Category: Fair Dealing

Litigation vs. Licensing for AI Training

Scrabble tiles spelling 'LITIGATION vs LICENSING' on a game board.

Image: Author

There is an ongoing struggle between the tech world of AI training and the cultural world of content creation. It has led to lots of litigation but also an increasing number of licensing agreements, the obvious market solution. Litigation has helped convince AI companies to share some of the wealth by pursuing licensing. Yet the AI world continues to try to find ways to avoid the basic step of seeking permission from rightsholders for using their valuable content to create their products.

Anyone who has seen the striking graphic “Who is Suing Whom in AI”, created by the design website Information is Beautiful, will be struck by the enormity and breadth of the issue which is so cleverly displayed, with the big AI developers such as Perplexity, Anthropic, Meta, Google, Open AI, Midjourney, Cohere and others at the centre with the creators (every content entity from Conde Nast, Getty Images, Universal Music Group, CNN, Disney and Thomson Reuters to Elsevier, Dow Jones, New York Times and others) ranged around the periphery, a stunning visual encompassing more than 100 lawsuits in the United States. That graphic was up-to-date as of June 26 of this year. Since then, at least one more major lawsuit has been filed, by a group of textbook authors against Meta. The graphic does not include the first such case in Canada where a group of media organizations (Canadian Press, Torstar, The Globe and Mail, Postmedia and CBC/Radio-Canada) is suing OpenAI, or the Getty Images case in the UK, or indeed any cases outside the US. From this graphic, it would seem that to resolve the issue of how copyrighted content is going to be used in AI development and training, litigation is the inevitable route. But is it?

As far as I am aware, Information is Beautiful has not created a similar graphic to display the range of licensing deals that have taken place, many of them between some of the same actors that appear on the litigation chart. If they did it would be similar, but encompassing even more licensing agreements than lawsuits. Licensing deals are being struck so frequently it is just as hard to keep up with them as it is to track all the litigation underway. The University of Glasgow’s CREATe Centre says it has documented 274 licensing deals and has a chart that tracks 109 of them. Whatever the number, it is a lot and it is growing. That is not to say that the AI industry has finally accepted the need to pay for the content they are using to create their products, just as they pay for software engineers or data processing capacity. This is where the link between litigation and licensing becomes interesting.

In a perfect world, AI developers would obtain their inputs through the market on the basis of permission, which would encompass both compensation (in most cases) plus transparency or accountability, i.e. documenting what content was used. But we don’t live in a perfect world, which is why we have the rule of law and courts to enforce those laws. In some cases, AI platforms did begin negotiations with rightsholders but when it was not possible to reach an agreement, the AI industry switched tactics and took the content anyway, arguing it was legal to do so for a variety of reasons. This is precisely the scenario that led to the New York Times suing OpenAI. These cases are even more egregious because there was initially a tacit acknowledgement by the user that the content had value. Then, when the price or conditions did not suit the potential licencee, suddenly it was okay to take the content anyway under the guise of fair use. Various arguments have been deployed ranging from the claim that no copying actually occurs, to the dubious assertion that what is copied is data not content, to the invocation of the US “transformation” doctrine.

On the issue of copying, a study by the Atlantic (AI’s Memorization Crisis: Large language models don’t “learn”—they copy. And that could change everything for the tech industry) convincingly demonstrated the uncomfortable truth that LLMs can reproduce long excerpts from books they have been trained on. The inputs are not just ones and zeros, they are content— someone else’s content that was taken without permission. Whether the use was fair according to US fair use interpretations is still an open question. US courts and other countries are trying to come to grips with this issue. In countries such as Canada or Australia, where there is no statutory copyright exception for Text and Data Mining (TDM) that would permit permissionless AI training on content, the AI industry has been floating various workaround proposals. The “incentives” would include (in Australia) establishing a government-managed fund to compensate rightsholders according to some sort of formula, plus investments in AI data centres. What is missing from proposals such as this is the concept of permission from those who actually own the content, or even discussion of the proposal with them. As Prof. Rod Sims, former Chair of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, put it in a recent opinion piece in Canada’s National Post, “what other sector refuses to negotiate with suppliers and instead goes to government to bypass such a step?”

Let me use a food industry analogy to make the point even more clearly. When you run a restaurant you have labour costs, rent, taxes, etc. and the cost of ingredients to consider. You don’t get to raid the farmer’s field to obtain your inputs for free, just because you are able to root out crops without the farmer being able to stop you or even know it is happening. Setting up a fund to “compensate” farmers for their stolen crops, on terms set by the government rather than the market, doesn’t even begin to make this right. Legalization of this theft would remove any possibility of litigation or legal protection, for the farmer—or for content owners. Litigation, while protracted, costly and potentially leading to uncertain outcomes, is nonetheless the stick that is needed to facilitate licensing.

The obvious route for the AI industry to take is to license the content they want to use. That may not seem as “efficient” as just taking it for free but with the threat of litigation hanging over the proceedings, licensing suddenly becomes the more efficient alternative. It is also win/win for both AI developers and the content industries. And, it is simply the “right thing to do”.

© Hugh Stephens, 2026. All Rights Reserved

I am pleased to note that this blog was recognized by Feedspot as being among the “40 Best Copyright Blogs to Follow in 2026”. In fact, we hit the middle of the pack at No. 20. I am honoured to be included in such distinguished company.  

Feedspot is an RSS Reader that lets readers subscribe to blogs, news sites, and any website they wish to follow.

Like Wasps at a Picnic: (Distracting from the Canadian Heritage Committee Report on AI and Creative Industries)

Close-up of a wasp drinking from a metallic surface with blurred green background.

Image: Pixabay.com

It was as predictable as wasps at a picnic. Within days of the Canadian Parliament’s Heritage Committee releasing its report on “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Creative Industries”, with its lead recommendation being (my highlights)…

That the Government of Canada protect the property rights and interests of artists through the principles of the Copyright Act, in accordance with the ART principle—authorization, remuneration and transparency:

a) The Government of Canada must take the necessary steps and ensure that the scope of the Copyright Act applies to AI-generated content in order to guarantee copyright protection.

b) The Government of Canada must mandate greater transparency from AI developers regarding copyrighted works used to train their models, including disclosure of training data sources, to enable proper authorization and licensing.

c) The Government of Canada must establish a clear opt-in consent requirement for the use of copyrighted works in the training of artificial intelligence systems, ensuring that creators’ works may not be used for text and data mining or model development without their prior authorization.

…prolific tech and copyright commentator Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa was attacking its conclusions, issuing warnings that unless the tech industry is allowed (without authorization or compensation from rightsholders) to help itself to copyrighted content for the purpose of AI training, we will have “AI without Canada”. In other words, unless the tech industry is allowed to plunder Canadian content in the same way that it has been doing to date in the US (although this is meeting legal challenges and is quickly changing as licensing solutions take hold), there will be less Canadian content in the training data. This, apparently, will leave Canada as an “outlier” compared to peer jurisdictions. The AI developers will turn their back on Canada and rush off elsewhere. (This is a standard threat deployed by the AI industry to play off one country against another). He cites the EU, Japan, Singapore and Israel, as well as the US in support of this interpretation. Not mentioned as “peer jurisdictions” are the UK and Australia but then that would not have served the purpose of his narrative. Australia has recently declared it will not be legislating a Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception to its copyright laws to legalize unauthorized ingestion of copyrighted works for AI training, while the UK has just hit the pause button on a series of ill thought-out and badly received proposals to allow AI developers to freely use copyrighted content to train their AI algorithms unless rightsholders specifically opt out.

Singapore and Israel are among a small minority of countries that, under US pressure, have adopted US-style fair use laws that potentially allow for a weakening of copyright protection through a hodge-podge of court rulings. While many cite Japan as a jurisdiction that has given carte blanche to tech interests and AI developers, the facts are quite different as I pointed out in this blog post a couple of years ago. Japan has a strong cultural industry that it wants to nourish and protect and has defined its TDM exception very narrowly and carefully. The EU, has two provisions in its Copyright Directive related to AI training (Article 3 which permits TDM carried out only for non-commercial scientific research purposes, and Article 4, which permits TDM for any purpose, including commercial, as long as rightsholders have not opted-out, subject to strict transparency provisions by AI companies). Both impose constraints on AI developers, although there are differing views on opt-out.

Opting-out may sound like a compromise that both rightsholders and the AI industry could support but Britain’s example demonstrates otherwise. In its now aborted public consultation, the UK government put forward several options including its “preferred” option of opt-out. Fully 97 percent of respondents, from both the tech and creative communities, trashed this option. For creators, opting out not only stands copyright on its head (it is a property right, so why should holders of that right be required to notify someone who wants to infringe on that right that they may not do so, i.e. it’s like passing a law allowing anyone to picnic on my front lawn unless I post a “No Trespassing” sign), but it is technically difficult to do, especially for individuals and small-scale rightsholders. The robots.txt protocol is not binding and is in many cases not very effective. The tech industry doesn’t like opt-out because it imposes constraints on their untrammelled ability to access anyone’s copyright-protected content, anywhere, anytime. Instead the Committee recommends “a clear opt-in consent requirement” for the use of copyrighted works in the training of artificial intelligence systems.

Now it’s my turn to quibble. IMHO, there should be no explicit need for a rightsholder to “opt in”. I think that Canada’s copyright laws, properly interpreted, already provide sufficient protection to prevent unauthorized use. A rightsholder can “opt in” to AI training or any other unauthorized use not subject to fair dealing by granting a license to use their content. If that is an “opt-in” requirement then I am in favour. If yet another opt-in step is required, this would seem to be unnecessary. Licensing is a growing phenomenon. AI developers want reliable, curated content to develop their applications. As long as they are prevented from simply helping themselves, there is incentive for them to reach licensing deals with content owners. However, giving the tech industry a pass by allowing themselves to take for free whatever they want in the name of developing AI applications (for their commercial advantage) removes the needed incentive to negotiate with rightsholders. As to whether unauthorized use for AI training constitutes fair dealing, as Dr. Geist claims (“most TDM for AI training purposes would likely qualify as fair dealing under existing law”), this is doubtful to say the least. It is hard to imagine which fair dealing purpose currently applicable in Canadian law (research, private study, education, parody or satire, criticism or review, news reporting) would apply particularly when there are fair dealing limits to the amount of a work that can be used for such purposes, and specific factors that must be applied as to the effect of the dealing on the work.

The Committee’s lead recommendation is not the only complaint that Dr. Geist has about the Committee’s report. He feels it is unbalanced because the majority of its witnesses represented the cultural industries. It’s true that its lead recommendation is very much in line with the mainstream views of the Canadian cultural community.  It was, after all, the Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This reminds me of the conflicting reports on copyright issued a few years ago by the Heritage Committee and its counterpart the INDU Committee. The 2019 Heritage Committee report, titled Shifting Paradigms, was attacked at the time by Dr. Geist as “the most one-sided Canadian copyright report issued in the past 15 years”. He claimed that there was “no attempt to engage with a broad range of stakeholders”, even though he himself appeared along with a number of others who shared his perspective on copyright. Shortly after issuing its own report, the INDU committee then issued a tone-deaf “We’re in charge” press release reminding the world that it had “sole responsibility” for administering the Copyright Act. (This is not strictly accurate). Dr. Geist’s main complaint, whether with “Shifting Paradigms” in 2019 or the current Heritage Committee report seems to be that the Committee members, in their wisdom, did not take his expert advice.

What is the function of Parliamentary Committees? It is to hear evidence, draw conclusions and make recommendations. He complains that while there were different points of view, including notably his, on how to tackle the issue under study, the Committee’s conclusions did not reflect these views. Was it because, numerically, there were more pro-copyright witnesses from the creative community that those from the Geist camp? That is theoretically possible if it were just a mathematical exercise of adding up comments in a pro and con column. But that is not the case. While the Report made a conscientious effort to capture the full range of comments, including those of Dr. Geist, in the end the members (from three political parties) made a judgement and reached consensus conclusions. (Although the Conservative Party members provided their own addendum that added to but did not refute the Committee’s conclusions). Presumably the members of the Committee were more convinced by the force of the arguments presented by some witnesses than others. Given the range and similarity of concerns presented by disparate members of the creative community it is not surprising where they came out in terms of conclusions.

Dr. Geist is entitled to disagree with these conclusions and recommendations. To be fair, his blog commentary echoes the position he presented to the Committee, except for his complaints about process. As I said at the outset, his attack on the Committee’s report is entirely predictable, like wasps at a picnic. And those wasps can be so annoying, distracting from the main event with the occasional bite and annoying buzzing, but as any determined picnic-goer knows, it’s important to not let them become the centre of attention. The Heritage Committee’s report was carefully considered and drafted by an all-party group after hearing from a wide range of experts. It provides important recommendations that the government would be well advised to take into account as it develops a legal framework in which both the AI and creative industries can co-exist and flourish.

© Hugh Stephens, 2026. All Rights Reserved