In today’s digital age, where artificial intelligence (AI) technologies such as chatbots, image generators, and video synthesis tools are rapidly advancing, copyright law has emerged as a critical and complex issue. While many people may not frequently consider copyright in their daily lives, almost everyone who creates original content—whether a photograph, a blog post, a piece of music, or artwork—is a copyright owner. This reality becomes especially important as AI systems increasingly rely on vast amounts of human-created content to train their models and generate new outputs. However, the intersection of AI and copyright has become a legal and ethical quagmire, sparking numerous lawsuits and intense debate over the use of copyrighted materials in AI development and the copyright status of AI-generated works.
At the heart of the controversy is the fact that AI developers require enormous datasets of high-quality, human-generated content to build and refine their models. These datasets help improve AI capabilities—for instance, enabling chatbots to exhibit more natural conversational styles or allowing image generators to emulate diverse artistic techniques. Yet, the question arises: can AI companies legally use copyrighted content without the explicit permission of the original creators? Simultaneously, AI users themselves often wonder whether works created with AI tools qualify for copyright protection. These dual concerns—copyright on both the input (training data) and output (AI-generated content) sides—fuel ongoing legal battles and discussions.
The legal framework governing copyright in the United States is rooted in the Copyright Act of 1976, which protects “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” This protection grants creators exclusive rights to control the use and distribution of their original works, such as books, music, films, software, and artwork. As the U.S. Copyright Office explains, once a person creates and fixes an original work—whether by writing a poem, taking a photograph, or recording a song—they become the author and copyright owner. This foundation, however, becomes complicated when AI enters the picture.
One major point of contention involves whether AI-generated works themselves are eligible for copyright protection. According to the U.S. Copyright Office’s recent reports, works created entirely by AI without human authorship are generally not eligible for copyright. However, many AI tools today function more as creative assistants rather than sole creators. For example, AI editing software can modify images or videos by adding or removing elements, de-aging actors, or enhancing audio quality. In such cases where humans contribute creative input or manipulate AI outputs, copyright protection may still apply—provided that the user discloses the involvement of AI in the creative process. This nuanced stance reflects an evolving understanding of the role AI plays in artistic creation.
In rare instances, copyright protection can be granted for works predominantly generated by AI if the human’s creative input or manipulation is substantial enough to meet the requirements of originality. One company successfully demonstrated this by proving that the human contribution to the AI-generated work was significant and creative. Nevertheless, these cases are exceptions rather than the rule.
On the flip side, the use of copyrighted works as training data for AI models without permission has triggered an avalanche of lawsuits. Many creators and publishers allege that AI companies have used their copyrighted content without authorization, effectively infringing on their rights. Infringement, as defined by copyright law, occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, publicly displayed, or transformed into a derivative work without the copyright holder’s consent. Among the most high-profile cases is The New York Times suing OpenAI, accusing the company of using journalists’ articles verbatim to train ChatGPT without attribution or permission. Similarly, CNET’s parent company, Ziff Davis, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI on similar grounds.
To date, over 30 lawsuits are underway in U.S. courts involving AI companies and copyright holders. Many of these legal battles hinge on whether the use of copyrighted content in AI training qualifies as infringement or whether it falls under the “fair use” doctrine—a complex and often subjective legal principle that allows limited use of copyrighted works without permission under specific circumstances.
Fair use, codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, permits the use of copyrighted material without explicit consent for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. To determine whether a use qualifies as fair use, courts consider four factors: the purpose and character of the use (including whether it is commercial or transformative), the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the