Where AI Meets Copyright
A Global Perspective for IP Practitioners
Artificial intelligence is only one of the new technologies that are raising novel copyright issues for practitioners everywhere, as Ralph Cunningham discovers.
Technology is the primary driver of change in the courtroom, says partner Ganna Prokhorova (Mamunya IP, Ukraine), who is moderating the session Copyright Case Law Updates: A Global Perspective for IP Practitioners (Thursday, November 20, 12:00 pm–1:00 pm). Ms. Prokhorova chairs INTA's Copyright Committee, which develops and advocates the Association's policy on the impact of copyright law and enforcement on trademark rights.
Joining Ms. Prokhorova on the panel to discuss case law from around the world are partners Dale Cendali (Kirkland & Ellis LLP, USA), John Linneker (Osborne Clarke, UK), Flavia Murad Schaal (Mansur Murad, Brazil), Axel Nordemann (Nordemann Czychowski & Partner, Germany), and Wency Yu (Anjie Broad Law LLP, China). They will focus on a range of issues affecting copyright today, including artificial intelligence (AI)-generated works, streaming and licensing, cross-border enforcement, and fair use and parody.
Courts in different parts of the world often produce distinct opinions on the same set of facts, even on issues that cross borders and are forefront in the minds of creators and their copyright advisors.
“Lawyers must therefore approach each case with a jurisdiction-specific lens, as doctrines like fair use, fair dealing, and closed statutory exceptions diverge significantly,” says Ms. Prokhorova.
“Copyright issues over the past year are of keen interest to not just lawyers, but to government officials and general consumers.”
- Dale Cendali | Kirkland & Ellis LLP (USA)
Ms. Cendali agrees. “Copyright cases tend to be fact specific. We can say with certainty, however, that copyright issues over the past year are of keen interest to not just lawyers, but to government officials and general consumers,” she says.
“Each jurisdiction has developed its own copyright laws led by the needs of the particular creative industries in each particular jurisdiction,” adds Mr. Linneker. “For example, fair dealing exceptions to infringement are more limited in the UK whereas they are broader in other jurisdictions such as the US, reflecting its anti-monopolistic approach.”
The European Union does not have a general exception for fair use either. “Rather, we have specific exceptions provided for by the law for specific cases and circumstances,” says Mr. Nordemann.
“One issue, which could be fair use in the US, is the exception for pastiche, and the referral matter currently pending before the CJEU [Court of Justice of the European Union] relating to the question whether sound sampling can fall under the pastiche exception [Pelham II case C-590/23],” he adds.
“AI-generated works, licensing/streaming, cross-border enforcement, and the limits of fair use will remain central in copyright case law as courts adapt to fast-moving technology.”
- Wency Yu | Anjie Broad Law LLP (China)
Litigating AI
The issue that, at first glance, seems to have taken over the world’s courtrooms is how copyright and AI work together.
“AI is setting the next wave of precedence, particularly around the copyrightability of AI outputs and the legality of training on copyrighted works,” says Ms. Prokhorova.
This makes it essential for intellectual property (IP) professionals to keep up with developments in copyright case law as judges and, in the absence of any alternative, seek to apply old law to new concepts. Recent legal developments across jurisdictions and the pace of technological change only highlight the evolving challenges in copyright protection.
Cases such as Bartz v. Anthropic in the US have jumped from the business pages to the front pages and made clear what is at stake in copyright litigation in the AI era. The litigants reportedly reached a settlement totaling at least US $1.5 billion in early September 2025 over the use of pirated copies of the authors' copyrighted books to train Anthropic’s Claude chatbot without permission. Anthropic argued that Section 107 of the US Copyright Act meant that its copying constituted permissible fair use.
AI and other high-tech issues highlight how Brazil’s 1998 Copyright Act is being stretched to fit a digital and globalized world, according to Ms. Schaal.
“Courts are balancing creators’ rights with innovation: enforcing licensing in streaming, tackling cross-border piracy, grappling with AI authorship, and defining when parody is lawful expression versus infringement,” she says.
A similar situation prevails in China, with influence from other related laws and rules too.
“AI-generated works, licensing/streaming, cross-border enforcement, and the limits of fair use will remain central in copyright case law as courts adapt to fast-moving technology,” says Ms. Yu.
“Courts are balancing creators’ rights with innovation.”
- Flavia Murad Schaal | Mansur Murad (Brazil)
“In parallel, China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and related data privacy rules are likely to shape cross-border copyright disputes, especially where AI models ingest or generate content tied to personal data, voice, or likeness—blending privacy compliance with cross-border copyright enforcement,” she adds.
In the landmark Ultraman case, the Hangzhou Internet Court became the first in China to issue a decision concerning fair use in relation to generative AI, deciding that the use of copyrighted works in data training for generative AI constitutes fair use, under some conditions.
The CJEU will soon give its first opinion on the training of AI, after a Hungarian court referred the Like Company v. Google Ireland case to it for a ruling on whether aspects of the training of large language models breach the EU's InfoSoc and Copyright in the Digital Single Market directives.
Decisions on protection of works of applied art, and the exception for pastiches are also due from the Court later this year.
The first case in the UK to deal with copyright relating to generative AI also took place in 2025, with the trial in Getty Images v. Stability AI concerning whether the AI company's image-making software infringed the photo library's copyright. A decision is due soon.
In the U.S., a work created solely by AI cannot be copyrighted. “There is both case law and Copyright Office guidelines indicating that there needs to be ‘human authorship’ for a work to be copyrightable,” says Ms. Cendali.
While AI is grabbing the case-law headlines, Mr. Nordemann says copyright case law is also developing under other headings.
“Copyright law is not only about AI. Rather, do not forget ‘classical’ copyright law issues which are as important and interesting as the implications around AI,” he says.
It means that keeping on top of developments around the world and changing course accordingly is important, adds Ms. Prokhorova.
“The key message for practitioners is adaptability—to monitor global jurisprudence and prepare to recalibrate strategies quickly,” she concludes.
