Decisions · Policy · United States

Copyright safety for generative AI

Matthew Sag (Emory University School of Law) · 2023 · Proposal · non-binding

61 Houston Law Review 295 (2023); SSRN 4438593

AI training and copyright

Can AI be trained on protected works?

Closer to freely allowed

Training is generally a lawful non-expressive use; the risk lies in memorised outputs

Why hereCloser to 'freely allowed': training is usually a lawful non-expressive use. Not at the pole, because memorisation is a real risk he proposes to manage.

What it says

Sag places generative AI in the line of fair use cases on copy-reliant technology such as Google Books and HathiTrust. Models generally learn abstract features rather than copying expression, so training is usually non-infringing, but memorisation is a real risk in some settings, and he proposes copyright safety guidelines to reduce it.

The standard US account of why training can be fair use, and where it stops.

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.