AI Copyright Liability: Legal Guide for Creators

When AI Steals Your Creative Work

#

A new wave of litigation is reshaping copyright law. Over 50 lawsuits have been filed against AI companies for training their models on copyrighted works without permission or payment. From The New York Times demanding billions in damages from OpenAI to visual artists suing image generators for scraping their artwork, creators are fighting back against what they see as industrial-scale theft.

The stakes extend beyond individual creators. If AI companies can freely use copyrighted materials to train competing products, what remains of intellectual property protection? If AI-generated content floods markets, displacing human creators, who bears responsibility? These questions are now before federal courts—and the answers will define creative rights in the AI era.

The Legal Landscape

#

The Training Data Problem

#

Generative AI models—whether they produce text, images, music, or code—learn by analyzing vast datasets of existing content. Companies like OpenAI, Stability AI, and Anthropic have trained their models on billions of copyrighted works scraped from the internet, often without permission, attribution, or compensation.

How AI Training Works:

1. Companies collect massive datasets from the internet
2. Copyrighted works are ingested alongside public domain content
3. Models learn patterns, styles, and information from these works
4. Trained models can generate content similar to (or derived from) originals
5. Generated content competes with original creators in the marketplace

The Scale of the Problem:

• LAION-Aesthetics dataset: ~47% from stock photo sites and user-generated platforms
• ~3.3 million images sourced from DeviantArt alone
• The New York Times: “millions” of articles used without consent
• Westlaw headnotes: 2,243 works found to be infringed in Thomson Reuters case

Fair Use: The Central Legal Question

#

AI companies uniformly rely on the “fair use” defense—arguing that training AI models is analogous to human learning and constitutes transformative use of copyrighted materials.

The Four Fair Use Factors:

Current Score Card (as of October 2025):

• 3 judges have ruled on fair use in AI training cases
• 2 rulings for AI companies (fair use found)
• 1 ruling against (Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence)
• No summary judgment decisions expected until summer 2026

Landmark Cases

#

Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence

#

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Delaware Judge: Stephanos Bibas (Third Circuit, sitting by designation) Ruling Date: February 11, 2025 Outcome: Summary judgment for Thomson Reuters—Fair use defense rejected

This is the first U.S. court decision finding that AI training does NOT constitute fair use.

Background: Ross Intelligence, an AI-powered legal search startup, sought to license Westlaw content to train its search tool. Thomson Reuters (Westlaw’s owner) declined. Ross then engaged a third party, LegalEase, to create “bulk memos” incorporating Westlaw’s proprietary headnotes. These memos were used to train Ross’s competing product.

Key Holdings:

• Westlaw headnotes are sufficiently original for copyright protection
• Ross infringed 2,243 Westlaw headnotes
• Fair use defense rejected because Ross created a “market substitute” for Westlaw
• Fourth factor (market effect) was “the single most important element”

Significance: While this case doesn’t involve generative AI, it’s the first ruling against fair use for AI training. It will be “frequently cited” in future cases and signals that AI companies competing with their training data sources face serious liability.

The New York Times v. OpenAI & Microsoft

#

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Judge: Sidney Stein Status: Discovery phase, proceeding toward trial

Allegations: The Times claims OpenAI and Microsoft used “millions” of its copyrighted articles to train AI models without consent, resulting in:

• Direct copyright infringement
• Unfair competition
• Trademark dilution
• Economic harm from users bypassing paywall via ChatGPT

Damages Sought: “Billions of dollars” in statutory and actual damages

Key 2025 Developments:

March 2025: Judge Stein rejected OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, allowing the main copyright infringement claims to proceed.

May 2025: Magistrate Judge Ona Wang issued a preservation order requiring OpenAI to retain all ChatGPT conversation logs—affecting 400 million+ users worldwide.

June 2025: Judge Stein denied OpenAI’s objections, affirming the preservation order.

November 2025: OpenAI ordered to produce 20 million chat logs to show how users interact with Times content through ChatGPT.

OpenAI’s Defense:

• Claims training on publicly available data is “fair use”
• Argues AI models are “transformative—spectacularly so”
• Points to earlier rulings finding fair use for AI training

The Times’ Position:

• AI outputs “closely resemble” original articles
• ChatGPT allows users to access paywalled content without paying
• Training without permission causes direct economic harm

Andersen v. Stability AI (Artists Class Action)

#

Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California Judge: William Orrick Status: Proceeding on copyright claims

Three visual artists—Karla Ortiz, Kelly McKernan, and Sarah Andersen—filed a class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI, alleging their artwork was scraped to train image generators without permission.

Key 2024-2025 Developments:

October 2023: Most claims dismissed, but direct copyright claim against Stability AI survives.

February 2024: Court rejected defendants’ First Amendment/anti-SLAPP defense.

August 2024: Judge Orrick ruled artists may proceed on claims that:

• Companies violate rights by illegally storing work
• Stable Diffusion was built “to a significant extent on copyrighted works”
• Model was “created to facilitate that infringement by design”

Defendants’ Arguments:

• Midjourney: “Plaintiffs have yet to be able to show a single example of a work they’ve extracted… that looks like their copyright registered work”
• DeviantArt: “DeviantArt itself never extracted from the model any output that is a copyright infringement”
• Stability AI: “Anyone that believes that this isn’t fair use does not understand the technology”

The Proliferation of AI Copyright Lawsuits

#

By the Numbers

#

As of October 2025, researchers tracking AI copyright litigation have documented 51 active lawsuits against AI companies. The pace is accelerating—new cases are filed monthly.

Major Defendants:

• OpenAI: NYT, authors, comedians, music publishers
• Microsoft: Named with OpenAI in multiple suits
• Stability AI: Getty Images, artists, photographers
• Anthropic: Settled with authors (first major settlement)
• Google: Sued by authors over Gemini training
• Meta: Multiple suits over Llama training data
• Nvidia: Sued for facilitating AI training infrastructure

Music Industry Litigation

#

RIAA v. Suno (June 2024): The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed the first major lawsuit against an AI music generator. Suno allows users to create music from text prompts—the lawsuit alleges mass copyright infringement of sound recordings.

Universal Music v. Udio (Settled 2024): Universal Music Group sued AI song generator Udio, then settled and agreed to partner. Terms undisclosed.

GEMA v. OpenAI (Germany): German music rights organization representing 100,000+ composers won ruling that OpenAI violated German copyright laws.

Other Significant Cases

#

Who Owns AI-Generated Content?

#

The Copyright Office Position

#

The U.S. Copyright Office has issued clear guidance: purely AI-generated content receives no copyright protection.

Key Principles:

• Works “solely generated by an AI” lack copyright protection
• No one can own copyright to purely AI-generated work—it’s in the public domain
• The Copyright Office will refuse to register AI-only works
• Federal courts have upheld these registration denials

The Human Authorship Requirement:

The Copyright Office takes the position that:

• “Repeatedly entering prompts until the output matches… desired expression” is insufficient
• “Spinning a metaphorical wheel with infinite possibilities” and selecting outputs doesn’t create ownership
• “Identical prompts can generate multiple different outputs”—indicating lack of human control

When Copyright IS Available:

If a work contains both AI-generated elements and human authorship:

• Human-authored portions may be protected
• Human arrangement, selection, and coordination may be protected
• “Assistive uses of AI systems” don’t automatically disqualify protection
• Adding AI-generated content to larger human-created works doesn’t disqualify the whole work

Recent Example: In January 2025, the Copyright Office registered “A Collection of Objects Which Do Not Exist” as a “collage, selection and arrangement.” The artist used AI to generate individual components, then exercised creative judgment in curating them. Protection was granted for the collage—but “images generated by artificial intelligence” were specifically excluded.

Platform Terms of Service

#

Different AI platforms have different approaches:

Liability for Using AI-Generated Content

#

If You’re a Business Using AI Content

#

Companies using AI-generated content face multiple risks:

Copyright Infringement Risk:

• AI outputs may closely resemble copyrighted training data
• You could be sued for distributing infringing content
• “I didn’t know it was copied” is not a defense

Trademark Infringement Risk:

• AI image generators can reproduce watermarks (Getty Images case)
• Generated logos may infringe existing trademarks
• Brand confusion liability possible

No Copyright Protection Risk:

• Your AI-generated marketing materials may be public domain
• Competitors can freely copy your AI content
• No legal recourse against copying

Due Diligence Recommendations

#

Before Using AI-Generated Content:

1. Search for similar existing works — Reverse image search, plagiarism detection
2. Document your prompts — Show human creative direction
3. Add substantial human modification — Edit, enhance, transform
4. Consider licensing — Some platforms offer indemnification
5. Consult legal counsel — Especially for commercial use

Rights for Creators

#

If Your Work Was Used to Train AI

#

Potential Claims:

• Direct Copyright Infringement: Unauthorized copying into training data
• Vicarious Infringement: AI company profiting from your work
• Contributory Infringement: AI tools facilitating further infringement
• Unfair Competition: AI competing using your creative labor
• Unjust Enrichment: Profiting without compensation

Evidence to Gather:

• Proof your work was in training datasets (LAION, Common Crawl, etc.)
• Examples of AI outputs resembling your style
• Economic harm from AI competition
• Screenshots of AI reproducing your work
• Dataset documentation showing your work included

Joining Existing Litigation

#

Several class actions are open to additional plaintiffs:

• Visual artists: Andersen v. Stability AI class action
• Authors/writers: Multiple pending class actions
• Photographers: Getty Images-related litigation
• Musicians: RIAA pursuing industry-wide claims

Consider Individual Suits If:

• You have substantial documented infringement
• Your work is particularly prominent in AI outputs
• You’ve suffered quantifiable economic harm
• Class action damages would be inadequate

Opting Out of AI Training

#

Protective Measures:

• robots.txt: Tell crawlers not to index your site
• AI.txt: Emerging standard for AI-specific opt-out
• Metadata: Flag content as not for AI training
• Terms of Service: Explicitly prohibit AI training use
• Technical measures: Watermarking, access restrictions

Limitations:

• Opt-outs may not be respected
• Historical scraping already occurred
• Technical measures can be circumvented
• Enforcement remains challenging

Licensing and Settlements

#

The Emerging Licensing Market

#

As litigation pressures mount, AI companies are increasingly seeking licenses:

OpenAI Licensing Deals:

• The Atlantic
• Shutterstock
• Axel Springer
• Condé Nast
• Wiley

Settlement Precedent: Anthropic settled with a group of U.S. authors who alleged copyright infringement—the first settlement in the wave of major AI copyright lawsuits. Terms were confidential, but it signals willingness to resolve claims.

What This Means for Creators

#

Opportunities:

• Licensing revenue stream possible
• Settlements may provide compensation
• Collective licensing bodies may emerge
• Industry standards developing

Challenges:

• Individual creators have less leverage
• Settlement amounts likely modest
• Licensing may be “take it or leave it”
• Opt-out may be impractical for working creators

Practical Guidance

#

For Creators Whose Work May Have Been Used

#

1. Document your portfolio — Timestamp and register key works
2. Search training datasets — Tools exist to check LAION and others
3. Monitor AI outputs — Test if systems can reproduce your style
4. Preserve evidence — Screenshot AI outputs resembling your work
5. Join collective efforts — Class actions, guilds, associations
6. Consult an attorney — About individual claims and class participation

For Businesses Using AI Tools

#

1. Understand the risks — AI content may be unprotectable or infringing
2. Document human contribution — Show creative direction and editing
3. Avoid style mimicry — Don’t prompt “in the style of [living artist]”
4. Check for similarity — Before publishing AI-generated content
5. Consider indemnification — Some enterprise AI tools offer protection
6. Monitor litigation — Rules may change as cases resolve

Evidence Preservation

#

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Related Resources

#

• Legal AI Hallucinations — When AI fabricates legal citations
• AI Medical Diagnosis Liability — AI errors in healthcare
• AI Chatbots Industry — Chatbot liability overview
• Understanding Liability — Product liability frameworks
• Evidence Checklist — What to preserve after any incident