Artificial Intelligence Development and Copyright Implications: Is It Permissible or Theft?
In the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence (AI), a significant challenge lies ahead: finding a balance between innovation and creator rights. This delicate dance requires clearer rules, stronger protections, and a shared responsibility for how AI develops moving forward.
AI companies argue that the analysis of patterns in copyrighted works, rather than their direct reproduction, qualifies as a new and lawful use. This claim is based on the U.S. fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted content without permission. However, the legality of this practice remains debatable, with numerous lawsuits testing the boundaries of fair use.
In the United States, the fair use exception allows for the use of copyrighted content without permission, provided a case-by-case analysis of four factors is conducted. These factors include the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the market value or potential market of the original work.
AI companies defend their use of copyrighted data by claiming that ingesting works to learn patterns is transformative and does not substitute for the original work, thus qualifying as fair use. Courts have upheld this view in cases like Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, ruling in favor of fair use for AI training under certain conditions.
However, the legal landscape remains unsettled and evolving. Over 25 lawsuits are pending as of mid-2025, and courts have yet to issue a definitive, universal rule. Controversies persist, such as whether using pirated content in datasets affects fair use and if AI output causing market harm should be factored into fair use analysis.
The EU's AI Act includes rules about data transparency and tracking where content comes from. Meanwhile, major companies like Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. have filed lawsuits against AI companies for using copyrighted content without permission. The Authors Guild, representing a group of well-known writers, is suing OpenAI for using their books without permission to train ChatGPT.
The debate over AI training has implications for creators, tech companies, and the public. Concerns about copyright law, transparency, and fairness are at the forefront, with some arguing that generative AI training involves ingesting entire works without consent, a violation of rights. Generative models can closely mimic the style of specific authors, artists, or musicians, raising concerns about derivative use.
In the UK, new guidance has been released on AI ethics and creative rights. Getty Images sued Stability AI, the company behind Stable Diffusion, for scraping over 12 million of its copyrighted photos without a license. Former President Donald Trump publicly rejected proposals requiring AI companies to compensate creators for training on their work.
As the use of AI continues to grow, so too does the need for clarity on this complex issue. Further legislative or higher court rulings are expected to provide much-needed guidance and bring more certainty to the use of copyrighted material in AI training.
- The debate over AI training and the use of copyrighted material in the United States centers around the fair use doctrine, where AI companies defend their practices by arguing that learning patterns from copyrighted works is transformative, thereby qualifying as a lawful use under the doctrine.
- The legal landscape concerning AI's use of copyrighted content remains unsettled as courts continue to issue rulings on a case-by-case basis, with numerous lawsuits testing the boundaries of fair use and the implications for creators, tech companies, and the public being significant.
