Blog post by Maria Drabczyk & Andrea Mervik
Maria (Maja) Drabczyk, from Centrum Cyfrowe and KR21’s national coordinator for Poland, and Andrea Mervik, member of the library network’s copyright expert group at Lund University, Sweden, share insights from their participation, supported by Knowledge Rights 21 (KR21), in the Summer Course on International Copyright Law & Policy 2025.
When we arrived in Amsterdam for the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law (IViR) Summer Course on International Copyright Law & Policy, we brought with us the perspective of professionals deeply embedded in Europe’s research, education, and cultural heritage sectors. Over five intense days from 30 June to 4 July, we joined leading international scholars exploring some of the most pressing copyright issues of our time. The programme covered the international copyright framework and treaties, the intersection of copyright and human rights, authors’ rights and remuneration, exceptions and limitations, and collective management of rights.
With our professional focus on Europe’s academic and research potential and knowledge transfer and valorisation, we wanted to understand how copyright law impacts these vital sectors. What we discovered challenged our assumptions and highlighted urgent needs for policy reform.
Below, we share our key takeaways from our time in Amsterdam, from the divergence of interests in copyright discussions and Generative AI as a lightning rod, to the possibilities for more constructive and goal-orientated discussions, including stronger participation from researchers and librarians.
A Table of Competing Interests
The diversity of participants proved remarkably telling. Practising lawyers sat alongside doctoral students from various disciplines, diplomats engaged with representatives from high-tech companies, and collective management organisation officials debated with cultural heritage advocates. This broad representation sends a clear signal: copyright concerns us all, yet we approach it from very different perspectives.
Our lectures and discussions revealed how copyright has evolved from a national privilege into an international trade commodity, shaped by stakeholders with often conflicting interests. For academia and cultural heritage sectors, these conflicts become particularly apparent in discussions about remuneration. While money appears paramount to most stakeholders, researchers and cultural institutions operate within different value systems. Instead of viewing copyright as primarily a commercial mechanism, these sectors prioritise values such as authors’ moral rights and open access that facilitate scholarly research.
Copyright barriers significantly impact the possibilities to pursue these values. Restrictive licensing terms, inadequate exceptions and limitations, and problematic agreements with collective management organisations and publishers create obstacles to knowledge sharing. Perhaps most frustratingly, the lack of cross-border harmonisation makes international academic collaboration unnecessarily complex. A problem that even persists within Europe, where the 5th Freedom – the free circulation of knowledge – remains more aspiration than reality.
Consider this stark contrast: unlike their Polish counterparts, Swedish researchers have no automatic right to copy works for research purposes. They must navigate various legal bases, including permissions, agreements, open licenses, or exceptions like the Text and Data Mining (TDM) provisions. While these exceptions aim to alleviate research barriers, their practical application remains far from seamless.
The course’s final workshop perfectly illustrated these challenges. We attempted to draft a global research exception from different countries’ perspectives, revealing the complexity of finding compromises between diverse stakeholders, cultural traditions, and local ambitions. The exercise demonstrated that achieving meaningful copyright reform requires navigating a maze of competing interests and legal frameworks.
The Generative AI Revolution
Gen AI emerged as the defining theme of our week in Amsterdam. Even sessions originally focused on other topics, from TRIPS agreements to exceptions and limitations, inevitably circled back to AI’s transformative impact on creativity, data sharing, and access regulation.
This omnipresence reflects a fundamental tension. Copyright law builds on centuries-old frameworks of author rights and territorial approaches, while AI regulation races to address emerging risks with copyright as just one element. The EU’s new Code of Practice on Generative AI, published shortly after our course, exemplifies this regulatory sprint. These different approaches expose what might be called “system competition” between legal regimes worldwide, each attempting to protect creators while fostering innovation and positioning themselves as cultural and technological hubs.
For researchers, universities, and other academic copyright holders, this tension creates profound uncertainty. Opt-out systems leave them unsure how to protect their works or control Gen AI uses of their creations, generating frustration and a sense of imbalance. Simultaneously, these same individuals want to leverage Gen AI tools professionally in trustworthy and transparent ways.
This paradox highlights an urgent need for cultural and knowledge institutions to develop comprehensive internal policies. Without clear guides, frameworks, and support infrastructures, the conversation remains fragmented, leaving mission-driven sectors particularly vulnerable in an AI-driven world.
Moving Beyond “It Depends”
One of our most valuable insights concerned how copyright professionals respond to queries. The standard answer “it depends” could often be replaced with a more constructive “let’s discuss.” This shift matters for several reasons.
Legal language in provisions and case law frequently allows multiple interpretations. Comprehensive assessment requires gathering evidence to support specific positions rather than defaulting to ambiguity. More importantly, engaging in constructive dialogue with colleagues, researchers, teachers, students, and library users broadens perspectives and raises awareness about copyright’s scope and impact.
This dialogical approach serves multiple purposes. It promotes a deeper understanding of a subject that affects many activities, facilitates utilisation of legally granted rights for knowledge sharing, and identifies areas where improvements are needed. Perhaps most crucially, it encourages more nuanced debate where diverse voices are heard, considered, and ultimately reflected in future regulations.
The course made clear that copyright law is shaped by many stakeholders, often with significant imbalances in whose interests receive recognition. An open-to-dialogue mindset could help correct these imbalances by amplifying underrepresented perspectives.
The Critical Role of Librarians and Researchers in Copyright Advocacy
Exceptions and limitations require active utilisation to remain meaningful. Where there is a lack of awareness or excessive risk aversion, these rights risk becoming hollow: under-used, under-defended, and ultimately eroded. This erosion tilts copyright’s balance further against users and public interest, creating lost opportunities for knowledge sharing and utilisation.
Research support librarians play a crucial role in this ecosystem. They help researchers and doctoral students navigate relevant laws, including copyright exceptions, through direct dialogue and by developing new support infrastructures, routines, and expert network collaborations. This role demands staying current with legal and policy developments while interpreting their practical implementation in research contexts.
As generalists connected with diverse professionals, librarians possess unique perspectives that must be voiced in policy discussions. Research support librarians, researchers, and authors need greater involvement in ensuring new rules meet the knowledge sector’s needs. This engagement helps research libraries and knowledge organisations fulfil their missions in a rapidly changing world while supporting knowledge sharing, innovation, and collaboration.
The Urgency of Participation
Current European policy discussions, including on the European Research Area (ERA) and the Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) review with its research exception provisions, require active participation from the knowledge sector and broader advocacy communities. These conversations will shape our professional landscape regardless of our involvement.
If we don’t speak up, decisions will still be made, and both our work and our users’ work will be impacted without our perspectives being considered. The Amsterdam course reinforced that copyright law affects us all, and as such, we all need to play an active role in its future development.
The knowledge sector brings diversity to the copyright discussion, promoting a more holistic view of society’s needs. Our participation isn’t just beneficial; it’s essential for creating balanced policies that serve both creators and the broader public interest. The future of Europe’s research and cultural heritage sectors may well depend on how effectively we engage with these critical conversations.
Photo courtesy of IViR
8 September 2025
