JULY 2025

In response to the Ministry of Culture’s request for a statement on the GPAI Code of Practice, specifically regarding one of its sections—namely the chapter “Copyright”—we provide below our observations and recommendations.

The chapter “Copyright” is one part of the Code; this part is inherently closely connected with another chapter of the Code titled “Transparency”. In our opinion, the Ministry of Culture should regard at least these two chapters as a single whole and comment on, monitor, and evaluate them in the context of their interrelated content, as both are fundamental chapters for rights holders.

Although the final version of the Code has undergone partial changes in both of the chapters mentioned above compared to the draft versions, these changes are ultimately mostly cosmetic. The final version has failed to meet the expectations that the audiovisual industry had placed in it, particularly in light of the ongoing, unprecedented violations of copyright by GPAI providers.

We are concerned that even after 2 August this year, the trend of one industrial sector infringing upon the rights of another will continue at an unstoppable pace and with limitless scope. Specifically, we fear that GPAI providers will continue to unjustly profit at the expense of rights holders—those who, through their creative work, have generated value in the form of data on which GPAI providers, under the guise of inevitable progress for all humanity, are training their models and will likely continue to do so in the future without the consent of rights holders, all for economic gain. In its current form, the Code is not capable of curbing this trend to an extent that would adequately protect the rights of copyright holders.

Transparency regarding the data used for training is absolutely fundamental. Without comprehensive information about the training data used by GPAI services, the implementation of the AI Act will not be in line with the letter of the law, and at the same time, it will prevent us—as rights holders—from effectively enforcing our rights or negotiating fair licenses for copyrighted works. In this respect, the provisions of the Code are overly general and incomplete.

At this stage—when the adequacy of the Code will be assessed by the Member States (at the level of the European Artificial Intelligence Board) and, most importantly, by the European Commission (at the level of the AI Office), and when the European Commission may subsequently approve the Code and grant it general applicability within the European Union through an implementing act or establish common rules for fulfilling the relevant obligations itself should the AI Office find the Code inadequate—we can now only appeal for the Czech Republic to stand behind the Czech audiovisual industry by demanding the development of rules that are fair to both rights holders and GPAI providers. In the next steps, an active role is essential not only from EU institutions but also from national authorities to ensure that the situation is properly assessed and that subsequent steps are taken based on that assessment. As for the specific actions of the Czech Republic, it is essential that the Ministry of Culture actively participate in the above-mentioned future steps and processes of monitoring and impact assessment, and that these processes and steps be carried out with the involvement of stakeholders from the audiovisual industry—meaning we should be consulted through targeted questionnaires, interviews, or other methods for the purpose of providing feedback on AI-related issues, specifically the rights of copyright holders.

In conclusion, we state that the audiovisual industry makes a vital contribution to the freedom of the press and news media, and forms the foundation of European cultural diversity, social cohesion, European values, and democratic dialogue. We are part of this industry and therefore deserve appropriate protection. This is our appeal to the Czech Republic.