legislator was not yet aware of the ‘AI problem’ when the underlying directive provision was adopted in 2019 cannot be assumed. This is because the technical development does not concern data mining as such, but rather the performance of the artificial neural networks trained with the data. However, the exception provision does not apply where a reservation of use has been effectively declared (para. 66).

Crossref

GRUR International ; 74, 9, 2025, 2632-8550.

[Oxford, England] : Oxford University Press (OUP), 2025.

English

https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/72/3/231/6998505

External Online Journals > GRUR