On Monday, a new Super PAC Network was launched, boasting a hefty $100 million budget aimed at influencing the discourse around artificial intelligence policies in the upcoming elections. The group emphasizes the need for sensible regulations on AI, pushing back against those they believe could hinder its progress.
However, if they really want to lead the future, there’s a significant pitfall to watch out for: presenting copyright protections as hindrances to American AI innovation.
Across the United States, courts have been grappling with how AI companies and creators use copyrighted materials to train their models. Creators often feel their hard work is being utilized without permission or fair payment. Conversely, many tech firms argue that employing others’ works falls under “fair use” and worry that restrictions will hinder the US’s AI capabilities against international competitors.
This positioning creates a divide—on one side, we have Silicon Valley; on the other, Hollywood and creators who might be missing the bigger picture. Copyright shouldn’t be viewed as an obstacle to American prowess in AI; rather, it is foundational to that very strength.
The creative economy ranks among America’s top exports. From Hollywood films that resonate globally to American music that’s a staple on streaming platforms and US publishing that supports education worldwide, the legal clarity backing these industries is a type of competitive edge that’s not easily replicated by countries like China. Eroding these protections could jeopardize what defines America—a system where human creativity fuels innovation.
In China, for instance, there are reports of systems like deepseek that have utilized stolen intellectual property from American creators. If the US were to abandon its standards, it wouldn’t just “catch up” to China; it may instead drive American creative assets into becoming readily available material for others to exploit. A well-regulated AI framework could provide US companies with distinctive export opportunities and foster a system that creators want to engage with, paving the way for trade agreements that position the US as a global leader.
What we need is akin to a fourth law of robotics. Originally envisioned in the 1940s, Isaac Asimov’s three laws were designed to protect humans from physical harm. Today’s challenges differ. The risk with AI is not necessarily being outmatched but losing our rights. The fourth law suggests that when machines draw from human creativity, it’s essential for there to be mutual benefit. This means creators must have genuine consent and control, fair licensing arrangements, transparency from companies regarding the data used in models, and a sharing of the value generated from AI with those who made it possible.
Some policymakers assert that enforcing copyright in the AI era is unfeasible, yet their framing seems misguided. Copyright does not need to be discarded. Instead, there are ways to adapt it to work at the speed of machines. Various tools can be employed across the ecosystem—updating mechanisms to distinguish open content from commercial works, ensuring instant scalability in AI licensing, adding transparency obligations, and providing safe harbors for companies that maintain proper licenses. Together, these efforts could facilitate reciprocity without hindering innovation.
The real chance lies in illustrating that advocating for innovation and supporting creators is not a conflicting agenda; in fact, they can be two sides of the same coin. Bestseller authors and AI developers need not be pitted against each other. Both play a critical role in the American economy and should benefit from a framework that acknowledges their contributions. If the fight for copyright clarity can be as vigorous as the battle against overregulation, it may help the US secure its leadership in AI while respecting the rights of those whose work underpins this technology.
The courts will soon determine whether copyright persists in the AI landscape, with cases like New York Times v. OpenAI, Kadrey v. Meta, and others highlighting the intense scrutiny. Policymakers will be faced with claims that America must choose between copyright and competitiveness, but the truth is actually the reverse: America excels when it safeguards rights that are inherently valuable to compete for. That’s the crucial message engineers and creators need to carry to Washington.
