Font size:
Print
Generative AI and Copyright
Context: The rise of generative AI models has triggered global debates around intellectual property (IP) rights, particularly in the context of copyright infringement.ย
More on News
- With AI models trained on massive datasets โ often containing copyrighted material โ the central legal question is: Does training and output generation by AI violate existing copyright frameworks?
- Recent U.S. court rulings in 2025 โ Thomson Reuters vs Ross Intelligence, Bartz vs Anthropic, and Kadrey vs Meta โ have provided some clarity but stopped short of settling the issue completely.ย
- The legal status of AI-generated content and the use of copyrighted data for training remains ambiguous and jurisdiction-dependent.
Can AI Training on Copyrighted Content Qualify as Fair Use?
- In the U.S., courts have increasingly leaned toward viewing transformative use of copyrighted material โ such as for training AI โ as potentially falling under ‘fair use’.ย
- The crucial legal test lies in whether the AIโs outputs replace the market for the original works, or add new value and serve a different purpose than the original.
- If AI-generated content is transformative and does not directly compete with or substitute the original, it may be protected under fair use.ย
- However, when pirated data is involved, the courts remain cautious.
What Did the U.S. Courts Rule in Recent AI Copyright Cases?
- Anthropic Case (2025): Judge William Alsup ruled that training an AI model on copyrighted data can be viewed as transformative, akin to a human learning from existing literature.
- However, the court allowed the trial to proceed because Anthropic may have used pirated content, which cannot be shielded by fair use.
- Meta Case (2025): Judge Vince Chhabria ruled in Metaโs favor, stating the plaintiffs failed to show market harm due to AI-generated outputs.
- The court acknowledged the need for revenue-sharing models between tech companies and original content creators.
- Importantly, ‘fair use’ was upheld as a protective measure for AI training, though unauthorised scraping and future market impacts remain areas of concern.
What Is the Legal Status of Databases Used in generative AI Training?
- The use of databases and copyrighted compilations for AI training raises additional IP challenges:
- IP laws, contractual terms, and privacy regulations govern database usage.
- Fair use, text and data mining exceptions (as in the EU and U.K.), and temporary copying allowances create potential legal pathways.
- However, the absence of a globally harmonised legal standard leaves room for inconsistent interpretations.
- Moreover, authorship of AI-generated content โ and whether such content qualifies for IP protection โ remains uncertain, especially since most legal systems require human creativity for copyright eligibility.
What Are the Implications of These Rulings for India?
- Indiaโs Copyright Act, 1957 grants creators exclusive economic rights, including reproduction and adaptation.ย
- However, the use of copyrighted works for AI training without permission may still be challenged unless covered by Section 52 (fair dealing exceptions).
-
Key Points for India:
-
- IPR enforcement mechanisms in India include both civil and criminal remedies.
- The ANI vs OpenAI case is expected to test the applicability of India’s IP laws to generative AI systems.
- Indiaโs stance is that its existing legal framework is adequate to address AI-related IP challenges, although specific provisions for AI-generated content are still lacking.
- Being a signatory to major global IP treaties, India recognises rights created by legal persons and enforces them domestically.
Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Contentย โย TheStudyias
Download the App to Subscribe to our Coursesย โย Thestudyias
The Sourceโs Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed Byย THE STUDY IASย BY MANIKANT SINGH
