Learn — By WATMM Desk —
AI and copyright laws by country: what the UK, EU, US, India, Japan, Australia and Denmark have decided (tracker)
A living table of where seven governments stand on AI training and music copyright: whether training on your songs needs permission, whether you can opt out, whether anyone has to pay, and what is still only a proposal. Each row cites the document we read and the date we read it.
Key facts
- The UK dropped a broad training exception with opt-out as its preferred option in its March 2026 report, but planned no licensing rule either.
- Australia ruled out a text and data mining exception in October 2025 and is consulting on licensing instead.
- India's DPIIT committee proposed a mandatory blanket licence with statutory royalties in December 2025; it is still a proposal.
This is a living table of what governments have decided, or only proposed, about AI and copyright, read from a musician's side. For each place it answers three questions: can an AI company train on your songs without asking, can you opt out, and does anyone have to pay you. Every row cites what we read and the date we read it. Where something is a consultation or a bill rather than law, the row says so.
For the court side, see our AI music class actions tracker; for the deals labels have signed, see the licensing deals tracker. This page is about governments.
The table
| Country or bloc | Training on your music without asking? | Opt-out? | Payment? | Status | Source (read) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Unchanged: copyright still applies to training. The government says a broad exception with opt-out "is no longer the government's preferred way forward" | No new opt-out scheme | No licensing intervention planned; it will watch market-led licensing. It proposes removing protection for purely computer-generated works (s9(3) CDPA) | Report published March 2026 under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025; no bill | GOV.UK report page; Legal 500 summary, 29 Oct 2026 |
| European Union | Allowed under the existing text and data mining exception unless the rightsholder has reserved rights | Yes. AI model providers must respect machine-readable opt-outs; the voluntary Code of Practice spells out how | No payment duty in the AI Act | AI Act model obligations since 2 Aug 2025; enforceable from Aug 2026 for new models, Aug 2027 for existing ones | NEMO on the Code of Practice; King & Spalding, 29 Oct 2026 |
| United States | No statute. The Copyright Office says training is not categorically fair use and the answer depends on the facts, especially market harm | No legal opt-out | None required by law; the Office calls for scalable licensing | Part 3 report is a May 2025 pre-publication version, not binding; courts decide | Mishcon de Reya summary, 29 Oct 2026 |
| India | Proposed: yes, under a mandatory blanket licence covering lawfully accessed works | Proposed: no opt-out | Proposed: statutory royalties at government-set rates (open to judicial review), collected and distributed centrally, paid to creators whether or not they belong to a collecting society | DPIIT committee working paper, Dec 2025; comments closed Jan 2026; not law | Storyboard18, 29 Oct 2026 |
| Japan | Largely yes, under Article 30-4, for uses not aimed at "enjoyment" of the work. Training meant to reproduce a work's expression falls outside it, and so does use that unreasonably prejudices the owner | No formal opt-out | None | Enacted in the 2018 amendment; Agency for Cultural Affairs "General Understanding" March 2024 | General Understanding on AI and Copyright in Japan (WIPO deck), 29 Oct 2026 |
| Australia | No new exception: the government ruled out a text and data mining exception, so existing copyright applies | n/a | Consulting on licensing models with its Copyright and AI Reference Group | Announced Oct 2025; no bill | iTnews, 29 Oct 2026 |
| Denmark | Not about training. The bill would ban sharing realistic AI imitations of a person's face or voice, including performances, without consent; satire and parody stay allowed | n/a | n/a | Bill introduced 8 Oct 2026; target start early 2027 | Euronews, 8 Oct 2026, 29 Oct 2026 |
"Proposed" means a government paper or a bill, not law. Nothing here is legal advice.
Three things the table shows
Only one place has a working opt-out, and it's the EU. Japan has broad training permission with no opt-out. The UK and Australia have kept existing copyright, which in principle needs permission, but neither has built a way to enforce or license it. The EU is the only jurisdiction on this list where a rule tells AI companies to honour a machine-readable "no".
India is the outlier on payment. It is the only government here that has put a royalty on paper. The trade-off is that it removes the right to say no: a mandatory licence means your catalogue gets used either way. For independent Indian musicians, the upside is that payment would not depend on collecting-society membership.
Voice is moving faster than training. Training rules are stuck in consultation in most places. Denmark's bill goes after the thing artists actually hear: a cloned voice. Our reading is that likeness laws like this will reach musicians sooner than any training settlement.
What we think
The UK's report reads as a retreat from the opt-out plan without a replacement. That keeps the law where music lobbied for it, but "copyright still applies" only helps if you can find out your song was used, and the report has no concrete transparency rule. Until there is one, the practical protection for a UK artist is the EU opt-out, because most big models are sold into the EU anyway.
If you release music, two cheap steps help across almost every row: register your works with your collecting society (it is how most existing royalty systems find and pay you), and keep the rights reservation on your own site and distributor metadata, which is what the EU rules look for.
How we keep this table
We re-read every source on each refresh, update the date in the row and add a line to the changelog. Next on our list: South Korea, Singapore, Brazil's AI bill and Canada, plus the UK's next step after the March report and whether Denmark's bill passes. Spot a change before we do? Tell us and we'll check it.
Sources
- Report and impact assessment on copyright and artificial intelligence, UK Government (primary source). Accessed 29 Oct 2026.
- UK government report on copyright and AI concludes more evidence is needed, although s9(3) CDPA could go, Legal 500. Accessed 29 Oct 2026.
- Final AI Code of Practice published by European Commission, NEMO. Accessed 29 Oct 2026.
- No stop the clock for the EU AI Act and a belated general-purpose AI code of practice, King & Spalding. Accessed 29 Oct 2026.
- US Copyright Office report Part 3, generative AI training, Mishcon de Reya. Accessed 29 Oct 2026.
- DPIIT releases working paper on copyright and AI, proposes hybrid licensing model, Storyboard18. Accessed 29 Oct 2026.
- General Understanding on AI and Copyright in Japan, WIPO Japan Office (Tatsuhiro Ueno). Accessed 29 Oct 2026.
- Government rules out AI training exemption in copyright laws, iTnews. Accessed 29 Oct 2026.
- Denmark introduces a bill protecting people's faces and voices from deepfakes, Euronews. Accessed 29 Oct 2026.
Researched with AI assistance, written and checked by WATMM Desk.
Change log
- : First version: seven jurisdictions, all sources read 29 Oct 2026.