A wave of new copyright lawsuits against AI companies is testing whether training a model on copyrighted material counts as fair use, with early court rulings splitting in ways that leave the law genuinely unsettled.
Authors, publishers, and other rights holders have filed numerous lawsuits against AI companies over the use of copyrighted material to train large language models, arguing the practice requires licensing and compensation rather than falling under existing fair use exceptions designed for more traditional forms of research and commentary.
Early court rulings on these cases have been genuinely mixed, with some judges finding aspects of AI training defensible under fair use doctrine and others allowing similar claims to proceed toward trial, leaving the underlying legal question considerably less settled than either AI companies or rights holders would prefer.
Licensing deals are emerging as a parallel track to litigation
Even as litigation proceeds, several major AI companies have separately signed content licensing agreements with publishers and media organizations, a pragmatic hedge that provides legal certainty for at least some training data regardless of how the broader fair use questions are eventually resolved in court.
“Nobody wants to bet their entire training pipeline on how one judge rules. Licensing deals are how companies hedge that uncertainty in the meantime.”
With several of these cases still years away from a definitive appellate ruling, the legal status of AI training on copyrighted material is likely to remain genuinely unsettled for some time, leaving licensing deals as the more immediately actionable path for companies seeking legal certainty rather than waiting on the courts.
