GenAI vs. Copyright: Who Owns Creativity in The AI Era?
The future of AI-generated content and its impact on creators hangs in the balance. The core issues are whether training AI on copyrighted material is infringement, and if AI-created content can be copyrighted.
In the last two years since the launch of ChatGPT, AI tools have faced an avalanche of legal challenges, with accusations of copyright infringement at the center of these disputes. From authors and visual artists to news organizations and music publishers, creative professionals have rallied against AI companies, arguing that their intellectual property has been exploited without permission or compensation. At the heart of this debate lie two critical copyright issues:
- Does the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials in AI training datasets constitute copyright infringement?
- Can AI-generated outputs be granted copyright protection?
As courts, policymakers, and tech giants wrestle with these questions, the resolution could reshape the very foundation of copyright law in the digital age.
The Complexities of AI and Copyright
The copyright concerns surrounding AI are twofold—both its inputs and outputs raise serious legal and ethical dilemmas. AI models are trained on vast amounts of data, much of which is protected by copyright. Companies like OpenAI, Stability AI, Microsoft, and Google have faced allegations of scraping copyrighted content from books, articles, artwork, music, and code to train their models, often without the consent of the original creators.
The second contentious issue revolves around AI-generated outputs. If an AI model trained on copyrighted works generates content that is strikingly similar to an original piece, does that constitute a derivative work? Should AI-generated content be eligible for copyright protection, and if so, who owns the rights—the AI company, the human prompter, or no one at all?
The Battle for Ownership: Who Controls AI Creations?
AI-generated content sits in a legal gray area. While some argue that AI-generated works should not be copyrighted due to their derivative nature, others see AI as a tool that democratizes creativity. Courts in different jurisdictions have ruled differently, adding to the confusion:
- United Kingdom: Copyright protection may be granted if human users significantly contribute to AI-generated works.
- China: Copyright has been awarded when a user’s prompt demonstrates sufficient originality.
- United States: The Copyright Office has repeatedly denied copyright protection for fully AI-generated works, emphasizing that human authorship is a key requirement.
A recent U.S. District Court ruling in the Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence case further reinforces this stance. The court ruled that Ross Intelligence’s use of Thomson Reuters’ copyrighted legal headnotes in AI training datasets constituted copyright infringement, rejecting the company’s “fair use” defense. This sets a precedent that using copyrighted material for AI training without permission could lead to legal liability.
Meanwhile, Poland’s largest copyright collective society, ZAiKS, has published a “reservation of rights” regarding text and data mining (TDM), signaling a growing global pushback against AI’s unregulated use of copyrighted content. The Hangzhou Internet Court in China also recently ruled that a defendant’s AI-generated images constituted contributory copyright infringement, ordering damages of 30,000 RMB.
The Future of AI Copyright: Regulation, Compensation, and Fair Use
As legal battles unfold, one thing is clear—AI is forcing a fundamental reassessment of copyright law. Possible solutions include:
- Licensing Agreements: AI companies may be required to license copyrighted materials for training purposes, ensuring fair compensation for creators.
- Transparency in AI Training Data: Establishing clear guidelines on what data can be used and requiring disclosure of training datasets.
- Hybrid Copyright Models: A potential middle ground where AI-generated content can be protected under copyright if significant human creativity is involved.
- New Copyright Exceptions: Policymakers may create new exceptions for AI under the “fair use” doctrine, particularly for non-commercial or transformative applications.
Conclusion: Balancing Innovation and Creator Rights
Generative AI is at the crossroads of innovation and intellectual property law. While AI’s capabilities continue to evolve at an astonishing pace, the ethical and legal frameworks governing its use remain uncertain. The challenge for regulators, courts, and the creative community is to strike a balance—protecting original works while fostering AI-driven creativity. The resolution of these legal battles will determine the future of AI, creativity, and copyright in the digital age. Will we see an era where AI respects intellectual property, or will AI reshape copyright law to fit the new reality of machine-generated content? The answer may shape the creative economy for decades to come.
