Like Company v Google Ireland: Copyright law at technological crossroads

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence has prompted a re-examination of longstanding legal principles, particularly in relation to copyright. Central to this discussion is the pending European Court of Justice Case Like Company v Google Ireland (C-250/25), the first case of its kind to make it to the European Court of Justice. The decision is expected to examine whether AI services using texts, images and music without authorisation in their training infringes copyright or related rights.

As copyright law stands at a pivotal moment, this article explores the adaptability of copyright law, the nation's broader stance on emerging technologies, and how the decision in Like Company v Google Ireland may influence both.

Copyright law

Whilst specific principles may apply to copyright laws in different territories, the general principles are that copyright law protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, provided they are the product of human intellectual effort. By virtue of copyright, the creators of such works (the authors) are granted exclusive control over their original works and this means that they can retain a monopoly and be financially compensated for their future use, as any reproduction of an author's work will need authorisation.

Historically, legal frameworks for copyright proved adaptable to technological shifts. From photocopiers to digital downloads, the law has evolved by interpreting core principles to accommodate new tools of expression. The requirement that copyright protects the result of an author, and that the author will be afforded a monopoly over the work, however, has continued to be at its centre.

Background - Like Company v Google Ireland

The company challenging Google is a press publisher operating in various online news platforms. The dispute concerns Google's chatbot Gemini which, on a prompt to summarise one of Like Company's news articles, reproduced and made available portions of protected articles authored by Like Company without consent.

Like Company alleges that by doing so, Google infringed its rights by reproducing and making its press content available to the public without consent, in violation of EU and Hungarian copyright laws.

The domestic courts of Hungary referred four questions to the European Court of Justice:

1. Whether displaying content in chatbot responses that mirrors press articles and exceeds what can be considered a "very short extract" constitutes communication to the public.
2. Whether the act of training the chatbot, through tokenisation (a process which takes large chunks of data and breaks them down into manageable pieces, known as 'tokens') and the learning of linguistic patterns from protected works, constitutes reproduction for legal purposes.
3. If such training is a form of reproduction, whether it qualifies for the text and data mining exception under European law.
4. Whether the generation of a response by the chatbot that includes protected content, in response to a user query, qualifies as reproduction by the AI provider and requires authorisation from the rightsholder.

Why are the issues and the decision important?

This is the first case to come before the European Court of Justice which specifically addresses the use of press publisher content by generative AI systems. It will significantly impact AI developers, publishers, online platforms and rights holders.

If the court finds that copyright rules are applicable to the training and output of generative AI systems without exception, licences will need to be sought for vast swaths of data. This would increase costs, promote slow innovation, and potentially entrench the market power of large tech firms that can afford licensing fees. It would also, however, reinforce rights of creators.

If the court, however, concludes that AI outputs are too indirect to be afforded protection, this will mean that copyrighted material could be used for AI training in future without the benefit of compensation.

Whatever the decision, it will impact copyright law on a global scale.

The UK's position on AI

Much like in other parts of the world, the main concern among the creative industries continues to boil down to the unauthorised use of their works to train generative AI systems.

The UK's response has been somewhat cautionary but adaptive. Indeed, there are plans to regulate the use of AI in the UK, with a New AI bill addressing concerns relating to safety and copyright which indicates that there will be some regulation of its use. A UK Data (Use and Access) Bill, aiming to modernise the data protection framework, has also been introduced. It includes proposals relating to AI and copyright – specifically, increasing transparency around what works are used for AI training. Proposals backed by figures in the creative industry, such as Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, are also being considered.

At the time of writing, the bill has received royal assent, becoming the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Although the bill was expected to address some of the concerns relating to AI and copyright, the act is silent on these.

But this does not mean the end of the discussion. In December 2024, the UK government launched its Copyright and AI consultation seeking views on how the government can ensure the UK's legal framework for AI and copyright supports the creative industries and AI sector. Setting out a clearer stance on the preferred way of resolving the issues at hand, the government expressed that the preferred option would be to introduce a new exception for all purposes (not just commercial) which companies training AI will be able to use. Copyright holders would then have to reserve their rights to prevent their work being used.

The consultation closed in February 2025, and so an outcome is still pending.

Overall, the impression is that the UK is cautiously pro-AI but is determined to strike a balance which will keep the creative industries happy. There is certainly a desire to position the UK as a global leader in AI development, but the UK is generally willing to search for the solution which works for the creative industry and creators, as well as tech industries.

Whether this stance remains will no doubt be influenced by the decision of Like Company v Google Ireland. The judgment will be closely watched, and inevitably will also spark renewed debate over the correct approach for regulation.

In the meantime, businesses remain uncertain on how to deal with the risks posed by the use of copyrighted material in this context. As the law develops, it remains essential for businesses to seek professional legal advice to navigate these complex issues to reduce the risk of infringement, and ensure they are taking appropriate precautions in the interim. Foot Anstey has supported clients facing similar copyright and other IP challenges. In each case, our advice is tailored to our client's commercial goals and challenges.