United Kingdom opts for an opt-out model on copyright and AI - General Court dismisses challenge to Irish Grass Fed Beef geographical indication

United Kingdom sets out its preferred approach to copyright and artificial intelligence 

As the debate over the relationship between artificial intelligence and intellectual property continues to evolve across jurisdictions, the United Kingdom has set out its preferred policy position. In March 2026, the UK Government published its Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (CP2602959), fulfilling a statutory obligation under section 137 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. The report was prepared jointly by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). 

The Government's preferred option is a broad text and data mining exception that would enable artificial intelligence developers to use copyright-protected works for training purposes on a large scale. Under this model, rights holders who wish to prevent such use would need to actively reserve their rights using machine-readable means. Therefore, the default position would permit the use of protected content for AI training unless an opt-out has been put in place. This puts the onus on the rights holder, not the developer. 

The report also calls for greater transparency from AI developers regarding the datasets they use to train their models. According to the government, meaningful transparency is essential for the opt-out mechanism to be effective: rights holders can only reserve their content if they have sufficient information about how and where their works are being used. 

The preferred option differs from the current approach established under European Union law. Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market already permits text and data mining for any purpose where rights holders have not reserved their rights through machine-readable means. In terms of structure, the UK’s preferred option mirrors this framework, although the political and legislative contexts remain distinct. On 10 March 2026, the European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution calling for stricter transparency obligations and a rebuttable presumption of infringement against AI developers who fail to disclose their training data. By contrast, the United Kingdom's report emphasises enabling conditions for AI development. 

General Court upholds registration of Irish Grass Fed Beef geographical indication 

On 20 April 2026, the General Court of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case T-62/24, dismissing an action brought by the Independent Farmers of Ireland (IFOI), an Irish agricultural representative organisation, against the European Commission. The case concerned the registration of the protected geographical indication (PGI) “Irish Grass Fed Beef”, which covers beef produced across the island of Ireland. 

This was made possible following an application by An Bord Bia, an Irish state agency responsible for promoting Irish food and drink. Following an initial proposal, the Commission approved an amendment to the product specification, extending the geographical scope of the PGI to encompass Northern Ireland and thus making it an all-island designation. The amended specification was registered in 2023. 

The IFOI challenged the registration in the General Court on the grounds that the Commission had breached Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The IFOI's central argument was that the amendment extending the PGI's coverage to Northern Ireland was substantial and therefore required the Commission to ensure a new national opposition procedure had been carried out before proceeding with registration. The IFOI also contended that the Commission had relied on the Irish State’s assurances without independently verifying that the procedure had been conducted correctly. 

The General Court rejected this argument. It confirmed that where a Member State certifies to the Commission that the required national procedure has been carried out, the Commission is entitled to rely on that certification. The Commission's role in the registration process is to verify that the registration conditions are met based on the information provided by the Member State. The Commission is not required to replace the national authority's assessment or re-examine the procedural steps taken at a domestic level. The IFOI was ordered to pay the Commission’s legal costs. The organisation has two months from the date of the judgment to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

For food and drink producers who use or intend to apply for geographical indications (GIs), the ruling highlights an important procedural point. The correct body to challenge the national phase of a GI registration is the relevant national authority or court, rather than the Commission or General Court. Once a Member State has certified compliance with national procedural requirements, it will be difficult to overturn the Commission’s registration decision on purely procedural grounds.