The Hamburg Regional Court has ruled in favor of LAION in the case of Robert Kneschke v LAION e.V., finding that the use by LAION – a non-profit organisation - of Kneschke’s photo for AI training benefited from the exception to copyright infringement for text and data mining for the purpose of scientific research under Section 60d UrhG (implementing Article 3 of the EU Copyright Directive). 

This decision is somewhat surprising, as this exception was not considered in the first hearing in July 2024. In that hearing, the court considered the application of Section 44b UrhG (implementing Article 4 of the Digital Single Market Directive), which is the broader exception for text or data mining – in other words, not limited to research organisations - and it was expected that the court would base its judgment on that exception. Of particular interest was the fact that Section 44b UrHG allows the copyright owner to reserve their rights, provided that they do so in a machine-readable format, and it was hoped that the judgment might address whether the language used in the website terms on which Kneschke’s work was made available qualified as a valid opt-out for these purposes. Indeed, the court indicated that the language of the website terms could have constituted a valid opt-out, but this did not form part of the judgment. 

Clearly, Section 60(d) will not be available where the defendant is a for-profit organisation or its acts are for commercial purposes. Kneschke was unable to establish that LAION’s acts were done for commercial purposes, with the burden of proof being on him to establish this. An appeal on this point seems likely.

While the decision is legally sound, it could raise concerns in some parts of the industry. This is because Section 60d limits the control creators have over their works and therefore many photographers and others may find it troubling that Kneschke was unable to prevent the use of his photo even in circumstances where the court seemed willing to accept that he had exercised his right to opt-out of the general text and data mining exception under Section 44b UrhG. This ruling arguably highlights the need for better protections for creators in an age of AI-driven data mining.

This ruling sets an important precedent, as it broadens the scope of lawful data use for AI training, likely influencing how similar cases are handled in the future. It may also affect European copyright law and raise questions about how the upcoming AI Act will intersect with copyright protections.

The court's assumption that AI systems can analyse terms of use for copyright restrictions could also be argued as overly optimistic and raises concerns about whether AI can reliably respect creators’ rights. An appeal seems likely and broader legal updates may be necessary to ensure fair treatment of creators in the context of AI.

You can read our August update on this case below: