A Simple Guide to Understanding AI and Copyright

Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing how people create content, reshaping the artistic landscape and challenging how many perceive machine-produced work. Is it original, and can creators claim it as their own? AI companies are also training their models on existing works — are they bypassing copyright laws, or are they only using publicly available content? Understanding AI and how legislation impacts its creations is vital.

The Basics of AI and Copyright Protection

On the issue of copyright, the U.S. Copyright Office has made it clear that human creativity is the central concern of copyright law. It has determined that AI-generated content can be protected only if a human author has been meaningfully involved or has made significant creative decisions within the content.

This means the human contribution must be perceptible in the final output rather than simply providing prompts, generating the content and claiming ownership. As a result, an image, story or song produced solely by an AI model — even if prompted by a human — is not considered original intellectual property, especially if no modifications are made.

AI Training Data and the Fair Use Debate

Before AI can create content, it must be trained on vast amounts of data. This includes an enormous volume of real people’s creative work, which has led to major AI developers — including OpenAI, Meta and Stability AI — facing legal claims. A report by The Atlantic found Meta’s AI was trained using Search LibGen — a database known for hosting pirated books and scientific papers.

Even personal information may be used to train AI models. As of now, there is no reliable way to prevent this. The key legal question is whether this usage falls under “fair use” — a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted content under certain conditions.

AI tools like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion can create visuals with just a simple text prompt. Even ChatGPT is under scrutiny. Many are questioning the ethical implications of this, as it essentially replicates creative styles with minimal effort, producing outputs that are eerily similar to original works.

AI firms argue that training models on copyrighted works are transformative, similar to how students learn from textbooks to produce new insights. On the other hand, artists, authors and media enterprises claim that AI models directly compete with their original works, undercutting their revenue and often building upon their creations without compensation.

Several lawsuits are testing this boundary. The New York Times, for example, is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for allegedly using millions of its articles without permission. Getty Images has also taken legal action against Stability AI, accusing it of scraping copyrighted photos for AI training. If courts rule against AI makers, they could be forced to pay massive fines or even scrap entire datasets and start over.

Can AI Art Be Copyrighted?

AI art is usually distinguishable by the trained eye due to its lack of meaning and depth. However, other issues are more critical, such as whether to copyright or not. In 2025, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that art created by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted.

A recent case involving a 2012 image created by Stephen Thaler’s DABUS AI system faced this ordeal. The District of Columbia Circuit’s Court of Appeals upheld the decision that the image was not eligible for copyright protection. Another case involved the graphic novel Zarya of the Dawn, which was once granted copyright protection and later revoked, stating that Midjourney was the creator of the artwork. This affirmed that only human authors can hold copyrights.

Only when AI and humans collaborate does copyright eligibility become more nuanced. If a human significantly edits or influences AI-generated content, they may claim copyright over their contributions.

Meanwhile, some AI artists are fighting back. A class-action lawsuit led by artists Sarah Anderson, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz argues that AI-generated images mimic existing styles too closely, violating artists’ copyrights.

The court has allowed for key copyright claims such as direct and induced infringement, signaling a growing effort to protect artists’ rights against large-scale copyright violations. By accepting these claims, the ruling creates a real risk for AI companies, discouraging them from using copyrighted works without permission.

Understanding AI and Music: A Legal Headache

The music industry is also feeling the heat. AI tools can generate new songs in the style of famous artists, raising concerns about copyright infringement. Major music publishers — including Universal Music — have sued AI business Anthropic for allegedly using copyrighted song lyrics without permission. Additionally, AI-generated music startups like Suno and Uncharted Labs are facing legal battles with record labels over claims of unauthorized content use.

One of the most talked-about cases involves an AI-generated Drake and The Weeknd collaboration, which went viral in 2023 before being taken down. This case highlighted the ethical concerns of AI-generated music — should artists be compensated when their style is replicated?

The Commercial Impact of AI and Copyright Uncertainty

The stakes in the legal debates surrounding AI copyright are high. If AI enterprises are forced to license training data or share profits with original creators, the cost of developing generative AI could skyrocket. On the other hand, unchecked AI development could severely harm creatives and industries that rely on copyright protection.

Some companies are already taking proactive steps. Shutterstock, for example, now compensates creators whose work was used to train AI models through its Shutterstock Contributor fund. The startup Bria follows a similar approach, paying royalties to artists when their styles influence AI-generated images.

Meanwhile, AI-resistant tools like Glaze are emerging to help artists protect their work from being scraped for training data. By subtly altering an image’s pixel structure, Glaze makes it harder for models to learn and replicate specific artistic styles.

The Start of Holding AI Companies Accountable

The legality of AI use in content production will become clearer as courts continue to rule on such cases. The future of AI and copyright will likely involve new licensing models, enhanced transparency in training, stricter regulations, and more safeguards for human creators.

Understanding AI and copyright is a fundamental question of ethics, creativity and innovation in the digital age. For now, businesses, artists and AI developers must navigate these murky waters carefully. Whether you’re an AI enthusiast, a creator worried about your rights or an entrepreneur leveraging AI, staying informed about copyright developments is essential.