some district courts have applied DMCA 1202(b) to physical copies, including textile, which means if you cut off parts of a fabric that contain copyright information, you could be liable for up to $25,000 in damages
The US Copyright Act has never been praised for its clarity or its intuitive simplicity—at a whopping 460 pages long, it is filled with hotly debated ambiguities and overly complex provisions. The copyright laws of most other jurisdictions aren’t much better.
Because of this complexity of copyright law, the implications of changes to copyright law and policy are not always clear to most authors. As we’ve said in the past, many of these issues seem arcane, and largely escape public attention. Yet entities with a vested interest in maximalist copyright—often at odds with the public interest—are certainly paying attention, and often claim to speak for all authors when they in fact represent only a small subset. As part of our efforts to advocate for a future where copyright law offers ample clarity, certainty, and real focus on values such as the advancement of knowledge and free expression, we would like to share with you two recent projects we undertook:
The 1202 Issue Brief and Amicus Brief in Doe v. Github
Authors Alliance has been closely monitoring the impact of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Section 1202. As we have explained in a previous post, Section 1202(b) creates liability for those who remove or alter copyright management information (CMI) or distribute works with removed CMI. This provision, originally intended to prevent wide-spread piracy, has been increasingly invoked in AI copyright lawsuits, raising significant concerns for lawful use of copyrighted materials beyond training AI. While on its face, penalties for removing CMI might seem somewhat reasonable, the scope of CMI (including a wide variety of information such as website terms of service, affiliate links, and other information) combined with the challenge of including it with all downstream distribution of incomplete copies (imagine if you had to replicate and distribute something like the Amazon Kindle terms of service every time you quoted text from an ebook) could be potentially very disruptive for many users.
In order to address the confusion regarding the (somewhat inaptly named) “identicality requirement” by the courts in the 9th Circuit, we have released an issue brief, as well undertaken to file an amicus brief in the Doe v. Github case now pending in the 9th Circuit.
Here are the key reasons why we care—and why you should care—about this seemingly obscure issue:
The Precedential Nature of Doe v. Github: The upcoming 9th Circuit case, Doe v. GitHub, will address whether Section 1202(b) should only apply when copies made or distributed are identical (or nearly identical) to the original. Lower courts have upheld this identicality requirement to prevent overbroad applications of the law, and the appellate ruling may set a crucial precedent for AI and fair use.
Potential Impact on Otherwise Legal Uses: It is not entirely certain if fair use is a defense to 1202(b) claims. If the identicality requirement is removed, Section 1202(b) could create liability for transformative fair uses, snippet reuse, text and data mining, and other lawful applications. This would introduce uncertainty for authors, researchers, and educators who rely on copyrighted materials in limited, legal ways. We advocate for maintaining the identicality requirement and clarifying that fair use applies as a defense to Section 1202 claims.
Possibility of Frivolous Litigation: Section 1202(b) claims have surged in recent years, particularly in AI-related lawsuits. The statute’s vague language and broad applicability have raised fears that opportunistic litigants could use it to chill innovation, scholarship, and creative expression.
To find out more about what’s at stake, please take a look at our 1202(b) Issue Brief. You are also invited to share your stories with us, on how you have navigated this strange statute.
Reply to the UK Open Consultation on Copyright and AI
We have members in the UK, and many of our US-based members publish in the UK. We have been watching the development in UK copyright law closely, and have recently filed a comment to the UK Open Consultation on Copyright and AI. In our comment, we emphasized the importance of ensuring that copyright policy serves the public interest. Our response’s key points include:
Competition Concerns: We alerted the policy-makers that their top objective must include preventing monopolies forming in the AI space. If licensing for AI training becomes the norm, we foresee power consolidating in a handful of tech companies and their unbridled monopoly permeating all aspects of our lives within a few decades—if not sooner.
Fair Use as a Guiding Principle: We strongly believe that the use of works in the training and development of AI models constitutes fair use under US law. While this issue is currently being tested in courts, case law suggests that fair use will prevail, ensuring that AI training on copyrighted works remains permissible. The UK does not have an identical fair use statute, but has recognized that some of its functions—such as flexibility to permit new technological uses—are valuable. We argue that the wise approach is for the UK to update its laws to ensure its creative and tech sectors can meaningfully participate in the global arena. Our comment called for a broad AI and TDM exception allowing temporary copies of copyrighted works for AI training. We emphasized that when AI models extract uncopyrightable elements, such as facts and ideas, this should remain lawful and protected.
Noncommercial Research Should Be Protected: We strongly advocated for the protection of noncommercial AI research, arguing that academic institutions and their researchers should not face legal barriers when using copyrighted works to train AI models for research purposes. Imposing additional licensing requirements would place undue burdens on academic institutions, which already pay significant fees to access research materials.
Caption: 451 is the http error code when a webpage is unavailable for legal reasons; it is also the temperature at which books catch fire and burn. This public domain image is taken inside the Internet Archive
Imagine this: a high-profile aerospace and media billionaire threatens to sue you for writing an unauthorized and unflattering biography. In the course of writing, you rely on several news articles, including a series of in-depth pieces about the billionaire’s life written over a decade earlier. Given their closeness in time to real events, you quote, sometimes extensively, from those articles in several places.
On the eve of publication, your manuscript is leaked. Through one of his associated companies, the billionaire buys up the copyrights to the articles from which you quote. The next day the company files an infringement lawsuit against you.
Copyright Censorship: a Time-Honored Tradition
It’s easy to imagine such a suit brought by a modern billionaire—perhaps Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. But using copyright as a tool for censorship is a time-honored tradition. In this case, Howard Hughes tried it out in 1966, using his company Rosemont Enterprises to file suit against Random House for a biography it would eventually publish.
As we’ve seen many times before and since, the courts turned to copyright’s “fair use” right to rescue the biography from censorship. Fair use, the court explained, exists so that “courts in passing upon particular claims of infringement must occasionally subordinate the copyright holder’s interest in a maximum financial return to the greater public interest in the development of art, science and industry.”
Singling out the biographical nature of the work and its importance in surfacing underlying facts, the court explained:
Biographies, of course, are fundamentally personal histories and it is both reasonable and customary for biographers to refer to and utilize earlier works dealing with the subject of the work and occasionally to quote directly from such works. . . . This practice is permitted because of the public benefit in encouraging the development of historical and biographical works and their public distribution, e.g., so “that the world may not be deprived of improvements, or the progress of the arts be retarded.”
Fair use playing this role is no accident. As the Supreme Court has explained, the relationship between copyright and free expression is complicated. On the one hand, the Court has explained, “[T]he Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one’s expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.” But, recognizing that such exclusive control over expression could chill the very speech copyright seeks to enable, the law contains what the Court has described as two “traditional First Amendment safeguards” to ensure that facts and ideas remain available for free reuse: 1) protections against control over facts and ideas, and 2) fair use.
But rescuing a biography that merely quotes, even extensively, from earlier articles seems like an easy call, especially when it seems so clear that the plaintiff has so clearly engineered the copyright suit not to protect legitimate economic interests but to suppress an unpopular narrative.
The world is a little more complicated now. Can fair use continue to protect free expression from excessive enforcement of copyright? I think so, but two key areas are at risk:
Fair Use and the Archives
It may have escaped your notice that large chunks of online content disappear each year.
For years, archivists have recognized and worked to address the problem. Websites going dark is an annoyance for most of us, but in some cases, it can have real implications for understanding recent history, even as officially documented. For example, back in 2013, a report revealed that well over half of the websites linked to in Supreme Court opinions no longer work, jeopardizing our understanding of just what went into why and how the Court decided an issue.
The most well-known bulwark against disappearing internet content is the Internet Archive, which has, at this point, archived over 900 billion web pages. Over and over again, we’ve seen its WayBack Machine used to shine a light on history that powerful people would rather have hidden. It’s also why the WayBack Machine has been blocked or threatened at various times in China, Russia, India, and other jurisdictions where free expression protections are weak.
It’s not just the open web that is disappearing. A recent report on the problem of “Vanishing Culture” highlights how this challenge pervades modern cultural works. Everything from 90s shareware video games to the entirety of the MTV News Archive are at risk. As Jordan Mechner, a contributor to the report explains, “historical oblivion is the default, not the exception” to the human record. As the report explains, it’s not just disappearing content that poses a problem: libraries and consumers must grapple with electronic content that can be remotely changed by publishers or others as well. As just one example among many, in just the last few years we’ve seen surreptitious modifications to ebooks on readers’ devices—some changing important aspects of the plot—for works by authors such as RL Stine, Roald Dahl, and Agatha Christie.
The case for preservation as a foundational necessity to combat censorship is straightforward. “There is no political power without power over the archive,” Jacques Derrida reminds us. Without access to a stable, high-fidelity copy of the historical record, there can be no meaningful reflection on what went right or wrong, or holding to account those in power who may oppose an accurate representation of their past.
What sometimes goes unnoticed is that, without fair use, a large portion of these preservation efforts would be illegal.
In a world where century-long copyright protection applies automatically to any human expression with even a “modicum of creativity,” virtually everything created in the last century is subject to copyright. This is a problem for digital works because practically any preservation effort involves making copies—often lots of them—to ensure the integrity of the content. Making those copies means that archivists must rely on fair use to preserve these works and make them available in meaningful ways to researchers and others.
The upshot is that every time the Internet Archive archives a website, it’s an act of faith in fair use. Is that faith well-founded?
I think so. But the answer is complicated.
For preservation efforts like those of the Internet Archive, fair use is a foundation, but not an unshakable one. Two recent cases highlight the risk, one against its book lending program and the other objecting to its “Great 78” record project. Both take issue with how the Archive provides access to preserved digital copies in its collections. While not directly attacking the preservation of those materials, the suits effectively jeopardize their effective use. As archivists have long lamented, “preservation without access is pointless.”
Beyond direct challenges to fair use, archives are threatened by spurious takedown demands, content removal requests, and legal challenges. Organizations like the Internet Archive have fought back, but many institutions simply cannot afford to, leading to a chilling effect where preservation efforts are scaled back or abandoned altogether.
Compounding this uncertainty is the growing use of technological protection measures (TPMs) and digital rights management (DRM) systems that restrict access to digital works. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), circumventing these restrictions is illegal—even for lawful purposes like preservation or research. This creates a paradox where a researcher or archivist may have a clear fair use justification for accessing and copying a work, but breaking an encryption lock to do so could expose them to legal liability.
Additionally, the rise of contractual overrides—such as restrictive licensing agreements on digital platforms—threatens to sideline fair use entirely. Many modern works, including e-books, streaming media, and even scholarly databases, are governed by terms of service that explicitly prohibit copying or analysis, even for noncommercial research. These contracts often supersede fair use rights, leaving archivists and researchers with no legal recourse.
Still, there are reasons for optimism. Courts have generally ruled favorably when fair use is invoked for transformative purposes, such as digitization for research, searchability, and access for disabled users. Landmark decisions, like those in Authors Guild v. Google and Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, upheld fair use in the context of large-scale digital libraries and text-mining projects. These cases suggest that courts recognize the essential role fair use plays in making knowledge accessible, particularly in an era of vast digital information.
Fair Use and the Freedom to Extract
One of copyright’s other traditional First Amendment protections is that the copyright monopoly does not extend to facts or ideas. Fair use is critical in giving life to this protection by ensuring that facts and ideas remain accessible, providing a “freedom to extract” (a term I borrow from law professor Molly Van Houweling’s recent scholarship) even when they are embedded within copyrighted works.
Copyright does not and cannot grant exclusive control over facts, but in practice, extracting those facts often requires using the work in ways that implicate the rightsholder’s copyright. Whether journalists referencing past reporting, historians identifying truths in archival materials, or researchers analyzing a vast corpus of written works, fair use provides the necessary legal space to operate without running afoul of copyright protections for rightsholders.
The need is more urgent than ever given the sheer scale of the modern historical record. In many cases, relying on individual researchers to sift through the record and extract important facts is impractical, if not impossible. Automated tools and processes, including AI and text data mining tools, are now indispensable for processing, retrieving, and analyzing facts from large amounts of massive amounts of text, images, and audio. From uncovering patterns in historical archives to verifying political statements against prior records, these tools serve as extensions of human analysis, making the extraction of factual information possible at an unprecedented scale. However, these technologies depend on fair use. If every instance of text or data mining required explicit permission from rights holders—who may have economic or political incentives to deny access—the ability to conduct meaningful research and discovery would be crippled.
For example, consider a researcher studying the roots of the opioid crisis, trying to mine the 4 million documents in the Opioid Industry Documents Archive—many of them legal materials, internal company communications, and regulatory filings. These documents, made public through litigation, provide critical insights into how pharmaceutical companies marketed opioids, downplayed their risks, and shaped public policy. But making sense of such a massive trove of records is impossible without computational tools that can analyze trends, track key players, and surface hidden patterns.
Without fair use, researchers could face legal roadblocks to applying text and data mining techniques to extract the facts buried within these documents. If copyright law were used to restrict or complicate access to these records, it would not only hamper academic research but also shield corporate and governmental actors from exposure and accountability.
Conclusion
As information continues to proliferate across digital media, fair use remains one of the few safeguards ensuring that historical records and cultural artifacts do not become permanently locked away behind copyright barriers. It allows the past to be examined, challenged, and understood. If we allow excessive copyright restrictions to limit the ability to extract and analyze our shared past and culture, we risk not only stifling innovation but also eroding our collective ability to engage with history and truth.
Fair Use Week
This is my contribution to Fair Use Week. The read the other excellent posts from this week, check out Kyle Courtney’s Harvard Library Fair Use Week blog here.
On February 11, Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation for the U.S. District Court of Delaware) issued a new summary judgment ruling in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence. He overruled his previous decision from 2023 which held that a jury must decide the fair use question. The decision was one of the first to address fair use in the context of AI, though the facts of this case differ significantly from the many other pending AI copyright suits.
This ruling focuses on copyright infringement claims brought by Thomson Reuters (TR), the owner of Westlaw, a major legal research platform, against ROSS Intelligence. TR alleged that ROSS improperly used Westlaw’s headnotes and the Key Number System to train its AI system to better match legal questions with relevant case law.
Westlaw’s headnotes summarize legal principles extracted from judicial opinions. (Note: Judicial opinions are not copyrightable in the US.) The Key Number System is a numerical taxonomy categorizing legal topics and cases. Clicking on a headnote takes users to the corresponding passage in the judicial text. Clicking on the key number associated with a headnote takes users to a list of cases that make the same legal point.
Importantly, ROSS did not directly ingest the headnotes and the Key Number System to train its model. Instead, ROSS hired LegalEase, a company that provides legal research and writing services, to create training data based on the headnotes and the Key Number System. LegalEase created Bulk Memos—a collection of legal questions paired with four to six possible answers. LegalEase instructed lawyers to use Westlaw headnotes as a reference to formulate the questions in Bulk Memos. LegalEase instructed the lawyers not to copy the headnotes directly.
ROSS attempted to license the necessary content directly from TR, but TR refused to grant a license because it thought the AI tool contemplated by ROSS would compete with Westlaw.
The court found that ROSS copied 2,243 headnotes from Westlaw. The court ruled that these headnotes and the Key Number System met the low legal threshold for originality and were copyrightable. The court rejected the merger and scenes à faire defense by ROSS, because, according to the court, the headnotes and the Key Number System were not dictated by necessity. The court also rejected ROSS’s fair use defense on the grounds that the 1st and 4th factors weighed in favor of TR. At this point, the only remaining issue for trial is whether some headnotes’ copyrights had expired or were untimely registered.
The new ruling has drawn mixed reactions—some saying it undermines potential fair use defenses in other AI cases, while others dismiss its significance since its facts are unique. In our view, the opinion is poorly reasoned and disregards well-established case law. Future AI cases must demonstrate why the ROSS Court’s approach is unpersuasive. Here are three key flaws we see in the ruling.
Problems with the Opinion
Near-Verbatim Summaries are “Original”?
“A block of raw marble, like a judicial opinion, is not copyrightable. Yet a sculptor creates a sculpture by choosing what to cut away and what to leave in place. … A headnote is a short, key point of law chiseled out of a lengthy judicial opinion.”
— the ROSS court
(↑example of a headnote and the uncopyrightable judicial text the headnote was based on↑)
The court claims that the Westlaw headnotes are original both individually and as a compilation, and the Key Number System is original and protected as a compilation.
“Original” has a special meaning in US copyright law: It means that a work has a modicum of humancreativity that our society would want to protect and encourage. Based on the evidence that survived redaction, it is near impossible to find creativity in any individual headnotes. The headnotes consist of verbatim copying of uncopyrightable judicial texts, along with some basic paraphrasing of facts.
As we know, facts are not copyrightable, but expressions of facts often are. One important safeguard for protecting our freedom to reference facts is the merger doctrine. US law has long recognized that when there are only limited ways to express a fact or an idea, those expressions are not considered “original.” The expressions “merge” with the underlying unprotectable fact, and become unprotectable themselves.
Judge Bibas gets merger wrong—he claims merger does not apply here because “there are many ways to express points of law from judicial opinions.” This view misunderstands the merger doctrine. It is the nature of human language to be capable of conveying the same thing in many different ways, as long as you are willing to do some verbal acrobatics. But when there are only a limited number of reasonable, natural ways to express a fact or idea—especially when textual precision and terms of art are used to convey complex ideas—merger applies.
There are many good reasons for this to be the law. For one, this is how we avoid giving copyright protection to concise expression of ideas. Fundamentally, we do not need to use copyright to incentivize the simple restatement of facts. As the Constitution intended, copyright law is designed to encourage creativity, not to grant exclusive rights to basic expressions of facts. We want people to state facts accurately and concisely. If we allowed the first person to describe a judicial text in a natural, succinct way to claim exclusive rights over that expression, it would hinder, rather than facilitate, meaningful discussion of said text, and stifle blog posts like this one.
As to the selection and arrangement of the Key Number System, the court claims that originality exists here, too, because “there are many possible, logical ways to organize legal topics by level of granularity,” and TR exercised some judgment in choosing the particular “level” with its Key Number System. However, the cases are tagged with Key Number System by an automated computer system, and the topics closely mirror what law schools teach their first-year students.
The court does not say much about why the compilation of the headnotes should receive separate copyright protection, other than that it qualifies as original “factual compilations.” This claim is dubious because the compilation is of uncopyrightable materials, as discussed, and the selection is driven by the necessity to represent facts and law, not by creativity. Even if the compilation of headnotes is indeed copyrightable, using portions of it that are uncopyrightable is decidedly not an infringement, because the US does not protect sui generis database rights.
Can’t Claim Fair Use When Nobody Saw a Copy?
“[The intermediate-copying cases] are all about copying computer code. This case is not.”
— the ROSS court conveniently ignoring Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc., 933 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 1991) and Sundeman v. Seajay Society, Inc., 142 F. 3d 194 (4th Cir. 1998).
In deciding whether ROSS’s use of Westlaw’s headnotes and the Key Number System is transformative under the 1st factor, the court took a moment to consider whether the available intermediate copying case law is in favor of ROSS, and quickly decided against it.
Even though no consumer ever saw the headnotes or the Key Number System in the AI products offered by ROSS, the court claims that the copying of these constitutes copyright infringement because there existed an intermediate copy that contained copyright-restricted materials authored by Westlaw. And, according to the court, intermediate copying can only weigh in favor of fair use for computer codes.
Before turning to the actual case law the court is overlooking here, we wonder if Judge Bibas is in fact unpersuaded by his own argument: under the 3rd fair use factor, he admits that only the content made accessible to the public should be taken into consideration when deciding what amount is taken from a copyrighted work compared to the copyrighted work as a whole, which is contrary to what he argues under the 1st factor—that we must examine non-public intermediate copies.
Intermediate copying is the process of producing a preliminary, non-public work as an interim step in the creation of a new public-facing work. It is well established under US jurisprudence that any type of copying, whether private or public, satisfies a prima facie copyright infringement claim, but, the fact that a work was never shared publicly—nor intended to be shared publicly—strongly favors fair use. For example, in Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc., the 11th Circuit Court decided that directly copying a competitor’s yellow pages business directory in order to produce a competing yellow pages was fair use when the resulting publicly accessible yellow pages the defendant created did not directly incorporate the plaintiff’s work. Similarly, in Sundeman v. Seajay Society, Inc., the Fourth Circuit concluded that it was fair use when the Seajay Society made an intermediary, entire copy of plaintiffs’ unpublished manuscript for a scholar to study and write about it. The scholar wrote several articles about it mostly summarizing important facts and ideas (while also using short quotations).
There are many good reasons for allowing intermediate copying. Clearly, we do not want ALL unlicensed copies to be subject to copyright infringement lawsuits, particularly when intermediate copies are made in order to extract unprotectable facts or ideas. More generally, intermediate copying is important to protect because it helps authors and artists create new copyrighted works (e.g., sketching a famous painting to learn a new style, translating a passage to practice your language skills, copying the photo of a politician to create a parody print t-shirt).
Suddenly, We Have an AI Training Market?
“[I]t does not matter whether Thomson Reuters has used [the headnotes and the Key Number System] to train its own legal search tools; the effect on a potential market for AI training data is enough.”
— the ROSS court
The 4th fair use factor is very much susceptible to circular reasoning: if a user is making a derivative use of my work, surely that proves a market already exists or will likely develop for that derivative use, and, if a market exists for such a derivative use, then, as the copyright holder, I should have absolute control over such a market.
The ROSS court runs full tilt into this circular trap. In the eyes of the court, ROSS, by virtue of using Westlaw’s data in the context of AI training, has created a legitimate AI training data market that should be rightfully controlled by TR.
Only that our case law suggests the 4th factor “market substitution” considers only markets which are traditional, reasonable or likely to be developed. As we have already pointed out in a previous blog post, copyright holders must offer concrete evidence to prove the existence, or likelihood of developing, licensing market, before they can argue a secondary use serves as “market substitute.” If we allowed a copyright holder’s protected market to include everything that he’s willing to receive licensing fees for, it will all but wipe out fair use in the service of stifling competition.
Conclusion
The impact of this case is currently limited, both because it is a district court ruling and because it concerns non-generative AI. However, it is important to remain vigilant, as the reasoning put forth by the ROSS court could influence other judges, policymakers, and even the broader public, if left unchallenged.
This ruling combines several problematic arguments that, if accepted more widely, could have significant consequences. First, it blurs the line between fact and expression, suggesting that factual information can become copyrightable simply by being written down by someone in a minimally creative way. Second, it expands copyright enforcement to intermediate copies, meaning that even temporary, non-public use of copyrighted material could be subject to infringement claims. Third, it conjures up a new market for AI training data, regardless of whether such a licensing market is legitimate or even likely to exist.
If these arguments gain traction, they could further entrench the dominance of a few large AI companies. Only major players like Microsoft and Meta will be able to afford AI training licenses, consolidating control over the industry. The AI training licensing terms will be determined solely between big AI companies and big content aggregators, without representation of individual authors or public interest. The large content aggregators will get to dictate the terms under which creators must surrender rights to their works for AI training, and the AI companies will dictate how their AI models can be used by the general public.
Without meaningful pushback and policy intervention, smaller organizations and individual creators cannot participate fairly. Let’s not rewrite our copyright laws to entrench this power imbalance even further.
Last month, we blogged about the key takeaways from the 2024 TDM exemptions recently put in place by the Librarian of Congress, including how the 2024 exemptions (1) expand researchers’ access to existing corpora, (2) definitively allow the viewing and annotation of copyrighted materials for TDM research purposes, and (3) create new obligations for researchers to disclose security protocols to trade associations. Beyond these key changes, the TDM exemptions remain largely the same: researchers affiliated with universities are allowed to circumvent TPMs to compile corpora for TDM research, provided that those copies of copyrighted materials are legally obtained and adequate security protocols are put in place.
In this blog post, we share some further reflections on the newly expanded TDM exemptions—including (1) the use of AI tools in TDM research, (2) outside researchers’ access to existing corpora, (3) the disclosure requirement, and (4) a potential TDM licensing market—as well as other insights that emerged during the 9th triennial rulemaking.
The TDM Exemption
In other jurisdictions, such as the EU, Singapore, and Japan, legal provisions that permit “text data mining” also allow a broad array of uses, such as general machine learning and generative AI model training. In the US, exemptions allowing TDM so far have not explicitly addressed whether AI could be used as a tool for conducting TDM research. In this round of remaking, we were able to gain clarity on how AI tools are allowed to aid TDM research. Advocates for the TDM exemptions provided ample examples of how machine learning and AI are key to conducting TDM research and asked that “generative AI” not be deemed categorically impermissible as a tool for TDM research. The Copyright Office agreed that a wide array of tools could be utilized for TDM research under the exemptions, including AI tools, as long as the purpose is to conduct “scholarly text and data mining research and teaching.” The Office was careful to limit its analysis to those uses and not address other applications such as compiling data—or reusing existing TDM corpora—for training generative AI models; those are an entirely separate issue from facilitating non-commercial TDM research.
Besides clarifying that AI tools are allowed for TDM research and that viewing and annotation are permitted for copyrighted materials, the new exemptions offer meaningful improvement to TDM researchers’ access to corpora. The previous 2021 exemptions allowed access for purposes of “collaboration,” but many researchers interpreted that narrowly, and the Office confirmed that “collaboration” was not meant to encompass outside research projects entirely unrelated to the original research for which the corpus was created. Under the 2021 exemptions, a TDM corpus could only be accessed by outside researchers if they are working on the same research project as the original compiler of the corpus. The 2024 exemptions’ expansion of access to existing corpora has two main components and advantages.
The expansion now allows for new research projects to be conducted on existing corpora, permitting institutions that have created a corpus to provide access “to researchers affiliated with other nonprofit institutions of higher education, with all access provided only through secure connections and on the condition of authenticated credentials, solely for purposes of text and data mining research or teaching.” At the same time, it also opens up new possibilities for researchers at institutions who otherwise would not have access, as the new exemption does not require a precondition that the outside researchers’ institutions otherwise own copies of works in the corpora. The new exemptions pose some important limitations: only researchers at institutions of higher education are allowed this access, and nothing more than “access” is allowed—it does not, for example, allow the transfer of a corpus for local use.
The Office emphasized the need for adequate security protections, pointing back to cases such as Authors Guild v. Google and Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, which emphasized how careful both organizations were, respectively, to prevent their digitized corpora from being misused. To take advantage of this newly expanded TDM exemption, it will be crucial for universities to provide adequate IT support to ensure that technical barriers do not impede TDM researchers. That said, the record for the exemption shows that existing users are exceedingly conscientious when it comes to security. There have been zero reported instances of security breaches or lapses related to TDM corpora being compiled and used under the exemptions.
As we previously explained, the security requirements are changed in a few ways. The new rule clarifies that trade associations can send inquiries on behalf of rightsholders. However, inquiries must be supported by a “reasonable belief” that the sender’s works are in a corpus being used for TDM research. It remains to be seen how the new obligation to disclose security measures to trade associations would impact TDM researchers and their institutions. The Register circuitously called out demands by trade associations sent to digital humanities researchers in the middle of the exemption process with a two-week response deadline as unreasonable and quoted NTIA (which provides input on the exemptions) in agreement that “[t]he timing, targeting, and tenor of these requests [for institutions to disclose their security protocols] are disturbing.” We are hopeful that this discouragement from the Copyright Office will prevent any future large-scale harassment towards TDM researchers and their institutions, but we will also remain vigilant in case trade associations were to abuse this new power.
Alongside the concerns over disclosure requirements, we have some questions about the Copyright Office’s treatment of fair use as a rationale for circumventing TPMs for TDM research. The Register restated her 2021 conclusion that “under Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, lost licensing revenue should only be considered ‘when the use serves as a substitute for the original.’” The Office, in its recommendations, placed considerable weight on the lack of a viable licensing market for TDM, which raises a concern that, in the Office’s view, a use that once was fair and legal might lose that status when the rightsholder starts to offer an adequate licensing option. While this may never become a real issue for the existing TDM exemptions (because no sufficient licensing options exist for TDM researchers, and for the breadth and depth of content needed, it seems unlikely to ever develop), it nonetheless contributes to the growing confusion surrounding the stability of a fair use defense in the face of new licensing markets.
These concerns highlight the need for ongoing advocacy in the realm of TDM research. Overall, the Register of Copyright recognizes TDM as “a relatively new field that is quickly evolving.” This means that we could ask the Library of Congress to relax the limitations placed on TDM if we can point to legitimate research-related purposes. But, due to the nature of this process, it also means TDM researchers do not have a permanent and stable right to circumvent TPMs. As the exemptions remain subject to review every three years, many large trade associations advocate for the TDM exemptions to be greatly limited or even canceled, wishing to stifle independent TDM research. We will continue to advocate for TDM researchers, as we did during the 8th and 9th triennial rulemaking.
Looking beyond the TDM exemption, we noted a few other developments:
Warhol has not fundamentally changed fair use
First, the Opponents of the renewal of the existing exemptions repeatedly pointed to Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith—the Supreme Court’s most recent fair use opinion—to argue that it has changed the fair use analysis such that the existing exemptions should not be renewed. For example, the Opponents argued that the fair use analysis for repairing medical devices changed under Warhol because, according to them, commercial nontransformative uses were less likely to be fair. The Copyright Office did not agree. The Register said that the same fair use analysis as in 2021 applied and that the Opponents failed “to show that the Warhol decision constitutes intervening legal precedent rendering the Office’s prior fair use analysis invalid.” In another instance where the Opponents tried to argue that commerciality must be given more weight under Warhol, the Register pointed out that under Warhol commerciality is not dispositive and must be weighed against the purpose of the new use. The arguments for revisiting the 2021 fair use analyses were uniformly rejected, which we think is good news for those of us who believe Warhol should be read as making a modest adjustment to fair use and not a wholesale reworking of the fair use doctrine.
Does ownership and control of copies matter for access?
One of the requests before the Office was an expansion of an exemption that allows for access to preservation copies of computer programs and video games. The Office rejected the main thrust of the request but, in doing so, also provided an interesting clarification that may reveal some of the Office’s thinking about the relationship between fair use and access to copies owned by the user:
“The Register concludes that proponents did not show that removing the single user limitation for preserved computer programs or permitting off-premises access to video games are likely to be noninfringing. She also notes the greater risk of market harm with removing the video game exemption’s premises limitation, given the market for legacy video games. She recommends clarifying the single copy restriction language to reflect that preservation institutions can allow a copy of a computer program to be accessed by as many individuals as there are circumvented copies legally owned.”
Addressing other non-copyright and AI questions in the 1201 process
The Librarian of Congress’s final rule included a number of notes on issues not addressed by the rulemaking:
“The Librarian is aware that the Register and her legal staff have invested a great deal of time over the past two years in analyzing the many issues underlying the 1201 process and proposed exemptions.
Through this work, the Register has come to believe that the issue of research on artificial intelligence security and trustworthiness warrants more general Congressional and regulatory attention. The Librarian agrees with the Register in this assessment. As a regulatory process focused on technological protection measures for copyrighted content, section 1201 is ill-suited to address fundamental policy issues with new technologies.”
Proponents tried to argue that the software platforms’ restrictions and barriers to conducting AI research, such as their account requirements, rate limits, and algorithmic safeguards, are circumventable TPMs under 1201, but the Register disagreed. The Register maintained that the challenges Proponents described arose not out of circumventable TPMs but out of third-party controlled Software as a Service platforms. This decision can be illuminating for TDM researchers seeking to conduct TDM research on online streaming media or social media posts.
The Librarian’s note went on to say: “The Librarian is further aware of the policy and legal issues involving a generalized ‘‘right to repair’’ equipment with embedded software. These issues have now occupied the White House, Congress, state legislatures, federal agencies, the Copyright Office, and the general public through multiple rounds of 1201 rulemaking.
Copyright is but one piece in a national framework for ensuring the security, trustworthiness, and reliability of embedded software, as well as other copyright-protected technology that affects our daily lives. Issues such as these extend beyond the reach of 1201 and may require a broader solution, as noted by the NTIA.”
These notes give an interesting, though a bit confusing, insight into how the Librarian of Congress and the Copyright Office think about the role of 1201 rulemaking when they address issues that go beyond copyright’s core concerns. While we can agree that 1201 is ill-suited to address fundamental policy issues with new technology, it is also somewhat concerning that the Office and the Librarian view copyright more generally as part of a broader “national framework for ensuring the security, trustworthiness, and reliability of embedded software.” While of course, copyright is sometimes used to further ends outside of its intended purpose, these issues are far from the core constitutional purpose of copyright law and we think they are best addressed through other means.
On September 18, the 5th Circuit decided in Keck v. Mix Creative Learning Center that using copyrighted artwork to teach children how to make art in a similar style does not constitute copyright infringement. The case adds to the well-developed jurisprudence that teaching with copyrighted materials is often protected by fair use.
This case was initially filed in 2021 by plaintiff’s counsel, Mathew Kidman Higbee, a known and prolific copyright litigation firm sometimes accused of troll-like behavior. During the pandemic, the defendant sold a total of six art kits (out of the six kits sold, two were purchased by the plaintiff) that included images of the plaintiff’s dog-themed artworks, biographical information, and details on her artistic styles. Additionally, the kit included paint, paintbrushes, and collage paper. The plaintiff’s side argued that including the artworks in teaching kits constituted willful copyright infringement and therefore demanded $900,000 in damages—to make up for the $250 the defendant made in sales.
The district court dismissed all infringement claims in 2022; and last month, the 5th Circuit court affirmed that including copies of plaintiff’s artwork in a teaching kit is fair use.
The courts found the first and fourth fair use factors to favor the defendant. Under the first factor, even though the defendant’s use was commercial in nature, by accompanying the artworks with art theory and history, the teaching kit transformed the original decorative purpose of the dog-themed artworks. The 5th Circuit distinguished this case from Warhol by pointing out that, in the Warhol case, the infringing use served the same illustrative purpose as the original work, while in this case, “the art kits had educational objectives, while the original works had aesthetic or decorative objectives.”
Under the fourth factor, courts explained that they cannot imagine how the market value of plaintiff’s dog-themed artworks could decrease when included in children’s art lesson kits. The 5th Circuit Court further pointed out that there was no evidence that a market for licensing artworks for similar teaching kits exists now or is ever likely to develop.
Because these “two most important” factors favored the defendant, the defendant’s use was fair use.
Fee Shifting: Plaintiffs Beware of Copyright Troll Law Firms!
The final outcome of the case: the plaintiff was ordered to cover $102,404 in fees and $165.72 in costs for the defendant.
Even though we are happy for the defendant and her counsel that, after a prolonged legal battle, this well-deserved victory is finally won, it is nevertheless disheartening to see the plaintiff-artist left alone in the end to face the high legal fees of this ill-conceived lawsuit. The plaintiff’s counsel not only failed to advise the plaintiff to act in her own best interest (whether it is to settle the case at the right moment or to pursue more plausible claims), but also conjured up willful infringement claims that were clearly meritless to any trained eye. Even the 5th Circuit Court lamented over this in its opinion, as it begrudgingly upheld the district court’s decision based on the abuse of discretion standard it must follow:
It is troubling that Keck alone will be liable for the high fees incurred by Defendants largely because of Higbee & Associates’ overly aggressive litigation strategy. From our review of the record, the law firm lacked a firm evidentiary basis to pursue hundreds of thousands of dollars in statutory damages against Defendants for willful infringement. Nevertheless, we cannot say, on an abuse of discretion standard, that the district court erred by determining that there was insufficient evidence that the firm’s conduct was both unreasonable and vexatious. … But we warn Higbee & Associates that future conduct of this nature may well warrant sanctions, and nothing in this opinion prevents Higbee & Associates from compensating its client, if appropriate, for the fees that she is now obliged to pay Defendants.
This should serve as a cautionary tale for would-be plaintiffs: copyright lawsuits, like any other type of litigation, are primarily meant to address the damages plaintiffs actually suffered, and the final settlement should make plaintiffs whole again—that is, as if no infringement has ever occurred. Copyright lawsuits (or the threat to sue) should not be undertaken as a way to create brand new income streams, such as was the case in the lawsuit described above.
When someone aggressively enforces dubious copyright claims with the sole purpose of collecting exorbitant fees rather than protecting any underlying copyrights, they are called a “copyright troll.” Regrettably, beyond the disreputable law firms that are enthused to pursue aggressive claims, many services now exist to tempt creators into troll-like behavior by promising “new licensing income.” The true aim of these services is solely to collect high representation charges from creators, when users of the creators’ works are harassed into paying exorbitant settlements. Many victims often agree to pay just for the nuisance to stop. This predatory business model has been repeatedly exposed by creators and authors, including famously by Cory Doctorow.
Needless to say, copyright trolls are harmful to the copyright ecosystem. Obviously, innocent users are harmed when slapped with unreasonable demand letters or even frivolous lawsuits. Worse, creators are misled into supporting this unethical practice while deluded into believing they are doggedly following the spirit of the law—sometimes, as was in this case, they are left to face the inevitable consequences of bringing a frivolous lawsuit, while the lawyer or agent that originally led them into the mire gets off free, upward and onward to their next “representation.”
It was very unfortunate that the district court did not fully study the plaintiff’s counsel’s track record and issue appropriate disciplinary orders against him. The problem of copyright trolls will have to be addressed soon in order to preserve a healthy copyright system.
Lately, we’ve seen a congeries of novel conceptions about “derivative works.” For example, a reader of our blog stated that when looking at AI models and AI outputs, works should be considered infringing “derivatives” even when there is no substantial similarity between the infringing AI model/outputs and the ingested originals. Even in the courts, we’ve seen confusion, for example, Hachette v. Internet Archive presented us with the following statement about derivative works:
Changing the medium of a work is a derivative use rather than a transformative one. . . . In fact, we have characterized this exact use―“the recasting of a novel as an e-book”―as a “paradigmatic” example of a derivative work. [citation omitted; emphasis added]
These statements leave one to wonder—what is a copy, a derivative work, an infringing use, and a transformative fair use in the context of U.S. copyright law? In order to have some clarity on these questions, it’s helpful to juxtapose “derivative works” first with “copies” and then with “transformative uses.” We think the confusion about derivative work and its related concepts arises out of using the phrase to mean “a work that is substantially similar to the original work” as well as “a work that is so in an unauthorized way, not excused from liabilities.”
There are many immediate real world implications for confusion over the meaning of “derivative work.” In privately negotiated agreements, licensees who have a right to make reproductions but not derivative works may be confused as to what medium their use is restricted to. For example, a publisher of a book with a license that allows it to make reproductions but not derivatives might be confused as to whether, under the Hachette court’s reasoning, it is allowed to republish a print book in a digital format such as a simple PDF of a scan. Similarly, for public licenses, such as the CC ND licenses, where a licensor stipulates restriction on the creation of derivative works, it causes confusion for downstream users whether, say, changing a pdf into a Word document is allowed.
This is also an important topic to explore both in the recent hot debates over Controlled Digital Lending and generative artificial intelligence, as well as in an author’s everyday work—for instance, would quoting someone else’s work make your article/book a derivative work of the original?
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work. The derivative work right is often referred to as the adaptation right. The following are examples of the many different types of derivative works:
A motion picture based on a play or novel
A translation of an novel written in English into another language
A revision of a previously published book
A sculpture based on a drawing
A drawing based on a photograph
A lithograph based on a painting
A drama about John Doe based on the letters and journal entries of John Doe
A musical arrangement of a preexisting musical work
A new version of an existing computer program
An adaptation of a dramatic work
A revision of a website
One immediate observation that can be made from reading these, is that “ebook” or “digitized version of a work” is not listed as, nor similar to any of the exemplary derivative works in the Copyright Act or the Copyright Office Circular. By contrast, “ebook” or “digitized version of a work” seems to fit much better under the § 101 definition of “copies”:
“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
The most crucial difference between a “copy” and a “derivative work” is whether new authorship is added. If no new authorship is added, merely changing the material that the work is fixed on does not create a new copyrightable derivative work. This, in fact, is observed by many courts before Hachette. For example, in Corel v. Bridgeman Art Gallery, the court unequivocally held that there is no new copyright granted to photos of public domain paintings.
Additionally, as we know from Feist v. Rural Tel., “[t]he mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work may be protected.” Copyright protection is only limited to the original elements of a work. We cannot call a work “derivative” of another if it does not incorporate any copyrightable elements from the original copyrighted work. For example, the “Game Genie” device, which let players change elements of a Nintendo game, was not found to be a derivative work by the court because it didn’t incorporate any part of the Nintendo game.
It is clear from this examination that sometimes a later-created work is a copy, sometimes a derivative, and sometimes it may not implicate any of the exclusive rights of the original.
Part III: “Derivative” and “Transformative” Works
Let’s quickly recap the context in which courts are confusing “derivative” and “transformative” works—
A prima facie case of copyright infringement requires the copyright holder to prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) inappropriate copying of original elements. We will not go into more details here, but essentially, the inappropriate copying prong requires plaintiffs to assert and prove defendant’s access to the plaintiff’s work as well as a level of similarity between the works in question that shows improper appropriation of the plaintiff’s work. If the similarity between the defendant’s work and protectable elements in the plaintiff’s work is minimal, then there is no infringement. As seen in the “Game Genie” example above, courts can rely on substantial similarity analysis to determine whether a work is indeed a potentially-infringing copy or derivative of the plaintiff’s work.
Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie infringement case—e.g., the defendant’s work is shown to be a derivative or a copy of the plaintiff’s registered work—the defendant may still nevertheless be free to make the use if the use falls outside the ambit of the copyright holder’s §106 rights, such as uses that are fair use. Whether a work is a derivative work under § 106 is no longer a relevant inquiry after establishing a prima facie case: this point is starkly obvious when looking at the many plausible defenses a defendant can raise (including fair use) where even the verbatim copying of a work is authorized by law.
As the court stated in Authors Guild v. Hathitrust, “there are important limits to an author’s rights to control original and derivative works. One such limit is the doctrine of ‘fair use,’ which allows the public to draw upon copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright holder in certain circumstances.” When a prima facie infringement case is already established, yet a court still discusses whether the defendant’s work is a “derivative work,” at a minimum, the court adds confusion by beyond the § 101 definition of a derivative work.
In fact, a distinct new significance is being given to “derivative work” in recent years in the context of the “purpose and character” factor of fair use, specifically, when analyzing if a use has a transformative purpose. The shift in a word’s meaning or a concept is not per se unimaginable or objectionable. It is misguided to consider the copyright legal landscape static. As law professor Pamela Samuelson pointed out, before the mid-19th century, most courts did not even think copyright holders were entitled to demand compensation from others preparing derivative works. The 1976 Copyright Act finally codified copyright holders’ exclusive right to prepare derivative works. And, now, some rights holders want the courts to say there are categorical derivative uses that can never be considered fair use.
The Hachette court is among those that have unfortunately bought into this novel approach. The court seems not only to misconstrue the salient distinction between a ‘copy of a work’ and a ‘derivative work’, they appear to give heightened protections to works they now define as ‘derivative’. If this misconception becomes widespread, we will be living in a world where if a use is new-derivative, then it is never transformative (and, if it is not transformative, it is likely not fair). Ultimately, it is purely circular for a court to say that the reason for denying the fair use defense is that the use is derivative. When we buy into this setup of “derivative v.s. transformative,” it is difficult to ever say with confidence that a work is transformative, because at the same time we remember how a transformative use should often fit in the actual definition of derivative work under § 101, “derivative”—just like the Green Day rendition of the plaintiff’s art in Seltzer v. Green Day.
Clearly, if we take “derivative work” at its true § 101 definition, out of all potentially infringing works, “transformative fair use” is not an absolute complement, but a possible subset, of derivative works. We know from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose that “transformativeness is a matter of degree, not a binary;” whereas no such sliding scale is plausible for derivative works. A work is either a derivative or it is not: there’s never a “somewhat derivative” work in copyright. All in all, it makes little sense to frame the issues as “transformative v.s. derivative work”—such discussions inevitably buy into the rhetorics of copyright expansionists. We have already warned the court in Warhol against the danger of speaking heedlessly about derivative works in the context of fair use. We must ensure that the “derivative v.s. transformative” dichotomy does not come to dominate future discussions of fair use, so that we conserve the utility and clarity of the fair use doctrine.
The expansion of the relevance of “derivative work” beyond the establishment of a prima facie infringement case not only creates a circular reasoning for denying fair use, but also makes it impossible to make sense of the case law we have accumulated on fair use. Take Seltzer v. Green Day for example, the court held that a work can be transformative even if that work “makes few physical changes to the original.” The Green Day concert background art with a red cross superimposed was found to be a fair use of the original street art—a classic example of how a prima facie infringing derivative work can nevertheless be a transformative, and thus fair, use. Similarly, in Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation, a derivative use of a photo on a tshirt was found to be a fair use. Ideas and concepts, including “derivative works,” are only important to the extent they elucidate our understanding of the world. When the use of “derivative works” leads to more confusion than clarity, we should be cautious in adopting the new meaning being superimposed on “derivative works.”
The booming AI industry has sparked heated debates over what AI developers are legally allowed to do. So far, we have learned from the US Copyright Office and courts that AI created works are not protectable, unless it is combined with human authorship.
As we monitor two dozen ongoing lawsuits and regulatory efforts that address various aspects of AI’s legality, we see legitimate legal questions that must be resolved. However, we also see some prominent yet flawed arguments that have been used to enflame discussions, particularly by publisher-plaintiffs and their supporters. For now, let’s focus on some clickbait arguments that sound appealing but are fundamentally baseless.
When AI tools such as ChatGPT first appeared online, many leading authors and creators publicly endorsed it as a useful tool like any other tech innovation that came before it. At the same time, many others claimed that authors and creators of lesser caliber will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the advent of AI.
This intuition-driven hypothesis, that AI will be the bane of average authors, has so far proved to be misguided.
We now know that AI tools can greatly help authors during the ideation stage, especially for less creative authors. According to a study published last month, AI tools had minimal impact on the output of highly creative authors, but were able to enhance the works of less imaginative authors.
AI can also serve as a readily-accessible editor for authors. Research shows that AI enhances the quality of routine communications. Without AI-powered tools, a less-skilled person will often struggle with the cognitive burden of managing data, which limits both the quality and quantity of their potential output. AI helps level the playing field by handling data-intensive tasks, allowing writers to focus more on making creative and other crucial decisions about their works.
It is true that entirely AI-generated works of abysmal quality are available for purchase on some platforms. Some of these works are using human authors’ names without authorization. These AI-generated works may infringe on authors’ right of publicity, but they do not present commercially-viable alternatives to books authored by humans. Readers prefer higher-quality works produced with human supervision and interference (provided that digital platforms do not act recklessly towards their human authors despite generating huge profits from human authors).
Are lawsuits against AI companies brought with authors’ best interest in mind?
In the ongoing debate over AI, publishers and copyright aggregators have suggested that they have brought these lawsuits to defend the interests of human authors. Consider the New York Times for example, in its complaint against OpenAI, NY Times describes their operations as “a creative and deeply human endeavor (¶31)” that necessitates “investment of human capital (¶196).” NY Times argues that OpenAI has built innovation on the stolen hard work and creative output from journalists, editors, photographers, data analysts, and others—an argument contrary to what the NY Times once argued in court in New York Times v. Tasini, that authors’ rights must take a backseat to NY Times’ financial interests in new digital uses.
It is also hard to believe that many of the publishers and aggregators are on the side of authors when we look at how they have approached licensing deals for AI training. These licensing deals can be extremely profitable for the publishers. For example, Taylor and Francis sold AI training data to OpenAI for 10 million USD. John Wiley and Sons earned $23 million from a similar deal with a non-disclosed tech company. Though we don’t have the details of these agreements, it seems easy to surmise that in return for the money received, the publishers will not harass the AI companies with future lawsuits. (See our previous blog post about these licensing deals and what you can do as an author.) It is ironic how an allegedly unethical and harmful practice quickly becomes acceptable once the publishers are profiting from it.
How much of the millions of dollars changing hands will go to individual authors? Limited data exist. We know that Cambridge University Press, a good-faith outlier, is offering authors 20% royalties if their work is licensed for AI training. Most publishers and aggregators are entirely opaque about how authors are to be compensated in these deals. Take the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) for example, it offers zero information about how individual authors are consulted or compensated when their works are sold for AI training under CCC AI training license.
This is by no means a new problem for authors. We know that traditionally-published book authors receive around 10% of royalties from their publishers: a little under $2 per copy for most books. On an ebook, authors receive a similar amount for each “copy” sold. This little amount handed to authors only starts to look generous when compared to academic publishing, where authors increasingly pay publishers to have their articles published in journals. The journal authors receive zero royalties, despite the publishers’ growing profit.
Even before the advent of AI technology, most authors were struggling to make a living on writing alone. According to an Authors Guild’s survey in 2018, the median income for full-time writers was $20,300, and for part-time writers, a mere $6,080. Fair wage and equitable profit sharing is an issue that needs to be settled between authors and publishers, even if publishers try to scapegoat AI companies.
As we (along with many others) have repeatedly pointed out, many authors disagree with the publishers and aggregators’ restrictive view on fair use in these cases, and don’t want or need a self-appointed guardian to “protect” their interests. We have seen the same over-broad class designation in the Authors Guild v. Google case, which caused many authors to object, including many of our own 200 founding members.
Respect for copyright and human authors’ hard work means no more AI training under US copyright law?
While we wait for courts to figure out the key questions on infringement and fair use, let’s take a moment to remember what copyright law does not regulate.
Copyright law in the US exists to further the Constitutional goal to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” In 1991, the Supreme Court held in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service that copyright cannot be granted solely based on how much time or energy authors have expended. “Compensation for hard work“ may be a valid ethical discussion, but it is not a relevant topic in the context of copyright law.
Does this mean I should side with the AI companies in this debate?
Many of the largest AI companies exhibit troubling traits that they have in common with many publishers, copyright aggregators, digital platforms (e.g., Twitter, TikTok, Youtube, Amazon, Netflix, etc.), and many other companies with dominant market power. There’s no transparency or oversight afforded to the authors or the public. The authors and the public have little say in how the AI models are trained, just like how we have no influence over how content is moderated on digital platforms, how much royalties authors receive from the publishers, or how much publishers and copyright aggregators can charge users. None of these crucial systematic flaws will be fixed by granting publishers a share of AI companies’ revenue.
Copyright also is not the entire story. As we’ve seen recently, there are some significant open questions about the right of publicity and somewhat related concerns about the ability of AI to churn out digital fakes for all sorts of purposes, some of which are innocent, but others are fraudulent, misleading, or exploitative. The US Copyright Office released a report on digital replicas on July 31 addressing the question of digital publicity rights, and on the same day the NO FAKES Act was officially introduced. Will the rights of authors and the public be adequately considered in that debate? Let’s remain vigilant as we wait to see the first-ever AI-generated public figure in a leading role to hit theaters in September 2024.
This guest post was jointly authored by Mariah Johnson and Marcus Liou, student attorneys in Georgetown’s Intellectual Property and Information Policy (iPIP) Clinic.
Generative AI (GenAI) systems perpetuate biases, and authors can have a potent role in mitigating such biases.
But GenAI is generatingcontroversy among authors. Can authors do anything to ensure that these systems promote progress rather than prevent it? Authors Alliance believes the answer is yes, and we worked with them to launch a new zine, Putting the AI in Fair Use: Authors’ Abilities to Promote Progress, that demonstrates how authors can share their works broadly to shape better AI systems. Drawing together Authors Alliance’s past blog posts and advocacy discussing GenAI, copyright law, and authors, this zine emphasizes how authors can help prevent AI bias and protect “the widest possible access to information of all kinds.”
(3) the amount or substantiality of the portion used, and
(4) the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the work.
While courts have not decided whether using copyrighted works as training data for GenAI is fair use, past fair use decisions involving algorithms, such as Perfect 10, iParadigms, Google Books, and HathiTrust favored the consentless use of other people’s copyrighted works to create novel computational systems. In those cases, judges repeatedly found that algorithmic technologies aligned with the Constitutional justification for copyright law: promoting progress.
But some GenAI outputs prevent progress by projecting biases. GenAI outputs are biased in part because they use biased, low friction data (BLFD) as training data, like content scraped from the public internet. Examples of BLFD include Creative Commons (CC) licensed works, like Wikipedia, and works in the public domain. While Wikipedia is used as training data in most AI systems, its articles are overwhelmingly written by men–and that bias is reflected in shorter and fewer articles about women. And because the public domain cuts off in the mid-1920s, those works often reflect the harmful gender and racial biases of that time. However, if authors allow their copyrighted works to be used as GenAI training data, those authors can help mitigate some of the biases embedded in BLFD.
Current biases in GenAI are disturbing. As we discuss in our zine, word2vec is a very popular toolkit used to help machine learning (ML) models recognize relationships between words–like women as homemakers and Black men with the word “assaulted.” Similarly, OpenAI’s GenAI chatbox ChatGPT, when asked to generate letters of recommendation, used “expert,” “reputable,” and “authentic” to describe men and “beauty,” “stunning,” and “emotional” for women, discounting women’s competency and reinforcing harmful stereotypes about working women. An intersectional perspective can help authors see the compounding impact of these harms. What began as a legal framework to describe why discrimination law did not adequately address harms facing Black women, it is now used as a wider lens to consider how marginalization affects all people with multiple identities. Coined by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw in the late 1980s, intersectionality uses critical theory like Critical Race Theory, feminism, and working-class studies together as “a lens . . . for seeing the way in which various forms of inequality often operate together and exacerbate each other.” Contemporary authors’ copyrighted works often reflect the richness of intersectional perspectives, and using those works as training data can help mitigate GenAI bias against marginalized people by introducing diverse narratives and inclusive language. Not always–even recent works reflect bias–but more often than might be possible currently.
Which brings us back to fair use. Some corporations may rely on the doctrine to include more works by or about marginalized people in an attempt to mitigate GenAI bias. Professor Mark Lemley and Bryan Casey have suggested “[t]he solution [to facial recognition bias] is to build bigger databases overall or to ‘oversample’ members of smaller groups” because “simply restricting access to more data is not a viable solution.” Similarly, Professor Matthew Sagnotes that “[r]estricting the training data for LLMs to public domain and open license material would tend to encode the perspectives, interests, and biases of a distinctly unrepresentative set of authors.” However, many marginalized people may wish to be excluded from these databases rather than have their works or stories become grist for the mill. As Dr. Anna Lauren Hoffman warns, “[I]nclusion reinforces the structural sources of violence it supposedly addresses.”
Legally, if not ethically, fair use may moot the point. The doctrine is flexible, fact-dependent, and fraught. It’s also fairly predictable, which is why legal precedent and empirical work have led many legal scholars to believe that using copyrighted works as training data to debias AI will be fair use–even if that has some public harms. Back in 2017, Professor Ben Sobel concluded that “[i]f engineers made unauthorized use of copyrighted data for the sole purpose of debiasing an expressive program, . . . fair use would excuse it.” Professor Amanda Levendowski has explained why and how “[f]air use can, quite literally, promote creation of fairer AI systems.” More recently, Dr. Mehtab Khan and Dr. Alex Hanna observed that “[a]ccessing copyright work may also be necessary for the purpose of auditing, testing, and mitigating bias in datasets . . . [and] it may be useful to rely on the flexibility of fair use, and support access for researchers and auditors.”
No matter how you feel about it, fair use is not the end of the story. It is ill-equipped to solve the troubling growth of AI-powered deepfakes. After being targeted by sexualized deepfakes, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez described “[d]eepfakes [as] absolutely a way of digitizing violent humiliation against other people.” Fair use will not solve the intersectional harms of AI-powered face surveillance either. Dr. Joy Buolamwini and Dr. Timnit Gebru evaluated leading gender classifiers used to train face surveillance technologies and discovered that they more accurately classified males over females and lighter-skinned over darker-skinned people. The researchers also discovered that the “classifiers performed worst on darker female subjects.” While legal scholars like Professors Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Margaret Chon, and Cathay Smith argue that copyright law can protect privacy interests, like the ones threatened by deepfakes or face surveillance, federal privacy laws are a more permanent, comprehensive way to address these problems.
