As of 2025, US law requires a “human author” for copyright protection. Works created entirely by AI — with no meaningful human contribution — are not protected. However, hybrid works, where AI is a tool guided by human input and creative decisions, may qualify for partial protection depending on the degree of human authorship.

That depends on several factors, including the purpose of the use, its commercial nature, the amount of material used and its impact on the original work’s market. Some courts have ruled training as “transformative,” while others see it as a substitute that harms creators. The legal consensus remains in flux, and fair use is evaluated case by case.

  • US: Focuses on case law and fair use, with rulings evolving through lawsuits.
  • EU: Emphasizes transparency and accountability, requiring developers to publish summaries of training data.
  • Asia: Generally more permissive; Japan and Singapore allow data mining for AI training under broad exemptions.

The result is a fragmented global landscape that complicates compliance for multinational companies.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

WIN $500 OF SHOPPING!

    This will close in 0 seconds