The Opt-Out Mechanism to Control the Use of Copyrighted Works in AI Training:Legal and Policy Issues

Authors

  • Somchai Ratanachueskul

Keywords:

Copyright, Artificial intelligence, Data denial mechanisms, Data mining

Abstract

          This research aims to study the legal and policy impacts of the “opt-out” mechanism, which allows copyright holders to refuse the use of their work in training artificial intelligence (AI) through text and data mining (TDM) processes, based on the principle of informational autonomy. It also compares the legal frameworks in the European Union, Japan, and the United States.
          The article suggests that the “opt-out” mechanism is not merely a technical measure but reflects the evolution of legal norms aimed at balancing the rights of creators with the public interest in AI development. The European Union has enshrined this mechanism in its legislation, defining clear obligations for AI developers, while Japan allows extensive use of data for analytical purposes without an opt-out system. The United States, however, relies on the uncertain principle of fair use, which depends on judicial interpretation.
          Furthermore, the article highlights the emerging trend of a new structural right called the “training right” and proposes clear policy guidelines, particularly for developing countries like Thailand, to prepare for the opt-out mechanism that is becoming a new practice in the AI ​​era. This includes establishing standardized technical signals and setting up a central database system. Enacting TDM legislation and establishing international cooperation are crucial for effectively protecting copyright holders' rights while promoting responsible AI innovation.

References

กระทรวงอุดมศึกษา วิทยาศาสตร์ วิจัยและนวัตกรรม. (ม.ป.ป.). แผนปฏิบัติการด้านปัญญาประดิษฐ์แห่งชาติเพื่อพัฒนาประเทศไทย (พ.ศ. 2565–2570). สืบค้นจาก https://ai.in.th/en/about-ai-thailand/

สมชาย รัตนชื่อสกุล. (2559). การแปรรูปสัมบูรณ์ในงานอันมีลิขสิทธิ์: ข้อพิจารณาจากคดีกูเกิ้ล. วารสารวิชาการ คณะนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยหอการค้าไทย, 8(1), 148–169.

สมชาย รัตนชื่อสกุล. (2567). ข้อจำกัดการคุ้มครองลิขสิทธิ์ในการสร้างงานโดยปัญญาประดิษฐ์. วารสารกฎหมายรามคำแหง, 13(2), 3–39. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lawjournal/article/view/277789

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023).

Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015).

Bently, L., Sherman, B., Gangjee, D., & Johnson, P. (2024). Intellectual property law (6th ed., pp. 321–323). Oxford University Press.

Bloomberg. (n.d.). Google can train search AI with web content after AI opt-out. Retrieved from https://economictimes. indiatimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/google-can-train-search-ai-with-web-content-after-ai-opt-out/articleshow/120863599.cms

Computer and Communications Industry Association. (n.d.). AI and copyright: What is an “opt-out” and can it work? Retrieved from https://ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AI-and-Copyright_-Opt-out.pdf

Davey Alba. (n.d.). Google can train search AI with web content even after opt-out. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-03/google-can-train-search-ai-with-web-content-even-after-opt-out

DPG Media B.V. v. Knowledge Exchange B.V. (2024).

Duncan Calow, & Ally Clark. (2025, June 9). Training AI models: Content, copyright and the EU and UK TDM exceptions. Retrieved from https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/blogs/mse-today/2023 /training-ai-models-content-copyright-and-the-eu-and-uk-tdm-exceptions

European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. Official Journal of the European Union, L 130, 92–125. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj

Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006).

Geiger, C. (2022). The future of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence. IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01142-2

Gintaras Radauskas. (n.d.). Law pros defend Meta’s use of pirated books for LLaMA AI. But is it really “fine”? Retrieved from https://cybernews.com/news/meta-pirated-books-llama-training-amicus-brief/

Hoi Wai Jackie Cheng. (n.d.). Economic properties of data and the monopolistic tendencies of data economy: Policies to limit an Orwellian possibility. United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/desa/economic-properties-data-and-monopolistic-tendencies-data-economy-policies-limit

Kenji Tosaki, Hiroki Tajima, & Chie Komiya. (n.d.). Report on AI and copyright issues by Japanese government. Retrieved from https://www.noandt.com/en/publications/publication20240325-3/

Khalid Leila. (n.d.). The chilling effect: Stifling innovation through patent wars – The need for a globally harmonized patent litigation system. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=3667581

LAION v. Robert Kneschke, 310 O.22723 (2024).

Martin Senftleben. (2025). The TDM opt-out in the EU: Five problems, one solution. Retrieved from https://copyrightblog. kluweriplaw.com/2025/04/22/the-tdm-opt-out-in-the-eu-five-problems-one-solution/

Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, & Alina Oprea. (n.d.). Extracting training data from large language models. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07805

NVIDIA. (n.d.). NVIDIA H100 Tensor Core GPU. Retrieved from https://resources.nvidia.com/en-us-hopper-architecture/nvidia-tensor-core-gpu-datasheet

Peter Mezei. (2025). Third European court decision on the general-purpose TDM exception. Retrieved from https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2025/05/08/third-european-court-decision-on-the-general-purpose-tdm-exception-is-out/

Rosati, E. (2023). Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union (pp. 215–220). Oxford University Press.

Samuelson, P. (2019). Implications of copyright for text and data mining. Communications of the ACM, 52(7), 29–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/1538788.1538792

Scott Warren, & Joseph Grasser. (2024). Japan’s new draft guidelines on AI and copyright: Is it really OK to train AI using pirated materials? Retrieved from https://www.privacyworld.blog/2024/03/ japans-new-draft-guidelines-on-ai-and-copyright-is-it-really-ok-to-train-ai-using-pirated-materials/

Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH et al. v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613-SB (D. Del.).

UCLA Library. (n.d.). Text and data mining. Retrieved from https://guides.library.ucla.edu/tdm

Downloads

Published

26-12-2025

How to Cite

Ratanachueskul, S. (2025). The Opt-Out Mechanism to Control the Use of Copyrighted Works in AI Training:Legal and Policy Issues. SRIPATUM LAW JOURNAL, 10(2), 175–213. retrieved from https://so07.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/Lawllmjournal/article/view/8267

Issue

Section

Academic article