You probably rarely, if ever, think about copyright law. But if you want to understand why so many lawsuits are being filed against AI companies, it’s essential to know a little about copyright law. And whether you know it or not, these issues affect you.
If you’ve ever written a blog post, taken a photo, or created an original video, you own the copyright. Most of us do, which means copyright law—its protections, limitations, and enforcement—is more relevant to you than you think. Unfortunately, copyright in the era of generative AI is a complete disaster.
The race to develop the most advanced AI models shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. In order to create these next-generation models, tech companies are looking for a lot of high-quality human-generated content. They need this work to improve their AI models, whether it’s giving a chatbot a more realistic personality or an image generator with more artistic styles to reference. On the other hand, AI enthusiasts may wonder whether it is possible to receive copyright protection for AI-based creative works.
Learn more: Trump outlines new AI regulation plan: what’s in it and what’s missing
Most AI companies have been very vague about the content they use, leading to more than 30 lawsuits in US courts. You may have heard of some of the more notable cases, like The New York Times v. OpenAI, in which the publisher alleges that ChatGPT used journalists’ articles verbatim without attribution or proper permission.
I spend a lot of time thinking about copyright and AI in my reporting on AI creative services. I’ve interviewed intellectual property lawyers, spoken with many affected creators, and spent far too much time breaking down the legalese of government agencies. I used this experience to create this guide on what you need to know about copyright in the age of AI, which we will continue to update as things evolve.
(Disclosure: Ziff Davis, the parent company of CNET, filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in 2025, alleging that it had violated Ziff Davis’ copyrights in the training and operation of its AI systems..)
What is copyright?
Copyright is a set of expressed rights that protect “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or hereafter developed, from which they may be viewed, reproduced or otherwise communicated”, under the Copyright Act 1976.
In other words, copyright is a legal protection that gives original authors the rights and control over their original works. Copyright protection can apply to books, works of art, music, films, computer programs, blogs, architectural designs, plays, choreographies and much more. We are all copyright owners. As the US Copyright Office says: “Once you create and correct an original work, such as taking a photo, writing a poem or blog, or recording a new song, you are its author and owner. »
There are several ways in which copyright intersects with AI. On the bottom line, people who use AI services like chatbots and image generators want to know if their AI-based work is eligible for copyright protection. On the development side, there are many concerns that AI companies are illegally using copyrighted material. Here’s what we know so far.
Can I copyright an image or text I generated with AI?
As with many legal questions, the answer is: it depends.
Our advice on this issue comes primarily from the US Copyright Office, the federal agency responsible for managing copyrights. The Office has released a series of reports on AI and copyright with its latest guidance. In the second report, the Office maintained his position that images and videos generated entirely by AI are not eligible for copyright protection.
However, there are now a number of AI generative editing tools. These tools aren’t used for overall creation, but they use AI to do things like add or remove objects, remove actor ages, or fine-tune audio and video. You can still register and potentially receive copyright protection for AI-edited content, but you must disclose your use of the AI. On the Public Records Portal, you can see in the notes how people used AI in creating their copyrighted work.
In rare cases, you may receive copyright protection for an entirely AI-generated work, but you must demonstrate that your contribution or creative manipulation of those AI-generated materials meets the level of protection. Here’s how one company managed to do it.
Can copyrighted content be used to train AI?
The basic principle of copyright law is that the rights holder – usually the original creator, sometimes in other cases a person’s employer – can decide how they want their works to be used. In many cases, owners choose to license their content; this allows people to use copyrighted works, for a fee, with proper attribution. So, if a copyright owner wants to allow an AI company to use their content to train AI models, there is nothing wrong or illegal about that. Many publishers, including the Financial Times and Axel Springer brands, have entered into multimillion-dollar deals with AI companies for this purpose.
Problems arise when AI companies potentially use copyrighted content without first receiving permission from the copyright holders. And that’s what creators claim in numerous lawsuits, including a class-action lawsuit led by conceptual artist Karla Ortiz against Stability AI. There are currently over 30 ongoing lawsuits between AI companies and creators over copyright concerns.
Decades of copyright laws indicate that such use, without permission, is not permitted. Some creators claim that tech companies have violated their copyrights. Infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is “reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work” without the permission of the copyright owner, as defined by the Copyright Office.
It will be up to the courts to decide whether the use of copyrighted material in AI development meets the threshold for infringement. In the meantime, many tech companies are trying to pursue an alternative solution: a fair use exception.
What is fair use and what does it have to do with AI?
The fair use doctrine is a fundamental part of copyright law, part of the Copyright Act of 1976. Fair use allows users to use copyrighted material without the express permission of the owner for specific purposes. In the pre-AI era, cases of fair use included a teacher using a copyrighted book for educational purposes or a journalist referencing a copyrighted work in media coverage. There are four factors that determine whether a person’s use qualifies as fair use, including:
-
The purpose of use: How would the person using copyrighted material use it? Commercial interests — whether someone can make money from its use — are important here.
-
The nature of the protected work: What is the actual format of the disputed work: is it factual like a newspaper article or highly creative like a work of art?
-
The amount and importance of use: How much copyrighted work does someone want to use? Even if it’s only a small part, if it’s the “core of the work” it might not qualify for a fair use defense.
-
The effect on the market: By using a copyrighted work in a proposed manner, will this compete with the original author? And what effect will this have on the market as a whole?
Questions arise about all factors when it comes to fair use and AI, said Christian Mammen, an intellectual property attorney and managing partner of the San Francisco office at Womble Bond Dickinson. There is also debate over whether fair use factors apply to AI input, output, or both.
“Does this apply on the input side, where you take all the work in that training data, or does it apply on the output side, where there may be a tiny little unrecognizable influence by a particular work in the output?” » said Mammen.
Tech companies are pushing for a fair use exception because it would allow them to use copyrighted content without contacting all rights holders or paying licensing fees. For companies like OpenAI and Google – which have already spent billions of dollars on development – a fair use exception would save a lot of time and money.
Google said (PDF) that fair use would allow it to continue to innovate quickly; OpenAI took a parallel approach and declared that unfettered AI innovation is a matter of national security. The Copyright Office essentially on the question of fair usesaying in its third report that there might be instances where a case for fair use could be made, but that there would be times when this would not meet the necessary criteria. The Supreme Court also refused to hear a long-standing case on the question.
We have seen two major lawsuits finding with AI companies that their use of copyrighted books was fair use. Anthropic won his caseas the judge found his use of the copyrighted books “extremely transformative.” However, authors whose works were allegedly pirated can receive compensation as part of a $1.5 billion settlement. Two days after Anthropic’s victory, Meta won on a similar case.
Giving tech companies carte blanche to go wild with copyrighted content is not something creators are excited about. In March, more than 400 screenwriters, actors and directors signed an open letter asking the Trump administration not to grant OpenAI and Google a fair use exception. They wrote that Google and OpenAI “argue for a special government exemption so that they can freely exploit America’s creative and knowledge industries, despite their substantial revenues and disposable funds. There is no reason to weaken or eliminate the copyright protections that have helped America prosper.”
The Trump administration said in its new AI policy framework that he believes the use of copyrighted content in training AI models is fair use, but he believes the issue should be fully resolved in court.
What does all this mean for the future?
Copyright owners are currently in a waiting situation. But beyond the legal and ethical implications, copyright in the AI era raises important questions about the value of creative work, the cost of innovation, and how we need or should benefit from government intervention and protections.
There are two distinct ways to look at U.S. intellectual property laws, Mammen said. The first is that these laws were enacted to encourage and reward human flourishing. The other is more focused on the economy; the things we create have value, and we want our economy to be able to recognize that value accordingly.
“For most of our history, the humanist approach and the industrial policy approach have been pretty well aligned,” Mammen said. But generative AI has highlighted the different approaches to copyright and intellectual property.
“Do these laws exist primarily as part of an industrial economic policy, or do they exist as part of a humanist approach that values and encourages human flourishing by rewarding human creators?” he asked. “At the highest and most abstract level, I would say that this is one of the questions imposed by these debates.”