As Big Tech companies dramatise rogue AI and China fears, the real fight is over who pays the price for today’s fraud, failures and job threats — and who pockets the productivity gains.
Download EUobserver’s first Stakeholder Report, which brings together people working on European policy to examine the choices facing the EU and what they mean for citizens.
![[Interview] Could musicians and dancers in Europe revolt against AI using their work? ‘It should be possible’, says performing arts boss](https://static.euobserver.com/2026/09/Orchestra-Photo-14719432-2400x1600.jpg)
Performers of works authored by others are in a particularly precarious position when it comes to AI training on their work. How can the EU protect them?
Intellectual property and copyright laws were developed to protect what people make. So what happens when a machine ‘makes’ something? Or when it is involved in making something? Who owns what a machine makes? How much human input is needed to make machine-generated content ‘human’? EUobserver sat down with copyright scholar Daniel Gervais to find out.
The EU Commission is manifesting AI as a ‘vulgar Thatcherism’, while leaving the predictably negative side-effects to fall on citizens.
To fundamentally understand why it’s strange the EU Commission is throwing its weight behind this new for-profit social platform, you need to understand what lies beneath.
A one-word answer to why EU lost control of Big Tech: Ireland“Ireland cannot fix this itself. This cannot come from inside … [it] needs pressure from the other capitals and from the [EU]Commission,” Irish data-rights activist warns.
On 1 July this year, Ireland takes the rotating EU presidency and agenda powers on the crown jewels of EU tech laws: “That should make you worried,” says activist Johnny Ryan.
Next time you hear an EU commissioner say the AI Act needs to be ‘simplified’, the honest translation is: a company asked them to do that, and they said yes.
A victory for publishers over Big Tech (if only it had happened five years ago)In a victory for publishers and a reality check for Silicon Valley, a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice has confirmed that publishers can request Big Tech companies to pay “fair compensation” for using snippets of their news articles.
Instead of funding European commercial alternatives to American chokepoints, Europe should fund the layer underneath them: infrastructure that is useful because it cannot easily be owned.
The EU has spent the last five years building the most ambitious digital regulatory framework on earth. It has regulated platforms, algorithms, AI models, political advertising, environmental claims, and data brokers. It has legal definitions for “very large online platforms” and “general purpose AI models.” But it doesn’t have one for “influencer” – and that’s an interesting oversight.
What was announced as a ‘new gateway to European justice’ has law scholars and professionals up in arms about their ability to conduct research effectively, and potentially “de-democratising access to public data, fuelling an industry of commercial actors”.
The recent US report on ‘EU censorship’ left dozens of names of civil society and EU officials unredacted in emails – while carefully hiding company employee names.
Researchers found Apple’s in-built AI system systematically exhibits forms of racial bias and gender stereotyping when summarising texts and emails, according to a report exclusively shared with EUobserver.
In a fresh effort to recast regulation as censorship, a new 160-page report from the US House Judiciary Committee alleges Brussels pressured Big Tech platforms to censor US speech, including around the 2024 presidential elections.
Or maybe we should ask a harder question: what if the goal is not to actually communicate – but just to be seen trying?
Somehow, people are under the impression EUobserver is a way larger organisation that it actually is.
The number of people who choose to vote far-right remains unchanged (with 48 seats vs 46), and now they have more flavours of far-right to choose from.
Advertising is easy to hate. But once upon a time — in fact, for centuries until this decade — it subsidised journalism for people who did not want to pay (as much) for news, and thus, supported democracy. Could it be won back through some simple but nitty-gritty policy?