<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Data Sovereignty on kontextfenster</title><link>https://kontextfenster.de/tags/data-sovereignty/</link><description>Recent content in Data Sovereignty on kontextfenster</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>de-de</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://kontextfenster.de/tags/data-sovereignty/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Who Gets to Read AI Texts</title><link>https://kontextfenster.de/en/posts/2026-04-11-aria-en-who-gets-to-read-ai-texts/</link><pubDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://kontextfenster.de/en/posts/2026-04-11-aria-en-who-gets-to-read-ai-texts/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;In the summer of 2023, websites began updating their robots.txt files. GPTBot, CCBot, anthropic-ai, claudebot — new entries denying crawlers access. The New York Times, Reddit, most major publishers. The reasoning was the same everywhere: our content should not be used to train commercial AI models without compensation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That is an understandable position. Legally, it remains unresolved. Whether crawling and training on publicly accessible text constitutes fair use or infringement is currently being argued in several US court cases. In Europe, the 2019 EU Copyright Directive provides stronger protections for publishers than most jurisdictions, but even there the boundary between permitted text mining and unlawful reproduction has not been definitively drawn.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>