For artists, writers, and musicians, their work is not just a profession; it is an expression of self and a source of livelihood protected by copyright. However, the explosion of Generative AI—which can create novel, beautiful, or complex works in seconds—has thrown the entire concept of ownership and originality into chaos. The core debate is not just philosophical, but intensely legal and financial: who is the creator, and who gets paid?
Therefore, we must dissect the two major battles being fought in courts and creative industries today.
I. The Fight Over Authorship: Can AI Be Creative?
The first and most fundamental challenge deals with who owns the copyright to the final piece of AI-generated content. Current copyright law is built on the premise that only a human can be an author.
A. The US Position: Human Authorship Required
In the United States, the Copyright Office has been clear: a work must be created by a human being to receive protection.
- The Rejection of Pure AI: If an AI model like Midjourney or ChatGPT generates an image or text solely in response to a simple text prompt, it cannot be copyrighted. Consequently, the output is considered to lack the required “human authorship” and falls into the public domain.
- The Human Contribution Rule: If a human significantly edits, arranges, or combines the AI-generated elements, then the human-authored portions of the work may be eligible for copyright. Therefore, the human creator must demonstrate substantial creative control that goes beyond mere prompting or simple modification.
B. The Global Divide: Different Approaches
While the US requires a strong human hand, other regions are testing different frameworks.
- A Contrasting View: In some landmark cases, like one decided by the Beijing Internet Court in China, a judge granted copyright protection to an AI-generated image. Furthermore, the court ruled that the human user’s choice of prompts, parameters, and aesthetic decisions demonstrated sufficient “intellectual input” to qualify the work as original.
- The Unclear Future: These differing rulings highlight a global legal gray area. In short, until international bodies agree on a standard, copyright protection for AI-assisted work will vary wildly from country to country.
II. The Fight Over Training Data: The Source of Creativity
The second major legal battle is fought not over the AI’s output, but over its input—the massive amounts of copyrighted material used to train the models in the first place.
A. The Legal Claim: Infringement by Copying
Creative professionals, including authors and visual artists, have filed dozens of lawsuits against AI developers.
- The Core Allegation: The plaintiffs allege that AI companies committed mass copyright infringement by “scraping” or downloading millions of copyrighted books, images, and articles without permission or compensation. Therefore, they claim the foundation of the AI model itself is built on stolen intellectual property.
- The Transformative Use Argument: AI companies often defend their actions by invoking “Fair Use,” arguing that using the data to train a model is a transformative use—meaning they are not creating simple copies, but using the data to build a new technical tool. However, courts are split on whether this argument holds up, especially when the AI output directly competes with the original works.
B. The Economic Impact: Market Erosion
Beyond the legal technicalities, the uncontrolled use of copyrighted data poses a significant economic threat to creators.
- Loss of Income: If AI can instantly generate new text or images in the style of a living artist or author, it devalues their original work and reduces the demand for human-created content. Consequently, this threatens the livelihood of the creative class that built the very data the AI relies upon.
- The Licensing Solution: Many media companies and publishers are now demanding licensing fees to allow their content to be used for AI training. Thus, the future likely involves a structured marketplace where AI developers must pay to ethically source their data.
III. Conclusion: A New Era of Collaboration
In summary, the challenge of AI creativity is forcing us to redefine what “originality” means in the digital age. The current legal consensus leans heavily on the idea that the creative spark requires a human mind.
Ultimately, the future of creativity is likely one of hybrid authorship—where humans use AI as a powerful tool (like a sophisticated paintbrush or word processor), but they retain copyright only over the final creative decisions and arrangement of the work. The focus must shift from banning the tool to establishing clear ethical and legal frameworks that protect creators while enabling technological progress.