Europe recommends AI regulation and the artist loses his work

The European Parliament adopted recommendations in March 2026. It called for action. It made its case. Then it went home, because dinner wasn’t going to eat itself. As it should be.

Somewhere after a lot of interesting but mostly empty words, the fifth paragraph mentions that the report is non-binding. The headline says Parliament is “pushing for new rules,” which is the same as saying someone who writes a note to their boss is “pushing for a raise.” Technically accurate. Worth exactly as much as the paper it’s printed on.

The companies that used other people’s work without asking have explained, through their trade association, that requiring permission is a “compliance burden.” No raised eyebrows. No mention of who funds that association. The journalist wrote it down, the editor let it through, the paper published it. Everyone did their job. Exactly as agreed, just not with you.

The illustrator or artist whose portfolio ended up in a training set is not quoted. Not because he doesn’t exist, but because he doesn’t buy lunch in Brussels. His profession has been swallowed by systems that used his work to replace his profession. The only thing he can still do is “explicitly opt out” of something that was finished two years ago. They call that a right.

Neutral, they call it. A construction that places the burden of proof on whoever has the least power, and calls everyone on the other side “innovators.” Neutral, because anyone who would call it something else isn’t at the table. Neither are you.

Parliament knows this. The journalists know this. The lobbyists know it best, because they built the table, assigned the seats, and wrote the agenda before the meeting began.

This report proves that people met. That is its function. The problem remains, the invoices go out, and somewhere an illustrator is opting out of a database that already has everything it needs.