Initial situation
AI models and AI systems, service providers and users have, in recent years, copied, processed and exploited cultural outputs of all kinds on a massive scale for use with artificial intelligence. These uses were mostly unauthorized, unpaid and non-transparent. They lack a secure legal basis, and they are dangerous in terms of media and cultural policy. The otherwise proven copyright and related rights can hardly be enforced any longer. The current conflict situation also harms the trust of consumers and companies in artificial intelligence. Through legal and political processes, licensing models are currently being developed in numerous legal systems for the authorization and compensation of AI training (programming of AI models and systems), AI retrieval (access to databases and current information) and similar uses.
Only licensing creates an ecosystem for AI content: without uncontrolled growth, infringements and non-transparency. Licensing is linked to the possibility for rightsholders to withdraw their own works and outputs from AI use, or to grant consent only for certain research, products and services.
In Switzerland, the Federal Council and the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) will present a draft law in 2026. This is based on the Gössi motion, which was adopted as a legislative project in an amended form.
Position
ProLitteris supports the concerns of cultural professionals, media professionals, publishing houses, producers and collective management organizations as follows:
- Strengthening copyright and related rights. The statutory scope of rights already covers most AI uses today, but there is a lack of clarity and legal certainty. It should be explicitly regulated in the Copyright Act that AI training, AI retrieval and other AI uses fall within the scope of protection of copyright and related rights.
- Principle of consent by rightsholders. Artificial intelligence is now one of the ways in which literary, visual, musical and other acoustic as well as audiovisual works are used. Rightsholders are entitled to decide on this use. Free uses (limitations without royalty) should be avoided. In addition to individual licenses, consent may also take the form of collective licenses and, under certain circumstances, statutory licenses. Active formal consent by every individual person or organization that holds copyrights is likely to be unrealistic.
- Collective licenses at the center. AI systems of all kinds must be treated in the same way as other actors in the content value chain. They either acquire contractual licenses or they benefit from a collective license – always with a right to remuneration. An opt-out, an individual declaration of exception, must remain possible for every rightsholder. This opens up, for example, for large production companies in music and film, scientific and media publishing houses and other rightsholders the possibility of conducting individual negotiations or prohibiting AI uses.
- The principle of consent and the priority of licenses also apply to research. Text and data mining and similar research limitations should be avoided. While this might still be tolerable for the sole purpose of gaining knowledge, it fails in practice. AI developments may begin as research, but they are often co-financed or supported by technology companies, sooner or later become a product or a service – and in any case compete with the cultural products and outputs that were needed for their development.
- Rights in works and outputs must be enforceable also against foreign AI models, systems and offerings. This ensures that copyright and related rights are consistently respected and that discrimination against domestic AI developments is excluded. In this way, disadvantages for Switzerland as a location for innovation and AI are prevented.
- To the extent that related rights for media form part of the AI revision of the Copyright Act, this is to be welcomed, but must not disadvantage the AI revision. Today, AI summaries as answers to internet searches are common, and this form of AI use as well as retrieval in all forms must also be legally recognized as an interference with copyright, regardless of whether it concerns media content or other works and outputs.
- A proven licensing model in collective management concerns the copying royalties of schools and organizations and the royalties for storage media used in the personal sphere. The basis of Common Tariffs 8, 7 and 4 and their royalties must be strengthened. In this sense, the current proposals (parliamentary initiative Aeschi and motion Nantermod) should be rejected and, instead, political confirmation of copying royalties is appropriate.
With the creation of an ecosystem for AI licenses and similar areas, copyright follows proven principles with which we are familiar from earlier technological change. Existing similar licenses of collective management organizations concern retransmission in communication networks, reception of broadcasts, storage media, rental in libraries and video rental stores, making available on the internet, extended collective licenses for memory institutions and others.
The combination of (1) clear copyright and related rights, (2) a general authorization of AI uses with a right to remuneration, (3) an opt-out for rightsholders and (4) a comprehensive application of the licensing principle for all AI models, systems and offerings as well as for certain AI uses is intended to ensure that most works and outputs can be used with artificial intelligence thanks to collective management, that an appropriate royalty flows to finance the human raw material, and that in particular larger rightsholders are enabled, despite statutory interventions, to have an individual negotiating position and/or to refuse AI uses.
Cultural associations, media associations, rightsholders and collective management organizations support a rapid and determined revision of the law in line with these principles. Related rights for media are to be supported, copying royalties are to be confirmed.
Links to the political dossiers
24.4596 Motion – Better protection of intellectual property against AI misuse
https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20244596
25.064 Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights (CopA) – Amendment (related rights for media companies)
https://www.parlament.ch/press-releases/Pages/mm-kvf-n-2025-10-28.aspx?lang=1031
25.408 Parliamentary initiative – The unfair and outdated model of copying royalties is no longer appropriate in view of digitalization
https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20250408
25.3792 Motion – Abolition of royalties for private copying
https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20253792