In short. AI Act Article 53 requires general-purpose AI model providers to put in place a copyright policy that identifies and respects EU text and data mining rights reservations.
Definition: AI Act Article 53(1)(c) requires providers of general-purpose AI models to put in place a policy to comply with EU copyright and related rights law. The policy must identify and respect rights reservations under the EU text and data mining exception, including through state-of-the-art technologies.
Key facts
- In the consolidated text dated 27 July 2026, Article 53(1)(c) expressly connects the provider's copyright policy to rights reservations under Article 4(3) of the Copyright Directive.
- Directive (EU) 2019/790, Article 4(3) makes its mining exception conditional on rights holders having left the relevant use unreserved in an appropriate manner.
- The AI Act, recital 106, explains that the policy obligation applies to providers placing models on the EU market regardless of where the copyright-relevant training acts take place.
Which providers and models fall within this duty?
The AI Act's Article 3(63) defines a general-purpose AI model by its significant generality, its ability to perform a wide range of distinct tasks and its capacity for integration into downstream systems. Article 3(3) defines a provider as a person or body that develops a model, or has it developed, and places it on the market under its own name or trademark, whether paid or free.
Article 113(b) makes the model obligations in Chapter V applicable from 2 August 2025. Article 111(3) gives providers of models placed on the market before that date until 2 August 2027 to comply. Recital 106 connects the copyright policy duty to access to the EU market, including for providers whose training activities occur outside the EU.
What counts as a reservation for web content?
Text and data mining means automated analysis of digital text and data to generate information such as patterns or correlations, under Directive (EU) 2019/790, Article 2(2). Article 4(1) provides an exception for reproductions and extractions of lawfully accessible protected material for that purpose.
Article 4(3) makes that exception conditional: the rights holder must not have expressly reserved the use in an appropriate manner. It names machine-readable means for content made publicly available online. Recital 18 further explains this requirement and mentions metadata and website or service terms and conditions within machine-readable means.
The reservation concerns the protected use for text and data mining. Recital 18 says other uses should remain unaffected. Article 4(4) also preserves Article 3, which provides a separate exception for research organisations and cultural heritage institutions conducting scientific research with lawful access to the material.
What must the policy achieve?
Article 53(1)(c) requires a policy covering compliance with EU copyright and related rights law, with particular attention to identifying and complying with reservations. Its reference to state-of-the-art technologies makes technical identification part of that duty.
The AI Act's recital 105 explains the consequence: providers need authorisation to mine works whose rights holders expressly reserve the relevant rights in an appropriate manner. The same recital recognises that relevant copyright exceptions and limitations can permit uses without authorisation.
Article 53(4) permits providers to demonstrate compliance through codes of practice until a harmonised standard is published. Providers following neither an approved code nor a European harmonised standard must demonstrate alternative adequate means of compliance for Commission assessment.
Related terms
- AI Act Article 53
- Text and data mining opt-out (EU)
- General-purpose AI model under the AI Act
- AI Act training content summary
FAQ
Does releasing an open-source model remove the copyright policy duty?
Article 53(2) limits the qualifying open-source exemption to the documentation duties in paragraph 1(a) and (b). The copyright policy obligation in paragraph 1(c) continues to apply.
Does the policy replace the public training summary?
Article 53(1)(d) separately requires a sufficiently detailed public summary of training content using the AI Office's template. Providers must meet both obligations.
Sources
- European Commission, "Article 53: Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models", consolidated text dated 27 July 2026
- European Parliament and Council, "Directive (EU) 2019/790", 17 April 2019
- European Parliament and Council, "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act)", 13 June 2024
Check how a page reads to answer engines. Open the GEO score analyzer