Copyright Infringement Defenses for Generative AI Training: Comparing U.S. Fair Use, EU TDM Exceptions and the AI Act
Main Article Content
Keywords
generative artificial intelligence, copyright infringement, fair use, text and data mining, artificial intelligence act
Abstract
Training generative artificial intelligence models often involves extensive reproduction of copyrighted works. Whether such training may lawfully be conducted without authorization has consequently become a major point of contention in contemporary copyright law. This article systematically examines the legal characterization of the use of copyrighted works during the training of generative AI models, focusing on two central questions: whether reproductions made during AI training fall within the scope of copyright infringement and whether existing defenses, particularly U.S. fair use and EU text and data mining (TDM) exceptions, can justify such conduct. Through a comparative analysis of the literature and recent developments including Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith and Kneschke v. LAION, this article argues that both systems face structural limitations. In the United States, the increasingly restrictive interpretation of transformative use and growing concern over market substitution weaken the certainty of fair‑use defenses. In the European Union, the practical operation of the opt‑out mechanism and transparency obligations remains problematic. The phenomenon of model memorization further challenges the theoretical foundation of non‑expressive use. The article concludes by evaluating collective licensing, statutory licensing, taxation mechanisms, and technological safeguards as possible reform directions.
References
- [1]Henderson, P., et al. (2023). Foundation models and fair use. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(400), 179.
- [2]Quintais, J. P. (2025). Generative AI, copyright and the AI Act. Computer Law & Security Review, 56, 106107.
- [3]Lucchi, N. (2024). ChatGPT: a case study on copyright challenges for generative artificial intelligence systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 15(3), 602624.
- [4]Margoni, T., & Kretschmer, M. (2022). A deeper look into the EU text and data mining exceptions: harmonisation, data ownership, and the future of technology. GRUR international, 71(8), 685701.
- [5]Shen, C. (2024). Fair use, licensing, and authors' rights in the age of generative AI. Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop., 22, 157.
- [6]Sag, M. (2023). Copyright safety for generative AI. Hous. L. Rev., 61, 295.
- [7]Murray, M. D. (2023). Generative AI art: Copyright infringement and fair use. SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev., 26, 259.
- [8]Buick, A. (2025). Copyright and AI training data—transparency to the rescue? Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 20(3), 182192.
