Comments

3 responses to “Article 6 Conclusion of contracts”

1. 

   3629

   May 15, 2026

   It is proposed to add wording to ensure that any use of creative content for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems training, modelling or creation of derivative works, will only take place with the prior permission of the rightholders and in accordance with Law 2121/1993 and international intellectual property conventions.

   Especially for musical works, the training of AI models cannot be considered as ‘free use’ excluded from the scope of copyright law, but is a protected act of reproduction and requires as a precedent the licensing and payment of remuneration of authors. This is because the reproduction right is one of the main pillars of copyright, and any act of reproduction that requires prior permission will otherwise be an illegal and punishable act.

   The provision must furthermore ensure that in case of training of AI models using synthetic data, the production of ‘synthetic data’ based on prior training on musical works or other copyrighted works does not exempt the operator from its legal obligations. In this context, the extraction of musical motifs from protected works - even if they are transformed into derivative synthetic data - falls within the concept of reproduction and processing under Law 2121/1993 and requires:

   * prior authorisation,
   * licensing,
   * fair remuneration of authors of musical works.

   It should be noted that Self-Management, in the context of the relevant internationally recognised practice, has already made an official opt-out statement (https://www.autodia.gr/article/34/tehnhth-nohmosynh-kai-dhlosh-rhths-epifylaxhs by which she expressly denies the use of her repertoire without permission.

   🤖 AI AnalysisℹAI analyzed this comment and extracted the main posts expressed by the author. Each position is broken down into arguments – click to see them.✦ Created with AI

   📍 Addition of a clause requiring prior authorisation, licensing and fair remuneration for the use of creative content in AI training 4 B.C.

   🟢 Model training is considered an act of reproduction and requires a license under Law 2121/1993Fact check

   🟢 For musical works AI training is not considered free use, requires licensing and remunerationFact check

   🟢 Creating synthetic data from protected projects does not exempt the entity from legal obligationsFact check

   🟢 Clause ensures fair remuneration of authors for use of their works in AIFact check

   ▲
   +0
   ▼

   Reply
2. 

   3632

   May 15, 2026

   It is proposed to add wording to ensure that any use of creative content for AI systems training, modelling or creation of derivative works will only take place with the prior authorisation of rightholders and in accordance with Law 2121/1993 and international copyright conventions.

   Especially for musical works, the training of AI models cannot be considered as ‘free use’ excluded from the scope of copyright law, but is a protected act of reproduction and requires as a precedent the licensing and payment of remuneration of authors. This is because the reproduction right is one of the main pillars of copyright, and any act of reproduction that requires prior permission will otherwise be an illegal and punishable act.

   The provision must furthermore ensure that in case of training of AI models using synthetic data, the production of ‘synthetic data’ based on prior training on musical works or other copyrighted works does not exempt the operator from its legal obligations. In this context, the extraction of musical motifs from protected works - even if they are transformed into derivative synthetic data - falls within the concept of reproduction and processing under Law 2121/1993 and requires:

   * prior authorisation,
   * licensing,
   * fair remuneration of authors of musical works.

   It should be noted that Self-Management, in the context of the relevant internationally recognised practice, has already made an official opt-out statement, by which it explicitly denies the use of its repertoire without permission.

   🤖 AI AnalysisℹAI analyzed this comment and extracted the main posts expressed by the author. Each position is broken down into arguments – click to see them.✦ Created with AI

   📍 Addition of a layout that requires permission to use creative content for AI 3 Fig.

   🟢 Training AI models in musical works is not free use, requires license and remunerationFact check

   🟢 Creating synthetic data from protected works does not exempt from legal obligationsFact check

   🟢 Law 2121/1993 requires permission for any act of reproduction of creative contentFact check

   ▲
   +0
   ▼

   Reply
3. 

   3639

   May 15, 2026

   Article 6 – Conclusion of contracts: “The Company’s supplies are made in accordance with the Company’s works, supplies and services regulation, which is issued by way of derogation from Law 4412/2016 (GG I 147), subject to EU law.” This provision is not based on any need or justification. Clearly, there must be no derogation from this Law on public procurement. In addition, in addition to a pre-contractual audit by the Court of Auditors, provision should be made for a corresponding audit by the DPA on issues of personal data protection and individual rights, in particular in relation to the training data and AI models developed with them.

   🤖 AI AnalysisℹAI analyzed this comment and extracted the main posts expressed by the author. Each position is broken down into arguments – click to see them.✦ Created with AI

   📍 Deletion of a provision derogating from Law 4412/2016 1 business

   🟢 The provision is not based on need or justificationFact check

   📍 Add control from the DPA for data protection and AI 1 business

   🟢 Control Required for Privacy, Individual Rights, and AI ModelsFact check

   ▲
   +0
   ▼

   Reply