Decisions · Policy · United States

How generative AI turns copyright law upside down

Mark A. Lemley (Stanford Law School) · 2024-06 · Proposal · non-binding

25 Columbia Science and Technology Law Review (2024), doi:10.52214/stlr.v25i2.12761 (open access)

Protection of AI output

Can AI-generated work be protected?

Closer to human authors only

Creativity moves into the prompt; the AI's share of the work will not be protected

Why hereCloser to 'human authors only': the AI's share of the work, which copyright traditionally rewards, will not be protected; creativity moves into the prompt.

What it says

Lemley argues generative AI strains the idea and expression distinction and the substantial similarity test. Creativity will increasingly lie in asking the right questions, while the AI does the bulk of the work copyright traditionally rewards, and that work will not be protected; copyright may need new ways to test infringement.

A leading voice on why the human-only rule leaves most AI output unprotected.

Sources

This record

Data as of 2026-10-21.

Drafted with AI assistance and checked against the sources linked above; not yet reviewed by a lawyer. Methodology

No changes logged yet. The change log started on 2026-10-20.