New AI Action Plan Unveiled
The recently launched AI Action Plan outlines significant proposals regarding infrastructure, innovation, and global competition. It includes executive orders aimed at delegating procurement to ensure ideological neutrality in data center locations, promoting AI exports, and the federal utilization of large-scale language models. However, there’s a noticeable absence: concrete actions concerning copyright and intellectual property related to artificial intelligence.
This gap seems purposeful. It signals a strategic choice to allow the judicial system to navigate what could become a politically volatile and technically intricate landscape in AI policy.
Recently, the courts have taken a more active role in this area. In a case involving Bartz v. Enthropic, a ruling favored AI developers by deeming the use of publicly published data for model training as likely fair use. This decision lifts certain legal obstacles for developers and paves the way for more ambitious model development leveraging existing online content.
Conversely, the Midjourney case is still under consideration, focusing on output and potential copyright infringement. The court is evaluating whether AI-generated works that resemble copyrighted material are protected or infringe on existing rights. The outcome could significantly alter how models are trained, adjusted, and commercially utilized.
Instead of becoming embroiled in this dispute, the administration seems to be taking a step back. It has not introduced any new copyright regulations or legislative measures. Some might see this as a lack of action, but it’s more plausible that the administration views a wait-and-see approach as beneficial until clearer legal precedents emerge.
There’s a strategic rationale behind this. Reforms in intellectual property frequently stir diverse opposition. Creators often seek stronger protections, while developers push for flexibility and legal clarity. By remaining neutral, the administration avoids alienating either group, while also conserving political resources for other priorities like streamlining data infrastructure and easing export restrictions.
This isn’t uncharted territory for the White House. Historically, administrations have found that copyright law—situated at the crossroads of First Amendment rights, commercial interests, and fast-evolving technology—often develops more effectively through judicial processes than through legislation. The current scenario reflects this trend.
That said, copyright and IP issues are still up for discussion. As the judiciary addresses both input and output matters, the administration can revisit these topics with more clarity. Rather than attempting to establish consensus in an increasingly fragmented field, it could shape policies that accurately reflect the prevailing legal landscape.
In the interim, those involved in AI and creative industries should closely monitor developments in the courts. The rulings being made will likely set more definitive guidelines for the future of generative AI than any executive measures or legislative proposals in the near term.
By stepping aside, the administration hasn’t shirked its responsibilities. Instead, it’s about allowing the judicial system to clarify legal frameworks when political avenues are stalled. While the AI Action Plan remains silent on intellectual property issues for the moment, this silence carries significant implications.
