The International Association of Privacy Professionals just published a comprehensive analysis of transparency in AI copyright disputes, examining how openness might balance innovation against fairness for creators. The core argument: transparency at every stage of AI development—input, model training, and output—could resolve ongoing litigation and enable proper compensation for rightsholders whose work trains commercial models.
The analysis is thorough, covering cases from Bartz v. Anthropic to Getty Images v. Stability AI, reviewing EU AI Act provisions, and proposing technical solutions like MIT's Data Provenance Explorer. But it glosses over a fundamental tension: the transparency mechanisms described often conflict directly with the commercial interests of the companies being asked to implement them.
This matters because transparency mandates without enforcement mechanisms are suggestions, not solutions.
The IAPP analysis breaks AI development into three phases, each requiring different transparency approaches.
At the input stage, transparency concerns what training data developers use and whether they obtained it lawfully. The problem: developers possess disproportionately more information about their training data than rightsholders attempting to prove infringement. This creates asymmetric litigation where copyright holders must conduct expensive discovery just to determine if they have a case.
Recent U.S. cases illustrate the problem. In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court found using copyrighted books to train Claude could constitute fair use—partly because plaintiffs couldn't prove output infringement, only input use. In Kadrey v. Meta, the court granted summary judgment to Meta largely over evidentiary issues in plaintiffs' arguments. In Getty Images v. Stability AI, the original copyright infringement claim was dropped due to evidentiary problems, leaving only a secondary claim.
The pattern is consistent: rightsholders struggle to gather sufficient evidence to prove infringement because they can't see inside the training process.
At the model development stage, transparency looks more like explainability—understanding how and why a model made specific decisions. The EU AI Act requires documentation of model architecture, parameters, training methodologies, computational resources, and energy use. Several major tech companies including Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and IBM have committed to following the EU's non-binding Code of Practice.
Commitments are cheap. Compliance is expensive and competitively disadvantageous.
At the output stage, transparency involves tracking whether generated content infringes copyright, whether AI-generated work qualifies for copyright protection itself, and how to attribute influence when both humans and AI contribute to creation. The analysis points to tools like MIT's Data Provenance Explorer that help developers search datasets for licensing restrictions and track data provenance.
These are useful research projects. They're not widely deployed production systems because implementing them reduces competitive advantage.
Much of current U.S. copyright litigation hinges on fair use analysis—a four-factor test examining the purpose and character of use, nature of copyrighted work, amount used, and effect on market value.
District Court Justice Vince Chhabria's opinion in Kadrey v. Meta signals where this analysis might be heading. While the court granted summary judgment to Meta on evidentiary grounds, Chhabria indicated that if plaintiffs had raised evidence that training use would "lead to a market flooded with similar, AI-generated works," Meta's use might not qualify as lawful fair use.
This is the critical question transparency mechanisms need to answer but currently cannot: What is the actual market effect of using copyrighted works for training?
The IAPP analysis notes that the European Parliament recognizes this isn't a binary question but a statistical problem—determining the degree of influence a protected work had in producing a model. Transparency and traceability could help rightsholders identify infringement extent and calculate proper remuneration.
But "could help" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The technical challenges of reverse-tracing influence within large language models trained on billions of tokens remain unsolved at scale. Researchers are working on it. Production-ready solutions don't exist.
The analysis proposes several transparency mechanisms: disclosure of training data (required under EU AI Act Article 53), licensing agreements between publishers and AI companies, opt-out mechanisms like robots.txt, output labeling indicating AI generation, and metadata tracking content provenance.
Some of these already exist. The New York Times licensed content to Amazon for training. The Washington Post has a similar agreement with OpenAI. Various coalitions are forming to share content credentials. Research shows public perception favors disclosure of AI use in content creation.
What's conspicuously absent from this analysis: enforcement mechanisms when companies simply choose not to comply, particularly in jurisdictions without EU-style regulation.
The EU AI Act includes transparency requirements with teeth—potential fines up to 7% of global annual revenue for violations. The U.S. has proposed legislation like the Hawley-Blumenthal bill requiring licensing agreement disclosure and enhanced remedies for training data theft, but it hasn't passed.
Without enforcement, transparency requirements become voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives that companies adopt when convenient and ignore when competitively disadvantageous.
Here's the uncomfortable truth the analysis dances around: comprehensive transparency at the input and model development stages directly conflicts with commercial interests that drive AI development.
Training data sources and compositions are trade secrets. Model architectures and training methodologies are competitive advantages. Companies that fully disclose these details hand valuable intelligence to competitors while exposing themselves to litigation from rightsholders who can now prove infringement.
The analysis optimistically suggests "increased transparency can pave a path forward to a better balance between innovation for developers and fairness for rightsholders." This assumes both parties have equal incentives to reach that balance.
They don't. Developers benefit from the current opacity. Rightsholders benefit from transparency. Without regulatory mandates enforced through meaningful penalties, why would rational commercial actors voluntarily choose transparency?
The most likely outcome isn't comprehensive transparency enabling fair compensation, but rather a bifurcated system: heavily regulated transparency in EU jurisdictions with enforcement mechanisms, and voluntary disclosure theater everywhere else that provides enough appearance of transparency to forestall regulation without materially changing competitive dynamics.
We'll see more licensing deals between major publishers and AI companies—not because transparency principles demanded them, but because litigation became expensive enough to make deals cheaper. We'll see more commitments to follow non-binding codes of practice. We'll see more research on provenance tracking tools that remain perpetually "promising" without reaching production deployment.
What we probably won't see: comprehensive, verifiable transparency into training data composition, model development processes, and output attribution at scale across the industry.
The IAPP analysis is correct that transparency could solve many copyright problems in AI development. It's less convincing on why companies would actually implement comprehensive transparency absent enforcement mechanisms that make opacity more expensive than disclosure.
Need realistic assessment of AI governance and compliance risk? Winsome Marketing's growth experts help you understand what regulatory frameworks actually require versus what companies claim they're doing. Let's talk.