Since 2020, there have been nearly 40 copyright lawsuits filed against AI companies in the US. In this intensifying battle over AI-generated content, creators, AI companies, and policymakers are each pushing competing narratives. These arguments, however, tend to get so impassioned that they obscure three crucial questions that should be addressed separately — yet they rarely are. First, how does existing copyright law apply to AI? Most existing statutes do not explicitly mention AI. Some legal experts, however, argue that courts can adapt traditional frameworks through judicial interpretation. Others contend that copyright’s human-centered assumptions make such adaptation impossible. Second, where current law proves inadequate, how should the original purpose of copyright law guide new solutions? Copyright was conceived by the Founders to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” by providing creators with limited monopolies over their work. In the AI era, multiple stakeholders have legitimate claims: creators whose works train AI systems, developers building AI technology, and the general public, who benefit from progress (both AI- and human-driven). Third, how should broader societal concerns, like maintaining American technological competitiveness or mitigating labor-market disruption, influence our approach to copyright in the AI era, despite being tangential to copyright’s original purpose?
Can Copyright Survive AI? (Laura González Salmerón – AI Frontiers)
Related articles
