OpenAI and Google have both submitted policy proposals to US government arguing that AI systems should be allowed to train on copyrighted materials without permission. In a time of growing geo-political confrontation, they frame this as essential for national security and economic competitiveness against China.
The pushback has been swift and strong. In the UK, where similar policies are under consideration, the Intellectual Property Office received over 13,000 responses to its consultation. High-profile artists including Elton John and Paul McCartney have protested by releasing a “silent album” on Spotify titled “The British government must not legalise music theft to benefit AI companies.”
OpenAI is specifically asking the US government to protect the “freedom to learn” – codifying AI training as fair use regardless of copyright status. Their proposal offers no clear compensation framework for creators whose works train their systems. They argue that training is transformative and distinct from reproduction, suggesting that while their models learn from copyrighted works, they don’t produce direct copies. This distinction is highly contested by rights holders who see their creative expressions being absorbed and potentially recreated. While tech companies argue unrestricted access to training data is vital for innovation, creators and publishers fear their work will be exploited without fair compensation. The UK is considering an “opt-out” approach allowing training on legally accessible materials unless rightsholders expressly refuse.
This clash represents more than a technical legal dispute. It highlights fundamental questions about the balance between technological progress and creative rights in the AI age.
Takeaways: The tech giants will likely win this battle. Global governments appetite for AI leadership and economic growth will outweigh creator concerns. The result? AI companies securing broad training rights with minimal compensation schemes that favour large publishers. Small creators will bear the brunt, while courts struggle to enforce meaningful boundaries especially as training activity proliferates and moves far beyond the small number of labs we have today. This isn’t just about copyright – it’s about whether creative work retains its value in an AI-driven economy, and technological progress in this case will not be contained by traditional governance boundaries.