{"id":5243,"date":"2025-11-16T21:47:53","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T21:47:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/?p=5243"},"modified":"2026-03-19T17:41:48","modified_gmt":"2026-03-19T17:41:48","slug":"combatting-ai-with-copyright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/2025\/11\/16\/combatting-ai-with-copyright\/","title":{"rendered":"Combatting AI with Copyright"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

(Source<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly every day, it seems a different company or celebrity is swept up by an \u201cArtificial Intelligence\u201d (AI) scandal. To name just a few, this past June, Duolingo faced backlash<\/em><\/a> following a failed effort to rebrand itself as an \u201cAI-first\u201d organization. Additionally, recent internet speculation<\/em><\/a> suggests Taylor Swift\u2019s \u201cLife of a Showgirl\u201d promotional materials<\/em><\/a> featured AI-generated videos. Finally, and perhaps most unsettling, an AI-generated \u201cactress\u201d<\/em><\/a> has raised a ruckus<\/em><\/a>, as the computer-generated performer\u2019s creator searches for a talent agency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI\u2019s rapid emergence has been nothing short of controversial amongst the general public. Some enthusiastically embrace the technology, integrating AI into their daily lives.Recently, a Center for Democracy and Technology study<\/em><\/a> showed 86% of students, 85% of teachers, and 75% of parents surveyed reported using AI during the previous academic year. Additionally, according to the International Energy Agency, \u201c[w]ithin two years of ChatGPT\u2019s launch in 2022 . . . around 40% of households<\/em><\/a> in the U.S. and United Kingdom reported using AI chatbots.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other end of this spectrum, however, AI\u2019s adversaries adamantly oppose any use<\/em><\/a> of the technology. For instance, the New York City subway system recently became a site for expressing such opposition, with graffiti defacing advertisements<\/em><\/a> that promote \u201ca wearable A.I. pendant that, for $129, will listen to your conversations and become your friend.\u201d The messages painted across the adverts \u201crang[ed] from hostile (\u2018A.I. is burning the world around you\u2019) to pleading (\u2018make a real friend\u2019).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With such stark differences, the fears motivating AI opponents are not insignificant. As the spray-painted message \u201cA.I. is burning the world around you\u201d suggests, a prominent concern for AI-opponents is the technology\u2019s environmental harms<\/em><\/a>. Namely, the data centers responsible for power AI systems can use \u201cas much electricity as 100,000 households\u201d and \u201csuck up billions of gallons of water for systems to keep all that computer hardware cool.\u201d Combining growing concern regarding global water shortages<\/em><\/a> and the fact that the past ten years have been documented as the warmest years on record<\/em><\/a>, AI\u2019s carbon dioxide emissions<\/em><\/a> and water wastage raise significant concerns regarding the sheer rate of AI usage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As AI continues expanding and its use increases, oversight efforts are emerging. Currently, the regulation trend appears to focus on delineating \u201cpermissible\u201d AI use and prohibiting any use that is deemed \u201cimpermissible.\u201d A leading topic in this conversation is the unauthorized reproduction of another\u2019s image or copyrightable material. In fact, those critiquing Taylor Swift\u2019s alleged recent AI usage are calling attention to the singer\u2019s September 2024 statement<\/em><\/a>, where Swift voiced her \u201cfears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation.\u201d Although facially antithetical to the singer\u2019s recent use of the technology, Swift\u2019s sentiment reflects a distinction amongst anti-AI advocates. That is, Swift appears to subscribe to the belief that AI is not inherently problematic; rather, unauthorized or irresponsible use is AI\u2019s greatest threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recent legislation in the field aligns with viewing AI as a question of authorization, with the May 2025 Take it Down Act<\/em><\/a> introducing harsher penalties for \u201cdistributi[ng] . . . non-consensual imagery . . . [including] deepfakes created by [AI].\u201d As Senator Amy Klobuchar noted, the Act is a \u201clandmark move\u201d in addressing a growing need for \u201cestablishing common sense rules of the road around social media and AI.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, a current lawsuit<\/em><\/a> against OpenAI shines a light on growing objections to AI\u2019s unauthorized use of copyrighted material. The New York Times<\/em>, alongside other major news publications, filed suit against OpenAI in January 2025, alleging OpenAI is liable for copyright infringement as ChatGPT accesses millions of copyrighted articles without consent or payment. In response, OpenAI contends ChatGPT\u2019s alterations to copyrighted materials entitle it to fair use protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, even if this case is decided in favor of the publishers, ChatGPT would not cease to exist. Rather, OpenAI would most likely be required to purchase licenses and negotiate authorized use of copyrighted material. Similarly to streaming services<\/em><\/a> increasingly instituting ad-supported subscription plans, AI services such as ChatGPT would remain accessible to those willing to pay. In fact, ChatGPT already offers subscription plan options<\/em><\/a>\u2014offering a \u201cPlus\u201d at $20.00 a month, and a \u201cPro\u201d package at $200.00 a month. As a result, little is accomplished in the way of environmental protection, as those able to pay are not subject to any maximum limit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, a license-based regime poses multiple threats to creative industries, particularly. Even where companies are paying hefty licensing fees to use AI systems, opting for a machine over a union-represented script writer may still be ideal. AI\u2019s elimination of management costs, training time, and human error, all while rapidly producing content, hiring humans suddenly seems irrational to those with an eye to the bottom line and shareholders to answer to. Moreover, in a world already filled with mass-produced media, eliminating human touch in favor of AI threatens art\u2019s overall value to society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cost of AI\u2019s rapid content production endangers employment opportunities, especially in creative industries where the work product is already vulnerable to undervaluation. As Morgan Stanley Research estimates<\/em><\/a>, AI can lower TV and film production companies\u2019 costs by as much as 30%.In fact, concerns of AI overtaking human contributions were a central sticking point during various entertainment industry union strikes throughout 2023\u2014namely, the Writers\u2019 Guild of America<\/em><\/a> (WGA) nearly five-month strike, and the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists<\/em><\/a> (SAG-AFTRA) nearly four-month strike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond its profitability, if AI becomes the source for most mainstream media, the benefits art provides in the first place are quashed. Walter Benjamin\u2019s theory of an artwork\u2019s \u201caura\u201d captures the importance of manmade art\u2014answering questions such as \u201cWhy travel to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa when Google is free?\u201d or \u201cWhy attend a concert instead of opening Spotify?\u201d In his 1935 article \u201cThe Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,\u201d<\/em><\/a> Benjamin describes an original work of art or live performance exudes a certain \u201caura,\u201d which cultivates a certain connection between the art and its observer. This connection is found in the Mona Lisa\u2019s discoloration, or the Statue of Liberty\u2019s oxidation.<\/strong> According to Benjamin, this aura\u201cwithers in the age of mechanical reproduction\u201d as the art is subject neither to the tests of time nor the limits of space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, AI in some sense transcends reproduction, deriving \u201cnew\u201d outputs from various inputs. However, its inability to move about the world exempts AI-generated art from the passage of time and corresponding weathering. Accordingly, akin to the reproductive technologies Benjamin condemned, AI lacks the authenticity required to establish a meaningful connection between art and its observer. In turn, art\u2019s value is reduced to its price tag rather than to an individual\u2019s impulse to hunch over a canvas for endless hours or to weave their most harrowing life experiences into a movie script for public consumption. Disconnected from degradation and reality at large, even the most mind-blowing AI-generated image of a breathtaking landscape is incapable of evoking the emotion of flimsy cardstock covered with a child\u2019s frantic crayon scribbles posted to a fridge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus far, one effective means for addressing these concerns beyond establishing a license-based regime has been through private ordering efforts. For example, Universal Music Group (UMG) made its stance on AI in the music industry clear when it banned the use of its artists\u2019 music on TikTok<\/em><\/a> for three months in early 2024. The two companies ultimately agreed to \u201cprotect human artistry\u201d amid developments in AI. In particular, the agreement stipulates efforts to \u201cremove unauthorized AI-generated music from the platform\u201d and to construct \u201ctools to improve artist and songwriter attribution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On a similar note, a central focus of the WGA\u2019s 2023 strike<\/em><\/a> revolved around using AI for scriptwriting. The union ended its nearly five-month strike once the relevant parties agreed to regulations<\/em><\/a> which essentially enshrined a place for people in the writing room\u2014maintaining that \u201c[n]either traditional AI (technologies including those used in CGI and VFX) nor generative AI (GAI, meaning artificial intelligence that produces content including written material) is a writer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, benefits from private ordering efforts are subject to various limitations. First and foremost, groups such as UMG or WGA answer to those they represent. Thus, the interests of those who are not signed to the record label or do not pay WGA union dues remain unprotected. Moreover, even those whose interests are protected are still subject to the renegotiations later down the line. As a result, even the strongest private protections against AI are ultimately unreliable until they are codified in law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fortunately, copyright law can serve as a strong foundation for retaining human involvement. Extending the pre-existing legal framework to the AI context, a limitation of copyright protection to works with substantial human contribution provides a major economic incentive for avoiding AI integration in creative projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most valuable is the \u201chuman author\u201d requirement, barring copyright protection for non-human created works. The U.S. Copyright Office<\/em><\/a> expressly denies copyright protection for any works lacking human involvement, asserting \u201cthe Office will not register works produced by machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.\u201d Additionally, some courts have also imposed a human-creation requirement. In the case of Naruto v. Slater<\/em><\/a>, for instance, the Ninth Circuit denied copyright protection for a selfie taken by a monkey, as the Copyright Act only employs terms \u201cimply[ing] humanity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carrying this framework over to AI is rather simple and would provide a significant safeguard for maintaining predominantly human creations. As copyright protection extends only to eligible works, any works AI independently generates or substantially contributes to would be ineligible for copyright protection and any entitlements attached. Thus, the scope of copyright is limited to works with material human contributions, effectively preserving human involvement in the entertainment industries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Requiring material human contribution forces companies to adopt a human-first approach when producing creative works to enjoy in the monetary value copyright protection provides. Copyright protection entitles its owner to a series of rights<\/em><\/a>, including the right to distribute a work and create derivative works\u2014such as sequels, companion novels, etc. As such, the inability to achieve protection would allow the creators significantly less control over who can profit from its work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Extending the pre-existing copyright law requirements for \u201chuman authorship\u201d encourages companies to err on the side of caution when deciding whether to negotiate with a union-represented actor or cast Tilly Norwood in a one-woman show. While AI would not be entirely outlawed, copyright law can incentivize limiting the amount of AI ultimately used. As such, one can hope that with each employed scriptwriter or extra, one less query runs through a data center\u2014allowing the world to continue spinning and Letterboxd reviews to remain free from analyzing AI acting.


Suggested Citation<\/em>: Tay Rossi, Combatting AI with Copyright<\/em>, Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol\u2019y, The Issue Spotter, (Nov. 16, 2025), https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/2025\/11\/16\/
combatting-ai-with-copyright\/.

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About the Author<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Tay Rossi is a second-year student at Cornell Law School. In May 2024, she graduated from Hobart and William Smith Colleges with a B.A. in Philosophy and a minor in Theater. During her 1L summer, Tay interned with the Supreme Court of Rhode Island\u2019s Law Clerk Department. Currently, she is a member of the Cornell Campus Mediation Practicum.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Source) Nearly every day, it seems a different company or celebrity is swept up by an \u201cArtificial Intelligence\u201d (AI) scandal. To name just a few, this past June, Duolingo faced backlash following a failed effort to rebrand itself as an \u201cAI-first\u201d organization. Additionally, recent internet speculation suggests Taylor Swift\u2019s \u201cLife of a Showgirl\u201d promotional materials…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":59,"featured_media":5244,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[1728,388,564],"class_list":["post-5243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-feature","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-copyright","tag-entertainment"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5243","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/59"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5243"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5243\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5250,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5243\/revisions\/5250"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}