In an interview with Delfi, Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa Pakosta said that at a meeting with the Estonian Media Association on January 21, both private media companies and Estonian Public Broadcasting (ERR) were encouraged to explore ways to share their content with large corporations such as Meta and Google.

"I proposed to media houses on January 21 that private media organizations should come up with suitable solutions themselves because I firmly believe that private media plays an invaluable role and must be able to generate profit," Pakosta told Delfi. "We parted ways with the understanding that private companies would propose one type of solution, ERR another and we would discuss it further at the next meeting."

However, both the head of the Estonian Media Association and a representative of ERR who attended the meeting said they were surprised by the minister's claim of an agreement with media organizations.

Väino Koorberg, head of the Estonian Media Association, told ERR that the January meeting was focused on the Public Information Act, where a working group presented its analysis of the law's shortcomings.

"The working group representative raised concerns that officials often fail or hesitate to determine which information should be made public and which should remain confidential," Koorberg explained.

Koorberg said that during the meeting, Minister Pakosta mentioned that artificial intelligence could be useful for processing documents. "She suggested that AI could assist in this process, and that it would be great if we had a large volume of words to use for training AI models," he recalled. "At that moment, the discussion suddenly shifted in an odd direction, as if to say, 'If you were to provide your outdated and unnecessary content, then everything would work out nicely.'"

"I responded very clearly at the time that there are well-established rules for this — AI training must comply with copyright laws, meaning permission must be obtained from copyright holders and they must be fairly compensated," Koorberg stated.

The minister also allegedly spoke about universities sharing their data.

"The idea was that academic research is already funded by taxpayers, and similarly, public broadcasting content has also been paid for," Koorberg recalled. He added that he informed the minister that copyright laws apply to both public broadcasting and universities.

According to Koorberg, the minister replied that this was a matter the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs intended to discuss with other ministries and that a working group might be formed, potentially including media representatives.

"That was perhaps the only point in the meeting where any sort of proposal was referenced. My response was clear: the rights of media companies in this matter are represented by the Baltic News Media Publishers Association. They are the ones who should be involved in negotiations, and they should definitely have a seat at the table. That was the extent of the discussion — we were waiting to be invited to a formal discussion on the matter," Koorberg said.

He stated that, contrary to the minister's claims, no clear proposal had been made.

"It was very interesting to later hear from the minister that she had already made a clear proposal to us," Koorberg remarked.

In Koorberg's view, Pakosta's comments about potentially amending the Public Broadcasting Act may not align with the principles of a democratic state.

"I previously said that it seems to me that representatives of EKRE, who have been strongly attacking public broadcasting, should actually be given credit for defending its independence — because these attacks provide the justification for strengthening the legal safeguards of public broadcasting. It seems that today Minister Pakosta joined this camp by issuing what I perceive as a strong threat to public broadcasting: 'If necessary, we will change the law and take it away.' In a democratic country, things do not work like that," Koorberg said.

He also pointed out that the European Union has adopted an Artificial Intelligence Regulation, which imposes extensive obligations on those training large language models.

"I believe that behind the minister's determination lies the major concern of AI trainers that they will soon be unable to comply with the forthcoming AI regulation. The regulation mandates not only risk assessments and mitigation measures but also compliance with the EU Copyright Directive. This means that AI trainers must prove that their models have been trained while respecting copyright laws. They must also disclose the sources from which their AI has been trained," Koorberg explained.

Pakosta, however, insisted that media organizations left the meeting with an understanding that they would explore solutions for content sharing.

"I don't know who Minister Pakosta is referring to, but I certainly did not leave that meeting with such an understanding," Koorberg said. "I have since asked several colleagues, including the representative from ERR, whether they came away with that impression. I can't read the minister's mind, but when a proposal is made, I understand it to be presented in a way that the other party can clearly recognize it as such. At this point, no such understanding has been established."

In her interview with Delfi, Pakosta spoke about the need to change the law if ERR refuses to share its content. Koorberg argued that this gives the impression that the minister is targeting the autonomy of both public broadcasting and universities.

"This would mean directly infringing on public broadcasting's autonomy. But it seems to me that the minister is not stopping there — she has also explicitly mentioned university research. Universities, too, are autonomous institutions governed by their own laws. So, would we also need to amend university legislation to nationalize their content and then provide it for free to competing organizations or companies? I see no other way to interpret this," he said.

"I don't know if the minister is implying that, but that is the conclusion one could draw from her statement," Koorberg added.

He emphasized that ERR is not a government-controlled organization but a public institution. "When government representatives say, "If necessary, we will change the law to strangle you," I perceive that as a direct attack on public broadcasting's autonomy. Even as a representative of private media, I must say that such attacks are unacceptable," Koorberg concluded.

Samost: Pakosta made no proposal regarding sharing full texts

In an interview with Delfi, Minister Liisa Pakosta claimed that at the meeting with the Media Association, ERR was represented by News and Sports Editor-in-Chief Anvar Samost, who allegedly received a "very clear proposal" that the minister was expecting ERR to submit its own proposal regarding full-text content sharing.

Samost, however, stated that no such proposal was made during the meeting.

"The meeting was about the Public Information Act. There were many people present who can all likely confirm that Minister Pakosta did not make such a proposal, even though she spoke extensively about various topics unrelated to the Public Information Act," Samost said.

Pakosta: We verbally agreed to explore sharing texts with AI

Minister Liisa Pakosta told ERR that while the primary topic of the January 21 meeting was the Public Information Act, there was also an informal agreement that media organizations would explore the possibility of sharing text content with artificial intelligence.

"This was the main topic of the meeting, and in connection with that, we also agreed to discuss at the next meeting how to proceed with making full texts available for AI use," Pakosta said.

"I asked participants to think about their initial ideas in preparation for the next meeting. I also pointed out that we should clearly distinguish between private companies — represented by the Estonian Media Association — where profit-making is a crucial and necessary aspect, and public broadcasting, which operates under the Public Broadcasting Act. Section 4 of that act clearly states that the purpose of public broadcasting is to provide information for self-fulfillment and to support the preservation of the Estonian language," she explained.

"Public broadcasting operates with taxpayers' money, and its business model, so to speak, is entirely different, as are its objectives. That is the context in which we concluded the meeting — I had raised the topic and asked participants to start gathering ideas for the next discussion," Pakosta said, adding that no decisions were made on the matter. "But yes, I did make that proposal."

ERR pointed out that attendees of the meeting, including Väino Koorberg and Anvar Samost, stated that they did not receive any such proposal.

"It is true that we did not present this proposal in writing," Pakosta acknowledged. "If we have now reached a point in Estonia where everything discussed in meetings must also be confirmed in writing — of course, we will get to that stage as well. But right now, we are in the process of scheduling the next meeting with the understanding that these discussions will continue."

The minister also clarified her statement in the Delfi interview, where she suggested that if public broadcasting categorically refuses to share its content, a political decision or legislative amendment might be necessary.

"We are learning a lot from other countries that have made societal agreements to protect their small national languages — examples include Iceland and the Netherlands. In some cases, such societal agreements may indeed require legislative amendments," Pakosta explained.

"Currently, Estonia's Public Broadcasting Act is already designed to support the development and preservation of the Estonian language," she continued. "All previous content created under this act has been funded by taxpayers. Now we must reach a societal agreement on whether taxpayers should pay additional costs, whether another solution should be found or whether the issue can be resolved through interpretation of existing laws."

"I should also emphasize that this matter is not just about Estonian law, but also European Union law. The EU requires public access to texts for innovation purposes, while also allowing an 'opt-out' mechanism," she said.

"Will ERR make use of this option? To what extent? Would ERR even be able to sell, for example, news articles that are five years old, given that the current Public Broadcasting Act prohibits selling them? All of these questions need to be examined, and if no agreement is reached, we will have to determine what the optimal solution is," Pakosta added.

She rejected claims that her proposals interfere with ERR's autonomy. "I completely disagree. I encourage all critics to review Section 4 of the Public Broadcasting Act and the objectives set for ERR. I believe we are currently discussing the interpretation of these objectives and how best to ensure the survival of the Estonian language over time — language preservation is one of ERR's key missions."

She stressed that she expects ERR to present its own proposals on how best to achieve this goal.

When asked whether any legal changes would also apply to universities, Pakosta responded: "That depends on the societal agreement we reach. Just because one sector is approached in a certain way does not mean that another sector must be treated the same."

"For several years, Estonia has been developing a language corpus suitable for AI training and further development. This has been an excellent and important decision because it helps ensure the longevity of the Estonian language."

"But language alone is not enough," Pakosta emphasized. "In addition to language, we also need to ensure that our culture endures over time. Culture is closely tied to full-text content and high-quality data contained within those texts. This cultural preservation aspect is where societal agreements are lacking and where we are seeking them."

"Language is simpler — preparations have already been made, and we have development plans in place to actively provide and distribute the Estonian language corpus. But when it comes to cultural content — current, high-quality full texts — we are still working towards a societal agreement. If such an agreement requires changes to one or another law, then the legal amendments would be a consequence of that societal agreement, not the other way around," Pakosta said.

In early February, Pakosta stated that to ensure the survival of the Estonian language, AI giants should be given free access to content — a statement that drew strong criticism from Estonia's media companies.

The European private media umbrella organization News Media Europe also called on the Estonian Ministry of Justice to reconsider its decision to hand over Estonia's open-access language corpus to Meta.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!