Douglas Delannoy
L'Instantané No. 12 November 2026, 4 min read, Topic Technology

Who says no to AI, and why?

Authors, artists and producers, in France and elsewhere: who opposes, who negotiates. The essentials at a glance.

Updated11/11/2026: GEMA v Suno ruling, presumption of use in the National Assembly
Douglas Delannoy
Behind every performance, an artist.
Download the PDF (in French) (0.5 MB) LinkedIn post (in French)

The framework

The opt-out in practice

By default, the text and data mining exception allows lawfully accessible content to be copied, including to train an AI. The opt-out sets this exception aside.

  1. Who opts out?

    The rightsholder in person, or the CMO to which their rights have been entrusted. A producer can also opt out for their own recordings.

  2. How?

    The law requires a “machine-readable” method, a signal that AI bots read automatically. Only whoever publishes the content (website, platform, producer) can set it up. The options include robots.txt, which blocks AI bots (GPTBot, CCBot…), TDMRep, an invisible label that tells bots “no mining”, and the website's terms of use. CMOs, which do not host the works, often stick to a statement notified to AI providers and to contract clauses.

  3. With what effect?

    The exception no longer applies, so authorisation is needed, and therefore a licence. The AI Act (art. 53, since 08/2025) requires providers of general-purpose AI to respect EU copyright, opt-outs included, without creating dedicated oversight. Whether a simple statement, with no technical block, has any force has not yet been settled.
User-agent: GPTBot
Disallow: /
tdm-reservation: 1
The only limitScientific research can mine content without anyone being able to object.
Sources

CPI art. L122-5-3 and L211-3 8° – Directive (EU) 2019/790 arts 3 and 4 – AI Act art. 53 – W3C, TDM Reservation Protocol

In France

Some declare, others build tools or negotiate

The common goal is to authorise and be paid, rather than suffer free copying.

Performers · Adami, Spedidam

Statement
Opt-out declared on 11/03/2025, with no technical block. Its reach is limited to the rights artists still hold, since authorisation to reproduce is usually granted to producers by contract. Hence their challenge to the Universal and Udio deal (03/11/2025).

Music authors and publishers · Sacem

Opt-out
Opt-out on 12/10/2023. Any mining of its repertoire requires prior authorisation.

Authors in writing, image and audiovisual · SACD, Scam, ADAGP, SAIF

Opt-out
Opt-outs notified from 10/2023, ADAGP's on 23/02/2024 with a machine-readable statement.

Book publishers · SNE

Tool
Standard opt-out clause for publishers' websites, backed by TDMRep, an invisible label read by bots (2023).

Music producers · SCPP, SPPF, majors

Negotiation
The majors negotiate one to one. Sony opts out (05/2024), Universal signs with Udio (10/2025).
Sources

Press releases from Sacem (12/10/2023), ADAGP (23/02/2024), Adami and Spedidam (11/03/2025 and 03/11/2025), SAIF, SNE – Sony Music (16/05/2024) – CPI art. L212-3 and L212-4

Elsewhere

Europe and the world: 3 strategies

Opt out, go to court, or license in exchange for payment.

Germany · GEMA

Opt-out and lawsuits
Munich, 11/11/2025. Memorising lyrics in the model is reproduction, outside the mining exception. Why it matters: the infringement sits in the model itself. OpenAI has appealed. Updated 11/2026Against Suno, GEMA won at first instance (31/07/2026).

Denmark · Koda

Lawsuit
Lawsuit against Suno, accused of training its model on the Danish repertoire (04/11/2025).

Sweden · STIM

Licence
First collective licence for AI in music (09/09/2025).

European Union · AI Act

Law
Since 08/2025, respecting opt-outs and publishing a summary of training data are mandatory.

United Kingdom · Government

Authorisation required
No commercial mining exception, so authorisation remains the rule, which protects more than an opt-out. The opt-out plan was dropped (03/2026).

United States · Courts

Case by case
No opt-out. Fair use is decided in court, and the majors are striking deals with Udio and Suno.

Japan · Law

Free mining
Mining broadly permitted (art. 30-4), with no right to opt out.
Sources

GEMA – LG München I, 11/11/2025 (OpenAI) and 31/07/2026 (Suno) – Koda (04/11/2025) – STIM (09/09/2025) – AI Act art. 53 – UK, Report on Copyright and AI (03/2026) – Japan, Copyright Act art. 30-4

What's in the way

Saying no to AI is a right. Enforcing it remains a challenge.

  • Few responses. Notified opt-outs largely go unanswered.
  • Declaring is not blocking. Only the websites and platforms that distribute the works can shut off access.
  • No overall oversight. No independent body or tool can check today, at scale, that AIs are not drawing on protected repertoires. It is up to the rightsholder who spots a use or has a doubt to take action.
  1. Formal notice
  2. Infringement seizure
  3. Infringement action
In doubt, what remedies?The right exists, the proof is missing. Get support from a lawyer. Updated 11/2026The expected lever is the presumption of use. Passed by the Senate on 08/04/2026 and adopted in committee at the National Assembly on 02/06/2026, it is due to be debated in the chamber on 19/11/2026.
Sources

Written question to the National Assembly no. 16057 and answer (Official Journal, 11/08/2026) – CPI art. L332-1 and L335-4 – bill on the presumption of use (Senate, 08/04/2026; National Assembly, report no. 2864 of 02/06/2026 and agenda for 19/11/2026)

Test yourself on this topic2 questions in Quiz No. 1 are about this publication: technical blocking by a CMO, the Munich ruling.
Take the quiz →

Read next All publications →

Focus No. 2, 30/10/2026Actors: when AI copies voice and faceFocus No. 1, 01/10/2026Streaming fraud and AI (the Michael Smith case)