AI companies will abuse copyright law, hurting innovation. Outside solutions work

Throughout this Part, we examined the potential pitfalls and frictions of applying copyright law principles to GAI, and how this proposed extension highlights a complex intersection of legal, ethical, and societal concerns. Such an expansion risks creating inequities by recognizing certain intellectual labor over others, reinforcing unfair labor hierarchies, and disregarding the invisibilized yet critical contributions of “ghost workers” in AI development. In invoking the concept of “copyright poisoning” my aim is to highlight the legal uncertainties and economic risks for industries engaging with GAI. Such poisoning leads to an unstable, volatile, and high-risk scenario, where AI advances are stifled by regulation that incentivizes litigation. Further still, major AI companies may also use copyright law as a competitive moat, hindering the entry of new players and perpetuating the major companies’ market dominance. The stringent application of copyright laws in this context could inadvertently hamper the development of beneficial AI applications across various sectors by imposing restrictive conditions on data usage. The potential overreach of copyright protections in the AI domain suggests a careful reconsideration of copyright laws is needed to ensure that the law fosters, rather than constrains, the dynamic landscape of digital innovation and promotes a robust public domain. CONCLUSION There are a plethora of ethical concerns about GAI that extend beyond the scope of copyright. With this Essay, I aim to reflect on how copyright might not be the adequate tool to fairly compensate artists and other data workers.