About the report Scientific research depends on access to knowledge, data, and cultural resources. Researchers routinely engage with copyright-protected materials when accessing literature, sharing resources, conducting collaborative projects, or applying emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and Text and Data Mining (TDM). While copyright law recognises the importance of research through a range of exceptions and limitations, the implementation of these provisions across Europe remains fragmented and uneven. The lack of harmonisation across the European Union creates legal uncertainty for researchers and research institutions operating in increasingly international and digital environments. Differences in national copyright frameworks can affect access to research materials, the ability to process and analyse data, cross-border collaboration, and the dissemination of research outputs. As a result, researchers often face administrative burdens and uncertainty regarding the legality of everyday research activities. This report examines these challenges through a twofold approach. First, it provides a comparative legal analysis of research-related copyright exceptions across 28 European jurisdictions (the EU Member States and the UK). To facilitate this analysis, the report introduces the Index of Research Exceptions (I-REx), a quantitative tool designed to assess the openness and harmonisation of copyright systems in supporting scientific research. The index evaluates the scope and practical accessibility of key research exceptions, allowing for a comparative assessment of national legal frameworks. Furthermore, the report complements the quantitative legal analysis with a qualitative assessment based on a series of research case studies. These case studies examine how typical research activities are evaluated under different national copyright laws and reveal the extent to which legal uncertainty persists across jurisdictions. In addition, the report incorporates qualitative research involving interviews and focus groups with researchers from across Europe, providing insights into their everyday practices and experiences with copyright, access to knowledge, data processing, publication practices, and cross-border collaboration. By combining legal analysis, case study evaluation, and empirical evidence from researchers themselves, the report offers a comprehensive picture of how copyright law affects scientific research in Europe. It highlights the gap between legal frameworks and research practice and contributes to ongoing discussions on how copyright rules can better support research, innovation, and the circulation of knowledge in the digital age. Key takeaways Fragmented Copyright Landscape for Research in Europe Copyright rules that support scientific research remain highly fragmented across Europe, creating legal uncertainty for researchers and research institutions. Differences in national implementations of research exceptions make it difficult to conduct research, access materials, and collaborate across borders. The report argues that the current framework often prioritises legal complexity over the practical realities of scientific research. The I-REx Index: Measuring Openness of Research Exceptions The report introduces the Index of Research Exceptions (I-REx), a new comparative tool designed to assess the openness and harmonisation of copyright systems across 28 European countries, including the UK I-REx evaluates ten copyright exceptions relevant to scientific research and measures how restrictive or flexible national copyright frameworks are. Lower scores indicate greater openness, while higher scores reflect more restrictive legal environments. The findings show that all analysed EU Member States have implemented research exceptions more restrictively than the minimum standard established by EU law. Case Studies Reveal Widespread Legal Uncertainty The report complements the index with an analysis of 10 research case studies, reflecting routine activities undertaken by researchers. These cases were assessed by copyright experts from 21 European countries. The results reveal a striking lack of consensus regarding whether common research activities are legally permitted. Experts frequently reached different conclusions when assessing the same scenario. The findings suggest that even copyright specialists often struggle to determine the legality of everyday research practices, making compliance particularly difficult for researchers themselves. Researchers’ Experiences Beyond the Law Through 39 in-depth interviews and 5 focus groups, the report explores how researchers experience copyright rules in practice. Researchers reported routinely facing barriers related to access to resources, data sharing, publication practices, AI and Text and Data Mining activities, and cross-border collaboration. The study highlights a lack of copyright training, limited institutional support, and growing frustration with regulations that fail to keep pace with digital research practices. Between Legal Fiction and the Reality of Scientific Research Research practices have outgrown the current copyright framework. The report shows that the everyday realities of scientific research, including international collaboration, digital access to knowledge, data sharing, and AI-driven methods, often do not fit within existing copyright rules. Researchers frequently perceive copyright as an administrative burden rather than a meaningful guide for research conduct and, in many cases, knowingly operate beyond strict legal boundaries when they believe it is necessary to fulfil the broader mission of science: advancing knowledge, fostering collaboration, and serving the public interest. This mismatch between law and practice generates legal uncertainty, encourages reliance on informal workarounds, and ultimately undermines the effectiveness, openness, and cross-border nature of the European research ecosystem. ___________ This study’s qualitive research was carried out in partnership with Ciekawość. The data used in the report was gathered and analysed thanks to the support of Knowledge Rights 21. Its publication was made possible thanks to COMMUNIA. Both funded by Arcadia – a family charitable foundation.
Gliściński et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: