Skip to content

Who Bears the Legal Burden for Copyright Violations by AI? A Closer Look at Generative AI Vendor Policies

Generative AI models can inadvertently infringe on copyright, leaving users at risk. The legal landscape is fragmented, with some vendors pledging to protect customers while others avoid liability.

Generative AI has opened a Pandora's box of copyright challenges. As AI models churn out text, images, music, and more, the risk of unintentional copyright violations is ever-present.

Generative AI models learn from massive datasets, including copyrighted materials. The concern arises when these models produce near-identical copies of copyrighted content, potentially infringing on IP rights.

Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI are currently facing a lawsuit for alleged copyright infringement by their code-generating AI, Copilot. Authors and artists have also filed suits against AI-generated content. This legal battle highlights the pressing need for clarity in copyright infringement cases.

Generative AI vendors are navigating the copyright minefield with diverse indemnity policies. Some promise to protect customers from legal action, while others distance themselves.

The fine print in terms of service agreements reveals that not every vendor is willing to assume responsibility in copyright disputes. Some reserve the right to hold customers liable for legal fees and damages.

Amazon and Google: Amazon offers indemnification for customers using specific text-analyzing models, provided they meet subscription criteria. Google extends some defense against IP allegations, with the caveat that it may suspend a customer's use of the infringing model.

Adobe, Shutterstock, Getty Images: Adobe provides full indemnity protection to enterprise users of its AI art platform, Firefly. Both Shutterstock and Getty Images offer indemnity to their enterprise clients, as they train models on licensed images.

As generative AI vendors court enterprise customers, indemnity protections are becoming a focal point. Businesses demand assurance against copyright claims.

While indemnification is likely to become standard, policies will differ, with exceptions and limitations that may be more marketing rhetoric than true protection.

Customers using generative AI should weigh the indemnity policies of vendors while making decisions, recognizing that indemnities don't offer a foolproof solution against copyright claims.

The intersection of generative AI and copyright infringement presents a legal conundrum. While vendors vary in their indemnification commitments, the evolving landscape is a reflection of the challenging balancing act between AI innovation and copyright protection. As the AI sector grows, clarifying who bears the legal burden in copyright disputes remains a pressing concern.

The legal intricacies of generative AI will continue to evolve alongside AI innovations. Stay informed and engaged as this dynamic field seeks to harmonize AI's transformative capabilities with copyright protections.