Short answer
Yes for the AI Act obligations, and the Regulation says so expressly. No — or rather, not directly — for EU copyright law itself, which remains territorial.
Keeping these apart is essential, because they behave differently:
- AI Act. A market-access condition. If you place a general-purpose AI model on the Union market, Article 53(1)(c) requires a copyright-compliance policy regardless of where training occurred. Recital 106 removes any doubt.
- Copyright. Territorial. Acts of reproduction carried out in a third country are governed by that country's law. The EU text-and-data-mining exception is an exception to EU rights, relevant to acts within the EU.
So a US-trained model sold into the EU carries EU AI Act obligations without the training acts themselves having been governed by EU copyright law. The Regulation closes the regulatory gap it can close, without purporting to give EU copyright extraterritorial effect.
The AI Act's reach
Article 2(1)(a) is the gateway:
"This Regulation applies to: (a) providers placing on the market or putting into service AI systems or placing on the market general-purpose AI models in the Union, irrespective of whether those providers are established or located within the Union or in a third country" —
The connecting factor is placing the model on the Union market. Establishment is irrelevant.
Recital 106 then applies that logic specifically to the copyright duty:
"Any provider placing a general-purpose AI model on the Union market should comply with this obligation, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underpinning the training of those general-purpose AI models take place. This is necessary to ensure a level playing field among providers of general-purpose AI models where no provider should be able to gain a competitive advantage in the Union market by applying lower copyright standards than those provided in the Union." —
The rationale is competitive, not jurisdictional imperialism. Without it, training in a permissive jurisdiction would be a route to a cheaper EU market entry.
What a third-country provider must actually do
A copyright policy — Article 53(1)(c). Put in place a policy to comply with Union copyright law, and in particular to identify and comply with, including through state-of-the-art technologies, reservations of rights expressed under DSM Article 4(3).
The practical consequence is significant: a provider training entirely outside the EU must nonetheless build a process for detecting EU-style machine-readable opt-outs, because the obligation is defined by reference to Article 4(3).
A training-content summary — Article 53(1)(d). Draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training, according to a template provided by the AI Office.
Recital 107 describes the intended character: generally comprehensive in scope rather than technically detailed, listing the main data collections or sets and providing a narrative explanation of other sources, while respecting trade secrets and confidential business information.
Technical documentation and downstream information — Article 53(1)(a) and (b), with Annexes XI and XII. Article 53(2) exempts certain free and open-source models from points (a) and (b) — but not from the copyright policy in (c) or the summary in (d) — and that exemption does not apply to models with systemic risk.
An authorised representative — Article 54. This is the enforcement hook:
"Prior to placing a general-purpose AI model on the Union market, providers established in third countries shall, by written mandate, appoint an authorised representative which is established in the Union." —
The representative must verify that the Article 53 obligations have been fulfilled, keep the Annex XI technical documentation available to the AI Office and national authorities for ten years after the model is placed on the market, provide information on reasoned request, and cooperate with authorities.
Article 54(5) gives the arrangement teeth in an unusual way: the representative must terminate the mandate if it considers, or has reason to consider, that the provider is acting contrary to its obligations — and must immediately inform the AI Office and give reasons. A non-compliant provider risks losing its EU presence through its own representative.
Article 54(6) exempts qualifying open-source models without systemic risk.
Copyright remains territorial
The AI Act does not change copyright law. It imposes a regulatory duty on providers.
Copyright operates on the principle of territoriality: protection and exceptions are determined by the law of the country for which protection is claimed. EU directives harmonise the rights and exceptions within the EU.
So:
- Reproductions made during training in a third country are assessed under that country's law. Whether they are permitted depends on that system's exceptions.
- The DSM Article 4 exception is an exception to rights conferred by EU instruments. It is engaged where the relevant acts fall within EU copyright's reach.
- Acts in the EU remain fully subject to EU copyright, whenever they occur. Reproducing training data on EU servers, fine-tuning within the EU, or making infringing outputs available in the EU are EU-relevant acts.
The last point is the one most often missed. A model trained lawfully abroad can still generate EU copyright exposure through what it does in the EU — particularly if outputs reproduce protected expression.
Two questions that do not merge
A third-country provider should analyse separately:
Question one — AI Act compliance. Do we place a GPAI model on the Union market? If so, we need the copyright policy, the training-content summary, the technical documentation where applicable, and an authorised representative. Training location is irrelevant.
Question two — copyright exposure. Where were the copyright-relevant acts performed, and under which law? Where might rightholders sue, and for what? Which acts occur in the EU?
Complying with question one does not answer question two. Article 53(1)(c) requires a policy; it does not license training. Recital 108 makes the limit explicit — the AI Office monitors whether the provider fulfilled the obligations "without verifying or proceeding to a work-by-work assessment of the training data in terms of copyright compliance", and the Regulation "does not affect the enforcement of copyright rules as provided for under Union law".
A provider can therefore have an impeccable Article 53(1)(c) policy and still face infringement claims.
Practical consequences
Respect EU opt-outs even when training abroad. The Article 53(1)(c) duty is defined by reference to Article 4(3) reservations. Ignoring them because training happens outside the EU misreads the obligation.
Record provenance from the start. The training-content summary cannot be reconstructed after the fact, and the authorised representative must be able to produce documentation for ten years.
Choose the authorised representative carefully. It has a duty to terminate on suspected non-compliance, and it is the body authorities will address.
Map where EU-relevant acts occur. Data storage, fine-tuning, inference infrastructure and output distribution in the EU are all EU-relevant.
Watch the timetable. GPAI obligations phase in on their own schedule, and the Regulation has been subject to amendment. Confirm the application dates for each obligation rather than assuming a single date.
Operational checklist
- Determine whether you place a GPAI model on the Union market.
- Assume the copyright policy and training-content summary apply regardless of training location.
- Build reservation detection against DSM Article 4(3) machine-readable standards.
- Appoint an EU authorised representative before market entry, with a mandate covering the Article 54(3) tasks.
- Retain Annex XI documentation for ten years.
- Analyse copyright exposure separately, by reference to where acts occur.
- Identify every EU-located act in your pipeline.
- Do not treat AI Act compliance as a copyright defence.
Conclusion
The AI Act attaches its copyright obligations to market access. A model trained wholly outside the EU is caught the moment it is placed on the Union market, and recital 106 states that expressly — to stop lower copyright standards elsewhere becoming a competitive advantage here.
Copyright itself has not been extended extraterritorially. Training acts abroad are judged by the law where they occur. What the AI Act adds is a set of conditions for selling into the EU: a copyright policy that identifies and respects EU-style reservations, a public summary of training content, documentation, and an authorised representative who must walk away if you are not complying.
Comply with both regimes separately. Neither answers the other.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.