{"id":6524,"date":"2025-06-25T13:19:50","date_gmt":"2025-06-25T13:19:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=6524"},"modified":"2026-04-23T14:48:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T14:48:00","slug":"ai-copyright","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/ai-copyright\/","title":{"rendered":"Artificial intelligence and Copyright"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Scene from the Titanic as replicated by an AI application in the Studio Ghibli style. Click through for video.<\/p><\/div>\n

Artificial intelligence\u00a0 tools<\/strong> were introduced to the public around 2022 and have since become popular and controversial. These tools included OpenAI ChatGPT<\/a>, Midjourney<\/a>,\u00a0 Google’s Gemini,\u00a0 IBM Granite, Microsoft Copilot<\/a>,\u00a0 Adobe Firefly and many more.<\/p>\n

Within a few years, AI tools found a wide variety of uses<\/a>, including assisting with computer coding, health care, architectural design and audio \/ video production.<\/p>\n

As usual, the technology was light years ahead of the law.\u00a0 In copyright, as we have seen, photography and “player” (automatic) pianos were not considered\u00a0 copyrightable until after US Supreme Court decisions in Burrow-Giles v Sarony,<\/a> 1884;\u00a0 and \u00a0White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v Apollo<\/a>, 1908 (1). Video recording had to be sorted out in the \u00a0Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984 case.\u00a0 Audio file sharing was similarly challenged in the A&M Records v. Napster case of 2001 and the\u00a0 MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.<\/a> case of 2005.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Foundations of copyright law will still apply in many cases, regardless of the technology. One of these is the doctrine of\u00a0 “Fair Use<\/a>” (also called Fair Dealing in some countries).\u00a0 In the US,\u00a0 a four-part test is applied when someone wants to use a portion of a copyrighted work without first obtaining permission from the copyright holder. Examples of Fair Use include quoting from a book as part of a book review, or viewing videos in a classroom, or making a parody of a song.\u00a0 The idea of Fair Use is to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest. The key to a fair use parody, under Campbell v Acuff Rose (1994), is substantial transformative value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The “Fake Drake”\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
\"\"<\/a>

The real Aubrey Drake Graham (Wikipedia)<\/p><\/div>\n

In April of 2023, a new song featuring the voices of Drake and The Weeknd drew over fifteen million views on social media and six hundred thousand listens on Spotify.\u00a0 No one was more surprised by the song’s popularity than the artists it imitated through the use of AI. The song — usually called the “Fake Drake” — was taken down from streaming services with only a minor amount of damage done to the artists.<\/p>\n

Yet, as the New York Times said<\/a>, the song represented something more serious.\u00a0 It was “a harbinger of the headaches that can occur when a new technology crosses over into the mainstream consciousness of creators and consumers before the necessary rules are in place.”\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The “Fake Drake” incident was the lead example in a report issued by the US Copyright Office in January, 2025.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

US COPYRIGHT OFFICE 2025 REPORT ON AI\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Following a huge uptick in copyright-related AI controversy, the US Copyright Office issued a three volume report on emerging issue areas:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. REPLICATION<\/a>\u00a0 Are\u00a0 digital replicas (or deep-fakes) generated by AI\u00a0 misappropriations under copyright law?\u00a0 \u00a0This can include song or animation style takeoffs,\u00a0 or misappropriation of a\u00a0 person’s name-image-likeness (NIL).<\/li>\n
  2. COPYRIGHTABILITY: <\/a>\u00a0 Generally, AI media can’t be copyrighted. \u201cIf content is entirely generated by AI, it cannot be protected by copyright\u201d because copyright protection is limited to works of human authorship. This leads to the question of how much human input is required for copyright status.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. \u00a0TRAINING:\u00a0 <\/a>When large language AI models are “trained” on books and other media scraped from the web,\u00a0 is that a “fair use” of that copyrighted\u00a0 material or is it an infringement?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    REPLICATION<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Replicating NILs can be a civil violation under misappropriation laws, but political satire of public figures is a First Amendment right and often re-affirmed in cases such as Hustler Magazine v Falwell<\/a>, 1988.\u00a0 Also, parody of popular films and songs is usually protected under the “substantial transformative value” doctrine (Campbell v Acuff-Rose, 1994<\/a>).<\/p>\n

    Nevertheless, the harms from unregulated replication include broad impacts on creative industries and specific harms from sexual fakes, business fraud and political disinformation. Many of the laws preventing these sorts of property related issues are found at the state level.<\/p>\n

    COPYRIGHTABILITY<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a>

    US artist Ankit Sahni used AI to combine a photo of a sunset and Van Gogh’s “Starry Night.” The US Copyright Office declined copyright registration in 2023.<\/p><\/div>\n

    Can AI images be copyrighted?<\/strong> Another issue involves whether the question of whether copyright covers images\u00a0 generated by AI.\u00a0 In a December, 2023 decision, and again in the 2025 report, the US Copyright Office said<\/a> that such images are “classic” examples of derivative works not covered by copyright.<\/p>\n

    TRAINING\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Most of the initial lawsuits and controversy over copyright and AI have involved LLM training. Although some decisions have been handed down by mid-level federal courts, the questions are still open and the law is not settled. (2)<\/p>\n