In this episode of Artificial Intelligence: Papers and Concepts, we explore the growing debate around AI and copyright-one of the most important legal questions emerging in the age of generative AI. As models learn from vast datasets of human-created work, questions arise about ownership, authorship, and whether AI-generated content can or should be protected under traditional copyright law.

We break down how modern AI systems are trained, why copyright frameworks are struggling to keep up with generative technologies, and what recent legal arguments and policy discussions reveal about the future of creative ownership. If you're interested in AI ethics, intellectual property, or the evolving relationship between technology and law, this episode explains why the copyright debate may shape the next era of artificial intelligence innovation.

Interested in Computer Vision and AI consulting and product development services? Email us at [email protected] or

visit us at https://bigvision.ai

References:

Primary materials relied upon in this report (statutes, court opinions/orders, and Copyright Office documents):

[1] U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) (updated through Dec. 18, 2025). (https://www.copyright.gov/title17/)

[2] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/340)

[3] Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).(https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep111/usrep111053/usrep111053.pdf)

[4] Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).(https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/communityforcreativenonviolence-reid.pdf)

[5] Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018). (https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/04/23/16-15469.pdf)

[6] Kelley v. Chicago Park District, 635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2011). https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/08-3701/08-3701-2011-02-15-opinion-2011-03-16.pdf?ts=1411036737)

[7] Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997). (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Urantia_Foundation_v._Maaherra.pdf)

[8] Thaler v. Perlmutter, Memorandum Opinion, Civil Action No. 22-1564 (BAH) (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023). (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/district-court-decision-affirming-refusal-of-registration.pdf)

[9] Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (affirming refusal of registration). (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/court-of-appeals-decision-affirming-refusal-of-registration.pdf)

[10] Supreme Court of the United States. Docket No. 25-449, Thaler v. Perlmutter (status as of Feb. 25, 2026). (https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-449.html)

[11] U.S. Copyright Office. Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (Policy Guidance) (Mar. 16, 2023). (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf)

[12] U.S. Copyright Office. Letter/decision regarding Zarya of the Dawn (Feb. 21, 2023). (https://www.copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf)

[13] U.S. Copyright Office Review Board. Théâtre D'opéra Spatial decision (Sept. 5, 2023). (https://copyright.gov/ai/docs/theatre-dopera-spatial.pdf)

[14] U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability (Report) (Jan.2025). (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf)

[15] Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH et al. v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D.Del. Feb. 11, 2025) (opinion & order). https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/thomsonreutersenterprisecentre-rossintelligenceinc_0.pdf)

[16] The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., No. 23-cv-11195 and related cases (S.D.N.Y. Apr.4, 2025) (opinion & order on motions to dismiss). (https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/23cv11195andrelatedmts-025.pdf)

[17] In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 25-md-03143 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) (opinion & order on output-based infringement). https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/open-ai-motion-to-dismiss-infringement-opinion.pdf)cert denied Mar. 2,

[18] Doe 1 et al. v. GitHub, Inc. et al., No. 4:22-cv-06823-JST (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024) (order granting inpart/denying in part motions to dismiss). (https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2024/02/motion-to-dismiss-ruling/195.pdf)

[19] Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. et al., No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal. order on motions to dismiss,Aug. 12, 2024). (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/223-order.pdf)

[20] Kadrey et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417-VC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2025) (order on fairuse summary judgment). (https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2023cv03417/415175/598/0.pdf?ts=1751049986)

[21] U.S. Copyright Office. Compendium (Third) Chapter 300: Copyrightable Authorship: What Can BeRegistered (effective Jan. 28, 2021).(https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf)

[22] Reuters. U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights in AI-generated material(Mar. 2, 2026). (https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02/)