Hello @Aspie96 I think that this EU rule does not necessarily conflict with a data sharing obligation. The Article concerns retention of “Reproductions and extractions”. I can imagine a data sharing obligations that only requires information / metadata to be released.
In general, any data-sharing rules should distinguish between obligation to make data available and an obligation to disclose the (training) data. The first requirement is in many scenarios hard to meet, for example if the model was trained PETs ( @stefano mentioned this scenario). But the second requirement can always be met, at some leve of granularity / abstraction.
It’s of course then an important question whether disclosure is enough.
This is where I think the conversation from data could benefit from a clear technical perspective, that considers to what extent access to data is needed, in the AI development practice, to meet the four freedoms.
The other perspective is of course ethical / normative, and from this perspective the broadest possible access would be recommended (“as open as possible, as closed as necessary”, mainly to preserve different data rights).