{"id":103288,"date":"2026-08-18T10:11:25","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T09:11:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=103288"},"modified":"2026-08-18T10:26:53","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T09:26:53","slug":"model-distillation-ai-model-under-belgian-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a competitor extract data from your AI model to train its own?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In late 2025, Anthropic, the company behind the chatbot Claude, accused, in a letter to the U.S. Senate<\/a> The Chinese company Alibaba reportedly conducted some 28.8 million conversations with Claude via 25,000 fake accounts over a six-week period. Not to use Claude, but to save the responses as training data for their own, cheaper model. This technique is called model distillation, and the Dutch blog The Digital Gavel<\/a> recently explained clearly how it works from a technical standpoint. We address the legal question that arises in this context here, based on Belgian law. The short answer: in Belgium, the responses generated by an AI model are, in principle, not subject to copyright and generally not subject to database rights either, so the provider must primarily rely on its terms of use, the doctrine of third-party liability, and fair market practices. Furthermore, anyone who uses fake accounts risks facing criminal charges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Model Distillation Is and Why Every AI Lab Does It Themselves<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Model distillation involves a teacher and a student. The teacher model is large, expensive, and capable: the development costs for such a model run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The student model is small and inexpensive. Instead of training the student model on the entire internet itself, the developer asks the teacher model millions of questions, stores each answer, and has the student model learn those question-answer pairs. After millions of repetitions, the student model begins to resemble the teacher surprisingly well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This technique is quite common. The major AI labs distill their own state-of-the-art models into low-cost \u201cmini\u201d versions that run on a laptop or phone. Moreover, since the emergence of reasoning models\u2014which spell out their thought processes in full in the response text\u2014distillation using standard output has become dramatically cheaper. In early 2025, a team from Stanford and the University of Washington trained a model using barely a thousand sampled questions, TechCrunch reported<\/a>, a competitive reasoning model requiring less than fifty dollars' worth of computing power; the researchers described their methodology in the s1-paper<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The distinction between product development and a problem therefore lies not in the technology, but in authorization. Anyone who creates their own model is launching a product. Anyone who extracts data from a competitor\u2019s model via its public interface is generally violating the terms of use. The question is what the provider can do about it under Belgian law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Copyright Law Doesn't Help the AI Provider<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The first instinct of an aggrieved company is to invoke copyright. That instinct runs aground here. Copyright protection requires a work that is original: an intellectual creation of one\u2019s own that is expressed through the author\u2019s free and creative choices. In established case law, the Court of Cassation defines this as a discernible human creative activity that gives the work a personal stamp. A text generated by a language model without human creative intervention is a mechanical result and therefore not a work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s not a new insight. As we analyzed earlier in our article on the question of whether a painting created by artificial intelligence<\/a> is protected by copyright, and later about images generated by generative AI<\/a>, the effectiveness of the protection depends entirely on human input. With 28.8 million automatically generated responses, there is no human input for each response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the provider of the teacher model, this presents an awkward situation. His crown jewels\u2014the high-quality answers\u2014are precisely the part of his product that is not protected by exclusive rights. The training data, the model weights, and the surrounding software may indeed be protected, but the distiller does not copy those. He only copies what the model says. You can find more background on this tension on our overview page about Artificial Intelligence and Copyright<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does database law offer a solution, then?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A second avenue is database law. The Code of Economic Law (CEL<\/a>) The producer of a database is granted a sui generis right: he may prohibit the extraction and reuse of the entire contents of his database or a substantial part thereof (Art. XI.307 WER). This right protects investment rather than creativity, and it is interpreted broadly. The Court of Justice ruled in the judgment Innoweb<\/a> (ECJ, December 19, 2013, C-202\/12) even held that a search engine that makes a protected database searchable in real time reuses its entire content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there are three issues with applying this to an AI model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the definition. A database is a collection of independent elements that are systematically or methodically arranged and individually accessible (Art. I.13, 6\u00b0 WER, transposition of the Database Directive<\/a>). A trained language model is not an ordered collection of retrievable elements: the knowledge is embedded in billions of parameters, and no single element can be retrieved separately. Furthermore, the answers only come into existence at the moment they are generated. Therefore, before the distillation operation begins, there is no existing database from which to retrieve information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the investment. Protection requires a substantial investment in the acquisition, verification, or presentation of the content, and the Court of Justice expressly excludes investment in the creation of the data from this requirement (see, among others, the judgment British Horseracing Board<\/a>, ECJ, November 9, 2004, C-203\/02). The hundreds of millions invested in the model are costs incurred to be able to create answers. It is precisely that investment in creation that is not taken into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, and this is often overlooked: the sui generis right is granted only to producers with a connection to the European Union (Art. XI.315 WER). An American provider without a European business presence that meets the conditions cannot invoke this right in Belgium under any circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a collection of data falls outside the scope of both copyright and the sui generis right, the Court of Justice ruled in its judgment Ryanair<\/a> (ECJ, January 15, 2015, C-30\/14) that the operator is free to regulate its use by contract. Protection then shifts entirely to the terms of use. More on that in a moment. Anyone who wishes to read about the regime in detail can find the building blocks on our page about database law<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are the responses from an AI model a trade secret?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The third line of inquiry involves trade secrets. Since the implementation of the Trade Secrets Directive<\/a> Title 8\/1 of Book XI of the WER protects information that is secret, has commercial value because it is secret, and is subject to reasonable confidentiality measures (Art. I.17\/1, 1\u00b0 WER).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This qualification generally applies to the model weights, the training methods, and the model\u2019s internal probability distributions. No provider shares this information through its public channels. But the aggregator does not withhold that internal information. It collects the answers, and those answers are shared with every paying customer. Information that is, by definition, shared with third parties loses its confidential nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question remains whether querying the model on a massive scale constitutes a prohibited form of reverse engineering. Here, too, the law does not automatically protect the provider: observing, researching, and testing a product that has been made available to the public is a lawful means of acquisition (Art. XI.332\/4 in conjunction with Art. XI.332\/3, \u00a7 1, 2\u00b0 WER), unless a valid contractual restriction provides otherwise. And so, once again, everything comes down to the terms of use. An overview of this protection regime can be found on our page about trade secrets and know-how<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Terms of Use as the actual line of defense<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Every major AI provider prohibits, in its terms of service, the use of its output to train competing models. Anyone who creates an account accepts those terms. The distiller who flouts this prohibition is therefore in breach of contract, with all the consequences that entails: damages, termination of the contract, and account closure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, the distiller is rarely at the table himself. According to reports, the operation against Claude was carried out through thousands of seemingly normal accounts\u2014each generating an average of 25 questions per day\u2014and through intermediaries in China who resold access at discounts of up to 90 percent, kept track of the conversation logs, and sold those logs as training data. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Civil Code (CC<\/a>) codified the doctrine of third-party complicity in 2023: a third party commits a tort when he participates in a party\u2019s failure to fulfill its contractual obligations, while he knew or ought to have known of those obligations (Art. 5.111 of the Civil Code). A company that purchases training logs from a reseller\u2014even though every professional in the industry knows that the provider\u2019s terms of use prohibit such reuse\u2014therefore directly exposes itself to a claim by the provider itself. Although the contract is binding only on the account holder, the third party who knowingly profits from this breach may be held liable on a non-contractual basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, the law governing market practices provides an independent basis for action against a competing distiller. Article VI.104 of the WER prohibits any act contrary to fair market practices by which one enterprise harms or may harm the business interests of another enterprise; potential harm is sufficient. Systematically skimming off another party\u2019s product in order to replicate it at a fraction of the cost is a classic example of parasitic free-riding. The supplier may file an injunction against this with the presiding judge of the Commercial Court, who sits as in summary proceedings (Art. XVII.1 WER): a swift procedure on the merits, without a requirement of urgency. You can read more about this concept on our page about unfair market practices<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where Fake Accounts Enter the Criminal Justice System<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The distillation process itself is one thing. The way it is organized is another. When Anthropic introduced an identity verification process requiring a live selfie during account creation, reports indicate that within a few weeks, a black market emerged for AI-generated IDs and deepfake cameras, with accounts being traded for about thirty dollars each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Belgian law, the classification then shifts from breach of contract to a criminal offense. The Criminal Code<\/a> (Sw.) punishes anyone who gains access to a computer system or remains in it while knowing that they are not authorized to do so, and anyone who, with fraudulent intent, exceeds their access privileges (Art. 550bis, \u00a7 1 and \u00a7 2 Sw.; as of September 1, 2026, external and internal hacking under Articles 524 and 525 of the new Penal Code). Anyone who gains access using a false identity document after the provider has refused or closed their account knows that they are not authorized. Creating accounts with AI-generated identity documents may also constitute computer fraud: entering data into a computer system in a way that alters its legal significance (Art. 210bis of the Penal Code; effective September 1, 2026, included in the technology-neutral provision on forgery in documents or on other durable media under Article 451 of the new Penal Code). Our page on hacking<\/a> examines these computer crimes in greater detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Uncomfortable Mirror: AI Labs Train Themselves Using Others' Work<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There is an ironic side to the outrage expressed by AI providers. The very same companies that are now speaking of theft trained their teacher models using the work of millions of authors, photographers, and journalists\u2014often without permission. In 2025, Anthropic reached a $1.5 billion settlement with American authors over this issue, who was finally approved on July 20, 2026<\/a> by the federal court in California.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Belgian and European law, however, such training is not automatically unlawful. The transposition of the DSM Directive<\/a> introduced an exception for text and data mining: the reproduction of lawfully accessible works for the purpose of text and data mining is permitted, unless the author has expressly reserved his or her rights in an appropriate manner, in the case of online content via machine-readable means (Art. XI.190, 20\u00b0 WER). For research organizations, there is a separate, non-excludable exception (Art. XI.191\/1, \u00a7 1, 7\u00b0 WER). The AI Regulation<\/a> Furthermore, it requires providers of general-purpose AI models to have a policy in place to identify and respect those opt-outs (Art. 53(1)(c) of the AI Regulation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal symmetry is therefore striking. Training on human-generated data is permitted unless the rights holder objects in a machine-readable format. Training using model output is not prohibited by an exclusive right, but it is contractually excluded. In both cases, the deciding factor is not property rights, but rather the question of who has made which reservation and who has accepted which clause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, what does this mean?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For providers of AI models.<\/strong> Don\u2019t rely on copyright or database rights to protect your output; build your defense around the terms of use. Ensure that the prohibition on data extraction in the terms of use is worded unambiguously\u2014including for resellers and API access\u2014and that acceptance of these terms is verifiable on a per-account basis. Document the detection: the pattern of thousands of accounts with similar queries is your evidence of breach of contract, third-party complicity, and claims regarding unfair market practices. Treat the model weights and internal parameters as trade secrets, with contractual and technical confidentiality measures that you can demonstrate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For companies that want to train a model or purchase derived training data.<\/strong> Distill your own model or work with the provider\u2019s express permission; some providers offer distillation as a paid service. If you purchase datasets from third parties, conduct a provenance check: anyone who acquires training logs that they should know were collected in violation of another party\u2019s terms of use risks a direct liability claim under Article 5.111 of the Dutch Civil Code and a cease-and-desist order for unfair market practices. If you have any doubts about the terms of such a dataset deal, you would be well advised to seek assistance in advance from a lawyer specializing in intellectual property<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Is the text generated by a chatbot protected by copyright?<\/strong>
In principle, no. Copyright requires human creative activity with a personal touch. An answer generated autonomously by a language model is a mechanical result and therefore not a work. Only when a person subsequently edits the output using their own free and creative choices can copyright arise in that edited work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can I use the responses from ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini to train my own AI model?<\/strong>
The terms of service of the major providers expressly prohibit this. If you do so using your own account, you are in breach of contract. If you purchase the data from an intermediary, you risk being held liable as a third-party accomplice to that breach of contract (Art. 5.111 of the Dutch Civil Code) and being subject to an injunction for unfair market practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can an AI provider in Belgium bring criminal charges against someone for model distillation?<\/strong>
Not for the distillation itself, but for the context. Anyone who gains access to the platform using false identity information or after being denied an account may be guilty of unauthorized access to a computer system (Art. 550bis of the Penal Code; effective September 1, 2026, Articles 524\u2013525 of the new Penal Code) and computer fraud (Art. 210bis of the Penal Code; effective September 1, 2026, Article 451 of the new Penal Code).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Model distillation exposes a gap in intellectual property law: the most valuable component of an AI product\u2014the answers themselves\u2014is protected in Belgium neither by copyright nor, generally speaking, by database law. The AI provider\u2019s actual protection lies in its terms of use, reinforced by the third-party liability under Article 5.111 of the Civil Code, injunctive relief for unfair market practices, and\u2014in the case of fake accounts\u2014criminal law. Anyone in Belgium who wishes to train a model or purchase derived training data should therefore first review the contractual chain, not just intellectual property law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n
Do you have questions about protecting your AI model, using AI output as training data, or the terms of use for your AI service? Contact our attorneys specializing in AI law and intellectual property for an initial assessment of your case.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eind 2025 beschuldigde Anthropic, het bedrijf achter chatbot Claude, in een brief aan de Amerikaanse Senaat het Chinese Alibaba ervan via 25.000 nepaccounts in zes weken tijd zo’n 28,8 miljoen gesprekken met Claude te hebben gevoerd. Niet om Claude te gebruiken, maar om de antwoorden op te slaan als trainingsmateriaal voor een eigen, goedkoper model. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":103289,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[58,177,45,60],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-auteursrecht","category-bedrijfsgeheimen","category-cybercriminaliteit","category-databankrecht"],"yoast_head":"\nModeldestillatie: mag dat juridisch? | ICT Rechtswijzer<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Een concurrent vraagt uw AI-model leeg om er zelf een te trainen. Wat zegt het Belgisch recht over modeldestillatie? Onze analyse per rechtsgrond.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/model-distillation-ai-model-under-belgian-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mag een concurrent uw AI-model leegvragen om er zelf een te trainen?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Een concurrent vraagt uw AI-model leeg om er zelf een te trainen. Wat zegt het Belgisch recht over modeldestillatie? Onze analyse per rechtsgrond.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/model-distillation-ai-model-under-belgian-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-18T09:11:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-18T09:26:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\"},\"headline\":\"Mag een concurrent uw AI-model leegvragen om er zelf een te trainen?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-18T09:11:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-18T09:26:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2400,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Auteursrecht\",\"Bedrijfsgeheimen\",\"Cybercriminaliteit\",\"Databankrecht\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/\",\"name\":\"Modeldestillatie: mag dat juridisch? | ICT Rechtswijzer\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-18T09:11:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-18T09:26:53+00:00\",\"description\":\"Een concurrent vraagt uw AI-model leeg om er zelf een te trainen. Wat zegt het Belgisch recht over modeldestillatie? Onze analyse per rechtsgrond.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mag een concurrent uw AI-model leegvragen om er zelf een te trainen?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\",\"description\":\"Advocaten in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"Organization\",\"LegalService\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer\",\"alternateName\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer, kennisplatform van Everest Advocaten\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"width\":638,\"height\":479,\"caption\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/be.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/everest-law\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.everest-law.eu\\\/\"],\"description\":\"Kennisplatform van het departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht van Everest Advocaten, onder leiding van mr. Joris Deene.\",\"parentOrganization\":{\"@type\":\"LegalService\",\"name\":\"Everest Advocaten\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.everest-law.eu\",\"address\":{\"@type\":\"PostalAddress\",\"streetAddress\":\"Bollebergen 2A bus 20\",\"postalCode\":\"9052\",\"addressLocality\":\"Gent\",\"addressCountry\":\"BE\"}}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\",\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Joris Deene\"},\"description\":\"Mr. Joris Deene is advocaat-partner bij Everest Advocaten en leidt het departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht. ICT Rechtswijzer is het kennisplatform van dat departement. Joris publiceert en doceert over auteursrecht, merkenrecht, softwarerecht, de AVG, de AI-Act, de DSA en het mediarecht.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/joris-deene-5144096\\\/\"],\"honorificPrefix\":\"Mr.\",\"knowsAbout\":[\"intellectuele eigendom\",\"auteursrecht\",\"merkenrecht\",\"IT-recht\",\"AI-recht\",\"gegevensbescherming\",\"AVG\",\"mediarecht\",\"digitaledienstenverordening\",\"AI-verordening\"],\"knowsLanguage\":[\"Nederlands\",\"Engels\",\"Frans\"],\"jobTitle\":\"Advocaat-partner, hoofd departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht\",\"worksFor\":\"Everest Advocaten\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/en\\\/author\\\/joris-deene\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Model Distillation: Is It Legally Permissible? | ICT Legal Guide","description":"A competitor requests your AI model in its raw form in order to train its own. What does Belgian law say about model distillation? Our analysis by legal basis.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/model-distillation-ai-model-under-belgian-law\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mag een concurrent uw AI-model leegvragen om er zelf een te trainen?","og_description":"Een concurrent vraagt uw AI-model leeg om er zelf een te trainen. Wat zegt het Belgisch recht over modeldestillatie? Onze analyse per rechtsgrond.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/model-distillation-ai-model-under-belgian-law\/","og_site_name":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat","article_published_time":"2026-08-18T09:11:25+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-18T09:26:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Joris Deene","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Joris Deene","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/"},"author":{"name":"Joris Deene","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685"},"headline":"Mag een concurrent uw AI-model leegvragen om er zelf een te trainen?","datePublished":"2026-08-18T09:11:25+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-18T09:26:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/"},"wordCount":2400,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["Auteursrecht","Bedrijfsgeheimen","Cybercriminaliteit","Databankrecht"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/","name":"Model Distillation: Is It Legally Permissible? | ICT Legal Guide","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-18T09:11:25+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-18T09:26:53+00:00","description":"A competitor requests your AI model in its raw form in order to train its own. What does Belgian law say about model distillation? Our analysis by legal basis.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/pexels-dkomov-34804018-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/modeldestillatie-ai-model-belgisch-recht\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mag een concurrent uw AI-model leegvragen om er zelf een te trainen?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","name":"ICT Lawyer","description":"Lawyers in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["Organization","LegalService"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization","name":"ICT Legal Guide","alternateName":"ICT Rechtswijzer, kennisplatform van Everest Advocaten","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","width":638,"height":479,"caption":"ICT Rechtswijzer"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/be.linkedin.com\/company\/everest-law","https:\/\/www.everest-law.eu\/"],"description":"Knowledge platform of the Intellectual Property, IT Law, AI Law, Data Protection, and Media Law department at Everest Advocaten, led by Joris Deene, Esq.","parentOrganization":{"@type":"LegalService","name":"Everest Advocaten","url":"https:\/\/www.everest-law.eu","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"Bollebergen 2A bus 20","postalCode":"9052","addressLocality":"Gent","addressCountry":"BE"}}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685","name":"Joris Deene","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Joris Deene"},"description":"Mr. Joris Deene is a partner at Everest Attorneys and heads the department of intellectual property, IT law, AI law, data protection, and media law. ICT Legal Guide is that department\u2019s knowledge platform. Joris publishes and teaches on copyright law, trademark law, software law, the GDPR, the AI Act, the DSA, and media law.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/joris-deene-5144096\/"],"honorificPrefix":"Mr.","knowsAbout":["intellectuele eigendom","auteursrecht","merkenrecht","IT-recht","AI-recht","gegevensbescherming","AVG","mediarecht","digitaledienstenverordening","AI-verordening"],"knowsLanguage":["Nederlands","Engels","Frans"],"jobTitle":"Advocaat-partner, hoofd departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht","worksFor":"Everest Advocaten","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/author\/joris-deene\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103288","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103288"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103288\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":103292,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103288\/revisions\/103292"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/103289"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}