Derivative work, as defined in What is a derivative work? Sequels, translations, sound recordings of musical performances, and other kinds of derivative works.
Anthropic also acquired infringing copies of works from pirate sites. Judge Alsup ruled that these, and uses made from them, are not fair use.
A federal judge has issued a landmark fair use decision in a generative-AI copyright infringement lawsuit.
In a previous blog post, I wrote about the fair use decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS. As I explained there, that case involved a search-and-retrieval AI system, so the holding was not determinative of fair use in the context of generative AI. Now we finally have a decision that addresses fair use in the generative-AI context.
Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC
I did not include this case in my list of the top 12 generative-AI lawsuits, but only because it was one among many raising the same basic questions about training AI on copyright-protected works. This issue was well represented by others on the list. As it happens, though, Bartz has now taken on enhanced significance because the judge in the case has issued an important ruling on fair use.
Anthropic is an AI software firm founded by former OpenAI employees. It offers a generative-AI tool called Claude. Like other generative-AI tools, Claude mimics human conversational skills. When a user enters a text prompt, Claude will generate a response that is very much like one a human being might make (except it is sometimes more knowledgeable.) It is able to do this by using large language models (LLMs) that have been trained on millions of books and texts.
Adrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson are book authors. In August 2024, they sued Anthropic, claiming the company infringed the copyrights in their works. Specifically, they alleged that Anthropic copied their works from pirated and purchased sources, digitized print versions, assembled them into a central library, and used the library to train LLMs, all without permission. Anthropic asserted, among other things, a fair use defense.
Earlier this year, Anthropic filed a motion for summary judgment on the question of fair use.
On June 23, 2025, Judge Alsup issued an order granting summary judgment in part and denying it in part. It is the first major ruling on fair use in the dozens of generative-AI copyright infringement lawsuits that are currently pending in federal courts.
The Order includes several key rulings.
Digitization
Anthropic acquired both pirated and lawfully purchased printed copies of copyright-protected works and digitized them to create a central e-library. Authors claimed that making digital copies of their works infringed the exclusive right of copyright owners to reproduce their works. (See 17 U.S.C. 106.)
In the process of scanning print books to create digital versions of them, the print copies were destroyed. Book bindings were stripped so that each individual page could be scanned. The print copies were then discarded. The digital copies were not distributed to others. Under these circumstances, the court ruled that making digital versions of print books is fair use.
The court likened format to a frame around a work, as distinguished from the work itself. As such, a digital version is not a new derivative work. Rather, it is a transformative use of an existing work. So long as the digital version is merely a substitute for a print version a person has lawfully acquired, and so long as the print version is destroyed and the digital version is not further copied or distributed to others, then digitizing a printed work is fair use. This is consistent with the first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. 109(a)), which gives the purchaser of a copy of a work a right to dispose of that particular copy as the purchaser sees fit.
In short, the mere conversion of a lawfully acquired print book to a digital file to save space and enable searchability is transformative, and so long as the print version is destroyed and the digital version is not further copied or distributed, it is fair use.
AI Training Is Transformative Fair Use
The authors did not contend that Claude generated infringing output. Instead, they argued that copies of their works were used as inputs to train the AI. The Copyright Act, however, does not prohibit or restrict the reading or analysis of copyrighted works. So long as a copy is lawfully purchased, the owner of the purchased copy can read it and think about it as often as he or she wishes.
[I]f someone were to read all the modern-day classics because of their exceptional expression, memorize them, and then emulate a blend of their best writing, would that violate the Copyright Act? Of course not.
Judge Alsup described AI training as “spectacularly” transformative.” Id. After considering all four fair use factors, he concluded that training AI on lawfully acquired copyright-protected works (as distinguished from the initial acquisition of copies) is fair use.
Pirating Is Not Fair Use
In addition to lawfully purchasing copies of some works, Anthropic also acquired infringing copies of works from pirate sites. Judge Alsup ruled that these, and uses made from them, are not fair use. The case will now proceed to trial on the issue of damages resulting from the infringement.
Conclusion
Each of these rulings seems, well, sort of obvious. It is nice to have the explanations laid out so clearly in one place, though.
A previous blog post addressed the question whether AI-generated creations are protected by copyright. This could be called the “output question” in the artificial intelligence area of copyright law. Another question is whether using copyright-protected works as input for AI generative processes infringes the copyrights in those works. This could be called the “input question.” Both kinds of questions are now before the courts. Minnesota attorney Tom James describes a framework for analyzing the input question.
The Input Question in AI Copyright Law
One of the top three generative-AI issues in copyright law is the question whether AI-generated creations are protected by copyright. This is what I call the “output question.” . Another question is whether using copyright-protected works as input for AI generative processes infringes the copyrights in those works. This could be called the “input question.” Both kinds of questions are now before the courts. In this blog post, I describe a framework for analyzing the input question.
The Cases
The Getty Images lawsuit
Getty Images is a stock photograph company. It licenses the right to use the images in its collection to those who wish to use them on their websites or for other purposes. Stability AI is the creator of Stable Diffusion, which is described as a “text-to-image diffusion model capable of generating photo-realistic images given any text input.” In January, 2023, Getty Images initiated legal proceedings in the United Kingdom against Stability AI. According to this Getty Images Statement, the company is claiming that Stability AI violated copyrights by using their images and metadata to train AI software without a license.
The independent artists lawsuit
Another lawsuit raising the question whether AI-generated output infringes copyright has been filed in the United States. In Andersen v. Stability AI, a group of visual artists are seeking class action status for claims against Stability AI, Midjourney Inc. and DeviantArt Inc. The artists claim that the companies use their images to train computers “to produce seemingly new images through a mathematical software process.” They describe AI-generated artwork as “collages” made in violation of copyright owners’ exclusive right to create derivative works.
The GitHut Copilot lawsuit
In November, 2022, Github announced a class action lawsuit has been filed in a U.S. federal court against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI. The lawsuit claims the GitHut Copilot and OpenAI Codex coding assistant services use existing code to generate new code. By training their AI systems on open source programs, the plaintiffs claim, the defendants have allegedly infringed the rights of developers who have posted code under open-source licenses that require attribution.
How AI Works
AI, of course, stands for artificial intelligence. Almost all AI techniques involve machine learning. Machine learning, in turn, involves using a computer algorithm to make a machine improve its performance over time, without having to pre-program it with specific instructions. Data is input to enable the machine to do this. For example, to teach a machine to create a work in the style of Vincent van Gogh, many instances of van Gogh’s works would be input. The AI program contains numerous nodes that focus on different aspects of an image. Working together, these nodes will then piece together common elements of a van Gogh painting from the images the machine has been given to analyze. After going through many images of van Gogh paintings, the machine “learns” the features of a typical Van Gogh painting. The machine can then generate a new image containing these features.
In the same way, a machine can be programmed to analyze many instances of code and generate new code.
The input question comes down to this: Does creating or using a program that causes a machine to receive information about the characteristics of a creative work or group of works for the purpose of creating a new work that has the same or similar characteristics infringe the copyright in the creative work(s) that the machine uses in this way?
The Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owners
In the United States, the owner of a copyright in a work has the exclusive rights to:
reproduce (make copies of) it;
distribute copies of it;
publicly perform it;
publicly display it; and
make derivative works based on it.
(17 U.S.C. § 106). A copyright is infringed when a person exercises any of these exclusive rights without the copyright owner’s permission.
Copyright protection extends only to expression, however. Copyright does not protect ideas, facts, processes, methods, systems or principles.
Direct Infringement
Infringement can be either direct or indirect. Direct infringement occurs when somebody directly violates one of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner. Examples would be a musician who performs a copyright-protected song in public without permission, or a cartoonist who creates a comic based on the Batman and Robin characters and stories without permission.
The kind of tool an infringer uses is not of any great moment. A writer who uses word-processing software to write a story that is simply a copy of someone else’s copyright-protected story is no less guilty of infringement merely because the actual typewritten letters were generated using a computer program that directs a machine to reproduce and display typographical characters in the sequence a user selects.
Contributory and Vicarious Infringement
Infringement liability may also arise indirectly. If one person knowingly induces another person to infringe or contributes to the other person’s infringement in some other way, then each of them may be liable for copyright infringement. The person who actually committed the infringing act could be liable for direct infringement. The person who knowingly encouraged, solicited, induced or facilitated the other person’s infringing act(s) could be liable for contributory infringement.
Vicarious infringement occurs when the law holds one person responsible for the conduct of another because of the nature of the legal relationship between them. The employment relationship is the most common example. An employer generally is held responsible for an employee’s conduct, provided the employee’s acts were performed within the course and scope of the employment. Copyright infringement is not an exception to that rule.
Programmer vs. User
Direct infringement liability
Under U.S. law, machines are treated as extensions of the people who set them in motion. A camera, for example, is an extension of the photographer. Any images a person causes a camera to generate by pushing a button on it is considered the creation of the person who pushed the button, not of the person(s) who manufactured the camera, much less of the camera itself. By the same token, a person who uses the controls on a machine to direct it to copy elements of other people’s works should be considered the creator of the new work so created. If using the program entails instructing the machine to create an unauthorized derivative work of copyright-protected images, then it would be the user, not the machine or the software writer, who would be at risk of liability for direct copyright infringement.
Contributory infringement liability
Knowingly providing a device or mechanism to people who use it to infringe copyrights creates a risk of liability for contributory copyright infringement. Under Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, however, merely distributing a mechanism that people can use to infringe copyrights is not enough for contributory infringement liability to attach, if the mechanism has substantial uses for which copyright infringement liability does not attach. Arguably, AI has many such uses. For example, it might be used to generate new works from public domain works. Or it might be used to create parodies. (Creating a parody is fair use; it should not result in infringement liability.)
The situation is different if a company goes further and induces, solicits or encourages people to use its mechanism to infringe copyrights. Then it may be at risk of contributory liability. As the United States Supreme Court has said, “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). (Remember Napster?)
Fair Use
If AI-generated output is found to either directly or indirectly infringe copyright(s), the infringer nevertheless might not be held liable, if the infringement amounts to fair use of the copyrighted work(s) that were used as the input for the AI-generated work(s).
Ever since some rap artists began using snippets of copyright-protected music and sound recordings without permission, courts have embarked on a treacherous expedition to articulate a meaningful dividing line between unauthorized derivative works, on one hand, and unauthorized transformative works, on the other. Although the Copyright Act gives copyright owners the exclusive right to create works based on their copyrighted works (called derivative works), courts have held that an unauthorized derivative work may be fair use if it is “transformative.: This has caused a great deal of uncertainty in the law, particularly since the U.S. Copyright Act expressly defines a derivative work as one that transforms another work. (See 17 U.S.C. § 101: “A ‘derivative work’ is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, . . . or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” (emphasis added).)
When interpreting and applying the transformative use branch of Fair Use doctrine, courts have issued conflicting and contradictory decisions. As I wrote in another blog post, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear and decide Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith. It is anticipated that the Court will use this case to attempt to clear up all the confusion around the doctrine. It is also possible the Court might take even more drastic action concerning the whole “transformative use” branch of Fair Use.
Some speculate that the questions the Justices asked during oral arguments in Warhol signal a desire to retreat from the expansion of fair use that the “transformativeness” idea spawned. On the other hand, some of the Court’s recent decisions, such as Google v. Oracle, suggest the Court is not particularly worried about large-scale copyright infringing activity, insofar as Fair Use doctrine is concerned.
Conclusion
To date, it does not appear that there is any direct legal precedent in the United States for classifying the use of mass quantities of works as training tools for AI as “fair use.” It seems, however, that there soon will be precedent on that issue, one way or the other. Several lawsuits raising this generative-AI copyright issue are pending in the courts. In the meantime, generative-AI system users should proceed with caution.
Thousands of books, movies, songs and other creative works entered the public domain in the United States in 2023. Here is a partial list compiled by Cokato Minnesota attorney Thomas James.
Thousands of books, movies, songs and other creative works enter the public domain in the United States this year. Here is a partial list. Read last year’s list of newly public domain works.
Sherlock Holmes
Last year, it was Winnie the Pooh. This year, Sherlock Holmes officially enters the public domain. Pooh’s release from copyright protection sparked some creative uses of A. Milne’s fictional bear, from a comic strip in which Pooh Bear appears completely naked (i.e., without his red shirt on) to a slasher film called Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, coming soon to a theater near you.
Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick, Dr. Watson, have actually been in the public domain for a long time, since Arthur Conan Doyle began publishing stories about them in the late nineteenth century. The copyrights in those works had already expired when Congress extended copyright terms in 1998. Legal controversies continued to arise, however, over which elements of those characters were still protected by copyright. New elements that were added in later stories potentially could still be protected by copyright even if the copyrights in previous stories in the series had expired. Now, however, the copyright in the last two Sherlock Holmes stories Doyle wrote have expired. Therefore, it appears that all elements of Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain now.
One can only imagine what creative uses people will make of the Holmes and Watson characters now that they are officially in the public domain, too.
The Tower Treasure (Hardy Boys)
The Tower Treasure is the first book in the Hardy Boys series of mystery books that Franklin W. Dixon wrote. As of this year, it is in the public domain.
Again, however, only the elements of the characters and the story in that particular book are in the public domain now. Elements that appeared only in later volumes in the series might still be protected by copyright.
Steppenwolf
Herman Hesse’s Der Steppenwolf, in the original German, is now in the public domain. This version is to be distinguished from English translations of the work, which might still be protected by copyright as derivative works. It is also to be distinguished from the classic rock band by the same name. It is always important to distinguish between trademark and other kinds of uses of a term.
The Bridge of San Luis Rey
The Bridge of San Luis Rey, Thornton Wilder’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel about an investigation into the lives and deaths of people involved in the collapse of a Peruvian rope bridge has now entered the public domain.
Mosquitoes
William Faulkner’s satiric novel Mosquitoes enters the public domain this year. This work is to be distinguished from the insect by the same name. The insect, annoyingly, has been in the public domain for centuries.
Franz Kafka’s Amerika(also known as Lost In America) was published posthumously in 1927. It is now in the public domain.
The Jazz Singer
The Jazz Singer is a 1927 American film and one of the first to feature sound. Warner Brothers produced it using the Vitaphone sound-on-disc system and it featured six songs performed by Al Jolson. The short story on which it is based, “The Day of Atonement,” has already been in the public domain for some time. Now the film is, too.
The Battle of the Century
The Laurel and Hardy film, The Battle of the Century, is now in the public domain. Other Laurel and Hardy films, however, may still be protected by copyright.
The Lodger
Alfred Hitchcock’s first thriller, The Lodger, entered the public domain.
“We All Scream for Ice Cream”
The song, “I Scream; You Scream; We All Scream for Ice Cream” is now in the public domain. Don’t worry if you uttered this phrase prior to January 1, 2023. Titles and short phrases are not protected by copyright. Now, it would be a different story if you’ve publicly performed the song, or published or recorded the song and/or the lyrics. Merely uttering those words, however, is not illegal
“Puttin’ on the Ritz”
“Puttin’ on the Ritz” was originally written by Irving Berlin in 1927. Therefore, it is now in the public domain. Taco released a performance of a cover version of this song in 1982. This version of the song made it all the way to number 53 in VH1’s 100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders of the 80’s special. Note that even if the original musical composition and lyrics are in the public domain now, recorded performances of the song by particular artists may still be protected. The copyrights in a musical composition and a recording of a performance of it are separate and distinct things. Don’t go copying Taco’s recorded performance of the song without permission.
Please.
“My Blue Heaven”
Written by Walter Donaldson and George Whiting, “My Blue Heaven” is now in the public domain. It was used in the Ziegfeld Follies and was a big hit for crooner Gene Austin. It is not to be confused with the 1990 Steve Martin film with that name, which is still protected by copyright.
“The Best Things In Life Are Free”
This song was written by Buddy DeSylva, Lew Brown and Ray Henderson for the 1927 musical Good News. Many performers have covered it since then. The “good news” is that it is now in the public domain.
Caveats
The works described in this blog post have entered the public domain under U.S. copyright law. The terms of copyrights in other countries are not the same. In the European Union, for example, Herman Hesse’s Der Steppenwolf is still protected by copyright as of January 1, 2023.
And again, remember that even if a work has entered the public domain, new elements first appearing in a derivative work based on it might still be protected by copyright.
The featured image in this article is “The Man with the Twisted Lip.” It appeared in The Strand Magazine in December, 1891. The original caption was “The pipe was still between his lips.” The drawing is in the public domain.
