The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Artificial Intelligence’s Fair Use Crisis
Open accessAbstract
As automation supplants more forms of labor, creative expression still seems like a distinctly human enterprise. This may someday change: by ingesting works of authorship as “training data,” computer programs can teach themselves to write natural prose, compose music, and generate movies. Machine learning is an artificial intelligence (“AI”) technology with immense potential and a commensurate appetite for copyrighted works. In the United States, the copyright law mechanism most likely to facilitate machine learning’s uses of protected data is the fair use doctrine. However, current fair use doctrine threatens either to derail the progress of machine learning or to disenfranchise the human creators whose work makes it possible. This Article addresses the problem in three Parts: using popular machine learning datasets and research as case studies, Part I describes how programs “learn” from corpora of copyrighted works and catalogs the legal risks of this practice. It concludes that fair use may not protect expressive machine learning applications, including the burgeoning field of natural language generation. Part II explains that applying today’s fair use doctrine to expressive machine learning will yield one of two undesirable outcomes: if U.S. courts reject the fair use defense for machine learning, valuable innovation may move to another jurisdiction or halt entirely; alternatively, if courts find the technology to be fair use, sophisticated software may divert rightful ea…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“this tension between social benefits from allowing re-use of data and the social harms to data creators has led some in the U.S. to call this a 'fair use crisis' [127].”
From Data Governance in the Age of Large-Scale Data-Driven Language Technology (2022) · cites this paper as [127]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Al-Busaidi, A. S., Raman, R., Hughes, L., Albashrawi, M. A., Malik, T., Dwivedi, Y. K., Al- Alawi, T., AlRizeiqi, M., Davies, G., Fenwick, M., et al. (2024) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2024.100630 · Cited by 95
Foundation Models and Fair Use
Henderson, P., Li, X., Jurafsky, D., Hashimoto, T., Lemley, M. A., & Liang, P. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4404340 · Cited by 57
Human ownership of artificial creativity
Eshraghian, J. K. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-020-0161-x · Cited by 95
Copyright in generative deep learning
Franceschelli, G., & Musolesi, M. (2022) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2022.10 · Cited by 82
A Scanner Darkly: Copyright Liability and Exceptions in Artificial Intelligence Inputs and Outputs
Guadamuz, A. (2024) · GRUR International · doi:10.1093/grurint/ikad140 · Cited by 92
Metadata
- Authors
- Sobel, B. L. W.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sobel, Benjamin L. W.
- Venue
- Columbia University
- Publisher
- Columbia University
- Published
- 2017
- ISSN
- 1544-4848 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2756393761
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts
- Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
- Social Sciences › Law › Intellectual Property Rights and Media
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- fair use, machine learning, copyright, training data, natural language generation, AI-generated works, copyright infringement, authorship, creative expression
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Artificial Intelligence’s Fair Use Crisis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7916/d8ww90t7
- The paper
- Sobel, B. L. W. (2017). Artificial Intelligence’s Fair Use Crisis. Columbia University. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8ww90t7