Governing Copyright Responsibly in the Era of Generative AI

Large language models (LLM) trained on web-scale corpora generate output that may infringe copyright, yet existing technical safeguards focus narrowly on verbatim memorisation. EU copyright doctrine applies a broader standards: substantial similarity, which extends to stylistic choices, narrative structure, and creative elaboration. This mismatch between what current methods detect and what the law protects leaves a significant compliance gap. We introduce PSALM, an LLM-as-a-judge framework that operationalises EU copyright doctrine through ten evaluators assessing computational overlap, stylistic dimensions (writing style, narrative voice), content dimensions (character, plot, scene, world building), and statutory exceptions (parody, pastiche, quotation, scènes à faire). Applying PSALM to Llama~3.2 models fine-tuned on translated historical Dutch literary works, we find that: 1) instruction-tuned models exhibit non-trivial baseline stylistic similarity prior to corpus exposure; 2) fine-tuning induces systematic stylistic appropriation across all infringement-relevant dimensions, extending beyond verbatim memorisation to abstract narrative patterns; 3) Negative Preference Optimisation unlearning substantially reduces similarity but leaves detectable residual stylistic patterns. These findings indicate that safeguards targeting literal copying alone are insufficient to mitigate broader copyright risks. PSALM provides infrastructure for auditable, legally informed compliance evaluation, though the relationship between automated similarity scores and infringement determinations requires validation by legal experts. This work bridges qualitative legal standards and quantitative technical measurement, exposing fundamental tensions between generative AI and EU intellectual property law.

This book develops a unified governance framework for systems that retrieve, generate, infer, remember and act on information from large language models and retrieval augmented pipelines to autonomous multi agent systems. Eleven chapters and eight appendices integrate three disciplinary lenses-technology, law and economics-across the full lifecycle: data quality, lineage and provenance; global data protection law and intellectual property; the economics of data governance; digital trust, cybersecurity and zero-trust architecture; ethics and responsible AI; governing generative AI pipelines; governing agentic AI and multi-agent systems; data governance in elections and the public sphere; AI regulation across six jurisdictions; and the design of a governance control plane for 2030. Each chapter is anchored in Indian law and institutions while maintaining a comparative, cross jurisdictional perspective.

The most capable general-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in two jurisdictions, the United States and China, but the risks they carry land globally. Regionally advanced economies hosting no frontier developer, which we call AI middle-powers, are writing their own rules to govern GPAI. This paper investigates which GPAI-relevant provisions these AI middle-powers have enacted, mapping twenty jurisdictions including the European Union at the level of the individual provision, across four governance areas that trace the accountability chain for the model layer: systemic risk assessment, evaluation and verification, prohibitions with monitoring and detection, and serious incident reporting. Confirmed absence is recorded as data alongside positive provision. We find that jurisdictions converge on form, but diverge on force. Sixteen engage in at least three of the four governance areas, yet only about one in five provisions sit in binding law, and three-quarters of the instruments that do bind do so without defining GPAI. The institutional infrastructure shows the same shape: four in five of the mapped governance actors hold mandates that predate GPAI, and obligations attach wherever the inherited regime already reached, which is the application layer rather than the model. Where these states engage the model layer, they build capacity to observe it rather than impose duties on those who build it, and almost every evaluation body was constituted without the power to act on what it finds. Nominal coverage of the full accountability chain reaches eleven jurisdictions, but only five hold more than one provision in every area and, outside the EU, no jurisdiction imposes a binding evaluation duty on a model developer. The dataset gives researchers and policymakers a provision-level basis for identifying where regimes could align, and where coordination would have to start from scratch.