{"id":1154,"date":"2026-04-14T07:11:34","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T05:11:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/?p=1154"},"modified":"2026-05-01T07:26:04","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T05:26:04","slug":"creation-innovation-automation-who-holds-the-rights-in-the-age-of-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/creation-innovation-automation-who-holds-the-rights-in-the-age-of-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"Creation, Innovation, Automation: Who Holds the Rights in the Age of AI?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>It was a great pleasure to exchange views with students from the \u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes Appliqu\u00e9es du Droit on the intellectual property challenges of the AI era. This topic sits at the heart of current debate and calls into question the very foundations of intellectual property law. Several defining questions emerge:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Can AI-generated content constitute original works protected by copyright? Can it, in certain cases, fall under patent law or other protection regimes? And, most importantly: who would own such rights?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Who bears liability when generated content infringes upon the rights of third parties?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Is the current legal framework sufficient, or does it need to evolve to account for these new uses?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These questions go beyond the theoretical and reflect a defining tension between technological innovation, a driver of competitiveness, sovereignty, and economic transformation, and the protection of rights holders, which is an essential condition for funding and sustaining creative work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Recent regulatory signals are particularly illuminating. At the European level, Regulation (EU) 2024\/1689 (the AI Act) now imposes transparency obligations on providers of general-purpose AI models regarding training data, including the publication of a sufficiently detailed summary of the sources used, as well as the implementation of copyright compliance measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2026 on copyright and generative AI calls for enhanced transparency, appropriate and proportionate remuneration mechanisms for rights holders, and a coherent licensing framework, while rejecting the idea of a flat-rate blanket licence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In France, the proposed legislation put forward by Senator Laure Darcos, adopted by the Senate on 8 April 2026 and currently under review, establishes a presumption that cultural content has been used by AI providers (unless proven otherwise), in order to ease the burden of proof on rights holders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The trend is clear: a gradual strengthening of the position of rights holders. At the same time, industry players are calling for a pragmatic approach. Some are proposing collective or flat-rate licensing mechanisms, designed to reconcile large-scale data access for model training with fair remuneration for rights holders. Voices such as that of Arthur Mensch have floated the idea of a pooled compensation mechanism, one that nonetheless moves away from the traditional principle of individual, proportional remuneration for authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Intellectual property law is not being called into question, but it is evolving to preserve a delicate balance between incentivising innovation and protecting human creativity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Many thanks for the quality of the discussions, and to Anne Vandeville for the invitation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It was a great pleasure to exchange views with students from the \u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes Appliqu\u00e9es du Droit on the intellectual property challenges of the AI era. This topic sits at the heart of current debate and calls into question the very foundations of intellectual property law. Several defining questions emerge: These questions go [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1152,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-non-classifiee"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1154"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1155,"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154\/revisions\/1155"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pavleas-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}