Although the summer period calls for relaxation and recharging for many, the legislative machinery of the European Union does not stand still. Quite the contrary, and one cannot entirely shake the suspicion that it is deliberate when political proposals, expected to be controversial, are presented at a time when many are away on holiday.

However, at AEC, together with our partners, we are keeping a close eye on developments, and there are particularly two events whose outcomes we expect to become relevant during the month of July.

Presentation of MFF – the Multiannual Financial Framework

On 16 July, the European Commission is expected to present the first draft of the EU’s long-term budget, the so-called MFF – Multiannual Financial Framework. The Commission has repeatedly emphasised that its highest priority is to simplify the budget from the current 50 programmes to just three major funds:

  • Competitiveness Fund – devoted to innovation, RDI, digital, defence, and space.
  • Regional/Reform Fund – combining cohesion and agricultural transfers into one flexible instrument.
  • Foreign Policy/External Action Fund – streamlining all external aid into a coherent envelope.

In addition, the next MFF is expected to be more responsive to shifting crises, such as natural disasters, AI breakthroughs, and geopolitical events.

At AEC, we are of course paying close attention to the programmes that are particularly important to our sector, namely Erasmus+, Horizon Europe, and Creative Europe. Whether these programmes will be dissolved or integrated into larger funding areas remains unclear.

Rumour has it that the Erasmus+ programme may be split, so that only Key Action 1 (KA1) – mobility for students and staff – will be maintained, while Key Action 2 (KA2) and Key Action 3 (KA3) will be included in a broader “Skills Chapter” within the Competitiveness Fund. It seems likely that this “Chapter” will be managed directly by the Commission, which may result in national Erasmus agencies losing influence, and the competition for funding may become significantly tougher, especially for smaller institutions.

Commission President von der Leyen has previously stated that Horizon Europe will remain a stand-alone programme, but it will be closely linked to the Competitiveness Fund. What this will mean, particularly for research connected to culture and education, is still unclear.

The future of Creative Europe is also uncertain. We know that Member States, Commissioner Micaleff, and the European Parliament prioritise maintaining the programme as a separate entity, while other – perhaps more powerful – forces within the Commission may hold a different view. Depending on the Commission’s MFF proposal, AEC is preparing to take action to reach out to other policy areas to underline the importance of maintaining Creative Europe as a stand-alone programme.

As the EU prepares its next 7-year budget (2028–2034), it is crucial to protect and strengthen Creative Europe:  the only EU programme fully dedicated to the cultural and creative sectors. 

The MFF is expected to encompass around €1.8 trillion over seven years, corresponding to approximately €250 billion per year. Even though this seems like a substantial amount, it roughly equals Greece’s GDP, one of the EU’s smaller economies. By comparison, the EU’s total GDP is just under €20 trillion per year.

Following the publication of the Commission’s MFF proposal, negotiations between the European Parliament and the European Council will take place over the next approximately 18 months. AEC will seek as much influence as possible and will keep its members continuously updated on the process.

Launch of the AI Code of Practice

Another political initiative, which is certainly controversial within the cultural and creative sectors, is expected to be published in July. It concerns the final version of the AI Code of Practice. But what kind of document is this? To understand it, we need to take a step back and look at the EU’s process of creating a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence.

The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is the first comprehensive legal framework regulating artificial intelligence in the EU. It was officially adopted in June 2024 and entered into force by August 2024. It aims to ensure that AI systems are safe, transparent, and respect fundamental rights. The AI Act classifies AI systems based on their risk levels: unacceptable, high-risk, and minimal risk, with stricter rules for higher-risk applications.

A key part of the AI Act focuses on General-Purpose AI (GPAI) models, such as generative AI systems, which can perform a wide range of tasks and are often trained on large datasets, including cultural and copyrighted content.

To help GPAI providers comply with the AI Act before formal technical standards are adopted (this can take several years), the EU is developing a voluntary AI Code of Practice. This Code is meant to be a practical, interim solution that outlines how providers should manage transparency, copyright compliance, and systemic risks.

The development of the AI Code of Practice involves a wide range of stakeholders including the Cultural and Creative Sector (CCS), among others Cultural Action Europe, which is very critical to the process for many reasons.  After presenting two previous drafts, a final version of the document is – after some delay – expected to be published by EU in July as it is meant to be entering into force in August.

The third and latest draft of the EU AI Code of Practice is facing strong criticism from CCS for failing to protect the rights of creators and rightsholders. The draft largely overlooks copyright obligations and introduces loopholes that could enable infringement.

A key issue is the restriction of opt-out methods. The draft only formally recognises the robots.txt protocol, excluding other machine-readable methods like metadata tags, website terms, and public rights reservations, despite these being allowed under EU law. Rightsholders using alternative opt-outs are left with weak protection, as the draft merely asks AI providers to make “best efforts” to comply, delaying effective enforcement.

The Code also weakens clear obligations. It uses soft language like “reasonable efforts” and “encouragement” in key areas:

  • Avoiding data scraping from piracy websites.
  • Publishing copyright policies.
  • Informing rights-holders about crawler behaviour.
  • Respecting opt-outs without penalising content visibility.
  • Preventing AI models from memorising copyrighted content.

Additionally, complaint mechanisms are ineffective. While the draft introduces forms for reporting copyright breaches, it leaves the decision to act fully in the hands of AI providers, who can reject complaints as “repetitive” or “excessive.”

Culture Action Europe, AEC and many other organisations representing artists on the European or national level argue the current draft creates more legal uncertainty than it resolves and demands that the Code be revised to impose clear, enforceable obligations on AI providers rather than simply suggesting best practices.

AEC continues to follow the process, where more delays could be expected due to the dissatisfaction expressed by many stakeholders. AEC strongly supports the demands for the development of practical licensing solutions and fair economic models to remunerate creators.