European Creators Slam EU AI Act Implementation

A coalition representing European writers, actors, journalists, film producers, musicians, translators, and visual artists issued a joint statement in July 2025 rejecting the EU AI Act's implementation as inadequate. "The result is not a balanced compromise; it is a missed opportunity to provide meaningful protection of intellectual property", the statement read.

The coalition's verdict on where the failure landed was unambiguous: European creative sectors had been "sold out in favor of those GenAI model providers".

What the Act Was Supposed to Do

The EU AI Act entered force in August 2024 with staggered implementation, applying transparency and governance requirements to AI systems in phases over two years. For synthetic media, the law includes disclosure obligations: deployers of AI systems that generate or manipulate video, audio, or image content must label that content as artificially generated.

The law created an exception for creative and fictional works, limiting disclosure requirements where they might interfere with "the display or enjoyment of the work". That exception is now a focal point of the backlash.

Three Requirements, None Delivered

Cecile Despringre, Secretary General of the Society of Audiovisual Authors, stated at an August 2025 panel at the Sarajevo Film Festival's CineLink industry event that the implementation "doesn't really create a concrete obligation to respect copyrights, and it's very limited in terms of transparency, which should be the basis of any discussion".

Despringre named three requirements she considers essential for any workable system: authorization, remuneration, and transparency for copyrighted content used to train AI systems. The act, as implemented, addresses none of the three at the level creators say is necessary.

The broader coalition described the law as "very much in favor of AI companies", calling the outcome a "very small result" despite years of negotiation over implementation codes.

Scale of the Sector

The coalition grounded its criticism in economic terms. Europe's creative industries contribute nearly 7% of EU GDP and employ approximately 17 million professionals. That output exceeds the pharmaceutical, automotive, and high tech industries combined.

A sector of that size, arguing that its intellectual property is being extracted without authorization or payment, is describing a structural transfer from European creators to AI companies whose headquarters sit outside the EU.

Filmmakers at Sarajevo

The CineLink panel, titled "Artificial Intelligence, Authors' Rights and Guild Solidarity", brought together four speakers from major European creative organizations. Marta Krzeptowska, a producer at Orka and president of the Polish Postproduction Society, put it directly: AI models were "already fed with all the material" and "they are stealing artists' work".

Sevara Irgacheva, Secretary General of the European Film Agencies Directors Association, identified the core structural problem: "legislation seems to always be behind" technological advancement. Klemen Dvornik, a board member of the Federation of European Screen Directors, represented the director community alongside authors.

What the Act's Defenders Say

Supporters of the EU AI Act argue it is the most detailed AI regulatory framework yet produced, requiring general purpose AI model providers to publish summaries of training data and comply with European copyright law. The creators' coalition does not dispute that the act exists.

Their argument is that implementation has produced real obligations which fall short of the transparency and remuneration standards the law implied it would enforce. The gap between what the law says and what it produces when applied is exactly the territory creators have been contesting.

Two Responses Taking Shape

The European Parliament moved in March 2026 to address part of the gap: MEPs voted on a report calling for AI developers to disclose which copyrighted works were used in training, pay rightsholders fair compensation, and create an opt out mechanism for individual creators. That EU Parliament copyright vote is a direct legislative response to the implementation failure the coalition named in 2025.

Separately, the film industry produced its own alternative. Human Provenance in Film, launched at the Cannes Film Market in May 2026 by The Mise En Scène Company, a London based international sales agency, offers a three tier disclosure taxonomy for AI use in any production, available at no cost under a Creative Commons license. Industry led standards gain traction when the regulatory floor stays low.

California approached the same territory from a different angle: AB 2602 and AB 1836 restrict AI generated digital replicas of actors in ways the EU AI Act does not reach, adding performer side protections the EU framework leaves to negotiation. Filmmakers working across both jurisdictions are building practices around disclosure and authorization now, before either framework settles. AI FILMS Studio's video workspace offers AI generation tools within that still evolving context.

---

Sources

The Hollywood Reporter | TechCrunch