A recent photo of parapets on a new construction site in Washington, DC, as my wife and I visited the Museum of the Bible.

Increasingly, people are turning to GenAI, seeking spiritual answers to life’s questions; however, the responses from AI agents are neither trustworthy nor reliable. GenAI clearly does not align with Christian orthodoxy, and its answers to life’s questions can be misleading, unreliable, and potentially harmful. They are definitely not based on the Bible. Relying on GenAI encourages dependence on the AI rather than the Bible and spiritual leaders. When people seek spiritual guidance from GenAI instead of the Bible, the results can be disastrous. This move toward relying on AI for answers instead of the Bible, spiritual leaders, discipleship books, and trusted friends is a major change that must be recognized. Most likely, dependence on AI for life’s answers won’t be reversed or undone.

You might think I’m anti-AI or GenAI, but I actively work in this field and believe few would disagree that AI needs safeguards. As believers, we need protections. As the Psalmist said, “Guard my life and rescue me; do not let me be put to shame, for I take refuge in you.” Psa 25:20 [niv] God provides believers with His full armor, Eph 6:10, to guard us and help us stand against the devil’s schemes.

The Deuteronomy passage about the parapet summarizes the laws given in Exodus 21. “If . . . the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned, and its owner also is to be put to death. . . .” v29 That’s some pretty heavy stuff the children of Israel had to deal with — if their negligence caused harm when they could have prevented it, it would cost them a lot! The Lord was clearly emphasizing the importance of establishing safeguards around things that can cause harm to others.

AI needs believers to build safeguards or parapets for GenAI products — something ChatGPT, CoPilot, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and others won’t do for us. Note that the parapet in Dt 22:8 was a design feature. As we design and build new GenAI products, safeguards must be incorporated to serve as a parapet against heretical and nonsensical outputs.

AI is a tool that should never replace Biblical answers or spiritual discernment. GenAI queries, by design, steer spiritual inquirers away from ministries that provide guidance instead of leading them to it. They rarely point inquirers to Biblical truths, and even when they quote scripture, their trustworthiness is questionable.

Zechariah writes, “The idols speak deceitfully, diviners see visions that lie; they tell dreams that are false, they give comfort in vain. . .” 10:2 Wow! If that isn’t a picture of the advice given by popular GenAI agents on life. Has AI become our culture’s newest idol? Is it a diviner that lies? Is it an idol that offers hallucinations? Are its empty answers “comfort in vain”? Does AI actually lead people astray? Paul warned that there would be deceiving impostors in the last days. 2 Tim 3:13 …evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. [niv] GenAI deceives by indiscriminately scraping content, including heresy, to build its models to provide answers bereft of Christian orthodoxy. While AI can be relied on for some functions, as a spiritual guide, it’s an impostor that can dispense deadly advice.

When we ignore the serious risks of unprotected GenAI tools, do we bear some responsibility? The duty to ensure GenAI’s safety and trustworthiness falls on those who recognize the problem and have the ability to act. We can’t control the major GenAI players. However, we can create a reliable tool that offers biblical guidance and points users to the Word of God. We can develop a better model. AI needs a hidden barrier around it, like David’s men did for Nabal’s property in 1 Sam 25:15 – Night and day they were a wall around us the whole time we were herding our sheep near them.” [niv] As believers working in this field, we have the power to build a new structure, a new paradigm, and a parapet for a GenAI product, allowing it to provide answers from God’s Word and guide those without Him toward the truth.

Blessings!

Bruce Erickson

Share

Leave a comment

Too Big to Prosecute.

A U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism recently held hearings to explore whether GenAI has become Too Big to Prosecute. Among the witnesses was Dr. Michael Smith, a Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College. The PDF transcript of his comments is only five pages long and presents a secularist perspective on copyright and AI, featuring the now-familiar arguments.

• Digital piracy harms creators by reducing their ability to make money.” Yes, the world understands that copyright laws are all about money.

• He continues by saying, “Digital piracy harms society by reducing economic incentives.”

• But in a curious twist, he also admits that “Gen AI has the potential to benefit industry and society in many ways.” Let’s hope he’s not wrong.

Will the church ever benefit from GenAI in Bible translations, or will it mainly serve pastors, scholars, and religious leaders? Only time will tell.

The ‘Bartz v. Anthropic’ Settlement

The Copyright Alliance crowed that this settlement “is a significant victory not only for book publishers and authors but for all copyright owners,” while admitting that it doesn’t mean the end for Anthropic. With a current valuation of $183 billion, the estimated $1.5 billion settlement might be a smart business move for Anthropic more than anything.

The Wall Street Journal featured Shlomo Klapper, the founder and CEO of Learned Hand AI, an Opinion Page front and center, where he wrote that “Anthropic’s Settlement Unleashes the Russian Winter.” It’s a fascinating take (if you’re a subscriber). His angle is that Anthropic’s response is a strategic move that potentially prevents future lawsuits and traps OpenAI in a situation with math that “will be ruinous to OpenAI . . . It’s OpenAI that now faces a bitter cold.”

Stephanie Schmidt, a Senior Associate at Norton Rose Fulbright US, shared some key insights from the Bartz v. Anthropic: Settlement case.

• The settlement halts a trial that might have tested the boundaries of copyright statutory damages.

• Whether training LLMs with pirated data is defensible as fair use is hardly a decided issue.

• The case signaled that courts are willing to embrace transformative fair use in the AI training context, but not necessarily at the expense of condoning piracy.

Her piece is concise and insightful, providing a quick understanding of the settlement.

If you want to view the ‘Bartz v. Anthropic’ settlement court record to form your own opinion, you can find that document here.

Rest assured, hundreds of articles will be written in the coming weeks from every possible perspective. If you come across one with special insights, pass it along.

Blessings!

Bruce Erickson

While copyright law isn’t new to many in today’s digital world, it often surprises Christians how deeply it is ingrained in the Western church. Ninety-nine percent of the Bibles and Biblical discipleship tools in English are distributed using a closed, all-rights-reserved model, controlling translations into other languages and their distribution. And the world says it’s entirely legal.

This has caused a major imbalance in discipleship resources between the English-speaking church and the global church. There are more resources available in English than in all other languages in the world. Combined. That's over 7,000 languages. The global church needs Bibles and discipleship tools to foster spiritual growth and reach the lost. So why are these resources restricted? Fifty years ago, Richard Foster wrote, “If our goods are not available to the community when it is clearly right and good, then they are stolen goods.” [Celebration of Discipline.]

Should this be more widely discussed?

It’s fair to question whether the practice of all-rights-reserved even needs to be addressed. In Western culture, religious leaders might say, "Perhaps not." Consumers may respond differently. The minority language global church certainly would. Donors might also argue that the ethics of restricting access to content created with their donations deserve greater discussion.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world waits, hoping for unrestricted content from their brothers. How successful has the exploitation of copyrighted content been for Western church leaders? They are doing well. The health of the church and surrounding communities? Not so much. By adopting copyrights’ secular premise, religious leaders seem little different from the rest of the world or to the rest of the world.

Since copyright law doesn’t specify what an author must do with their works, a copyright owner alone decides which moral, ethical, or Biblical principles apply. Unique ethical standards and societal obligations drive Christians, and a person’s core beliefs will always influence how they manage possessions. It’s time for a discussion about copyright altruism and the social conscience of sharing within our church and ministry boardrooms. How an author, church, or organization exercises these rights always reflects their worldview on managing resources and possessions.

These restrictions are not an issue when writing a novel, a math book, a cookbook, or an instruction manual. The greater challenge arises when the writing is meant to serve the public good — or, even more directly, when sharing spiritual lessons we believe God wants us to communicate. If He truly wants us to share, then why are our works restricted? Are we writing or creating for our benefit or theirs? Does our work aim to serve a greater public good, or is it just for information or entertainment?

Copyright’s set of values

Copyright law has modern secular origins, so it’s no surprise that creating or defining a biblical apologetic for copyright is difficult at best. The roots of copyright law trace back to 17th-century conflicts over monetary control of secular writings; it was never rooted in theological debate or precedent. The purpose of copyright is to incentivize authors by giving them the chance to profit from their works, and government intervention has largely achieved this goal. But Christians rarely need money as motivation to produce Bibles, Bible studies, and discipleship tools.

Attempting to apply the secular concept of copyright in a biblical setting turns out to be a messy and fruitless endeavor. After all, if copyright (and the idea of all-rights-reserved) is biblical, then the principles should be relevant and followed throughout history from Genesis onward.

The Bible’s set of values

While the Bible may not explicitly address copyright, it does speak to the human heart and Godly practices. Isaiah looked forward to a future when both Jews and Gentiles would follow God’s ways. “He will teach us His ways, so that we may walk in His paths.” [Isa 2:3 niv] At that time, Isaiah predicted the Lord's word would go out, and I don’t think it will be prefaced with 'all-rights-reserved,' except by God Himself. No human author will get to claim credit for that. God's ways are notably different from those of man.

The widespread adoption of the all-rights-reserved licensing approach reveals a lot about the culture within the Western church. Modern secular copyright law and its licensing practices have never been part of historic, orthodox church doctrines or creeds, but the spiritual needs of the world have. Ironically (or tragically), no treatise exists by any religious leader or publisher claiming a biblical precedent for restricting discipleship tools. Why is that?

When establishing a guiding principle for managing our copyrighted works, believers must seek God’s ways. A biblical foundation is the only reliable source for setting standards for using our property rights, including copyright. The approach must be rooted in His ways rather than human tradition (Col 2:8). Developing a biblical ethic for our copyrighted works involves discerning what is acceptable to the Lord (Psa 19:14), what is pleasing in His sight (Eph 5:10), and responding in a manner worthy of the Lord (Col 1:10).

God speaks to our practices

Possessions – Copyright law states that you own your writing if it’s considered “original.” But Scripture says, “Both riches and honor come from You, and You are the ruler over all!” [1 Chr 29:12 bsb] It begins with God, not with us. Ecclesiastes explains that there is nothing new under the sun. [Ecc 1:9] We are not the self-made creative geniuses we often think we are, but rather products of a Creator who acts according to His will, not ours. The Lord explained through Haggai that “The silver is mine and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of Hosts.” [Hag 2:8] We should approach ownership (including “our” copyrights) with an attitude that recognizes it isn’t truly ours anyway.

Finances – This is a simple reminder of the lessons most of us have learned from Scripture. Being rich toward God is more important than storing up treasure for ourselves, Luke 12:21. As Moses points out, money can distort our thinking. “Do not take a bribe, for bribes blind the eyes of the wise and distort the words of the righteous.” [Deu 16:19 net] Our actions can cause us to stray from His ways if we’re not paying attention. Not heeding His word comes with consequences. “A faithful man will abound with blessings, but one who is eager to be rich will not go unpunished.” [Pro 28:20 bsb]

Materialism – No one will argue in favor of materialism, but there's no denying that the church today struggles with it among its members and even its leaders. James warned that “Your gold and your silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you…” [Jam 5:3 nrsv]. The challenge of materialism is as old as history itself. The book of Ecclesiastes highlights a common flaw in the human heart that drives today’s market-driven economy. “The eye is not satisfied with seeing, or the ear filled with hearing.” [Ecc 1:8 nrsv] Both media and business empires are built on the idea that we never have enough. Social media and corporate marketing departments are well aware of this.

Conformity – This is challenging because we live in a secular world. The struggle to conform to worldly values has existed since the fall, and the Lord often addressed this issue. When confronted by the religious leaders of His time, the Scribes and Pharisees, Jesus called them hypocrites because they introduced secular practices into sacred ones. In Mark 7:7, He said Isaiah specifically prophesied about them, “They worship me in vain, their teachings are merely human rules.” [niv] With money as its primary focus, secular copyright law must be navigated carefully.

Sharing is a vital part of the Christian faith, as emphasized in teachings from the Old Testament, by John the Baptist, Jesus, and His apostles. John emphasizes that Jesus’ life demonstrated this. Our response should mirror His example. “But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” [1 Joh 3:17 niv] It’s why John the Baptist told those seeking baptism of repentance, “If you have two shirts, give one to the poor. If you have food, share it with those who are hungry.” [Luk 3:11 nlt] This principle of sharing has led to the establishment of many notable parachurch organizations over the past century.

Caring – In Scripture, the principle of caring for our brothers, the poor, the needy, and foreigners is comprehensive but not overwhelming. Jesus emphasized that it’s about others – “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” [Joh 15:13 bsb] Paul emphasizes that caring should extend to everyone, not just our brothers. “So then, whenever we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who belong to the family of the faith.” [Gal 6:10 net] One of the last directives of Jesus to Peter was, “Feed (take care of) my sheep.” [Joh 21:16]

Should our practices matter?

In 1948, A.W. Tozer wrote, “The world is perishing for the lack of the knowledge of God.” [The Pursuit of God] Does anyone really care how the Church handles copyright law? Certainly, if it affects the perishing or the needy within the global church. Does the global church have the right to access and translate the Scriptures without the West’s preapproval? We need to be careful that secular thinking doesn’t cloud our biblical worldview. Perhaps it’s time to rethink the whole concept of all-rights-reserved as we go into all the world to make disciples.

Bruce Erickson 2025

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

A PDF copy of this post is available at https://www.academia.edu/143522585/Should_the_Church_s_Copyright_Practices_Matter

It also made me think about the “preface” in most books we read. A preface is usually described as an opening statement by the author that explains what’s to come. Sometimes it is used to thank others; often, it discusses the purpose and background of the work. But more simply, it is the author's introductory remarks.

Examine the opening remarks in any Bible and most religious books. There is always a preface to the preface, but it’s hidden in fine print and sets the stage for the writing that follows with language something like this:

© 2004 by Jon Q. Author, or Megabig Publisher. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, photocopy, recording) without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Granted, some try to soften the harshness of the language by including an exception for brief quotations in printed reviews (something allowed by fair use provisions anyway), often adding a paragraph gratuitously permitting the use of up to 500 words or 250 verses (or some similar amount), as long as the total quote stays within their percentage guideline. (Remember, they have the secular government-granted rights to do so.) Although this wording varies slightly, publishers all have compliance departments that seek out “copyright infringement." You are welcome to use their version or work, but share it only according to their standards.

Comically (or tragically), those comments are in very small print before the table of contents and before what the author then boldly claims is the REAL preface. You know the routine. Now, why would an author or publisher print an all-rights-reserved introduction to a book that aims to build up the church, encourage, admonish, and promote greater understanding of Scripture? Do you think that language might work against the book’s purpose, the message of the gospel, or the mission of the church?

These all-rights-reserved statements haven't been legally required for nearly 50 years. So, why do they still appear? The author or copyright owner is choosing to assert that the world has granted them a right—one that, while new in history, is now THEIR right, and they’re giving you fair warning—“Only I have the right to copy, distribute, perform publicly, or create derivatives of my work. You don't. Read my book, but don’t share it without my permission.” Weird. But the benefits of copying and widely distributing the Bible and discipleship content are immeasurable. And what are the risks? Are there any?

There might be a better way. Luther's preface to his Wittenberg Hymnal didn’t include any warnings or a restrictive licensing statement. Instead:

[Paul] “exhorted the Colossians to sing spiritual songs and Psalms heartily unto the Lord so that God’s Word and Christian teaching might be instilled and implanted in many ways. Therefore I, too, in order to make a start and to give an incentive to those who can do better, have with the help of others compiled several hymns, so that the holy gospel which now by the grace of God has arisen anew may be noised and spread abroad.”

Luther’s was a preface without restrictions, to encourage that his hymns “may be noised and spread abroad.”

Luther’s goal was similar to Paul’s: “…that the Lord’s message may spread quickly and be honored.” [2 Thes 3:1 net] Of course, in both cases, the secular world had not yet developed the concept of copyright, so the church grew rapidly through the teachings and unrestricted writings of Paul and the apostles, and the Reformation spread under Luther without the burden of all-rights-reserved. Amazing.

“How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news.” [Isa 52:7 bsb] Spreading the Word globally has always been the Church's mission—a calling given to the Church long before governments created laws that allow believers and non-believers alike to claim ownership of the Scriptures. Acts 6:7 – “The word of God kept on spreading…” Relying on worldly methods to carry out the Church's mission has led to unintended consequences. The good news is that this restrictive approach can easily change because authors have full control over their works. They can revise their approach as they see fit. Proverbs 15:7 – “The lips of the wise spread knowledge…” You can share the Word within the framework of secular law because no law anywhere requires you to restrict copyrighted works. Follow your heart. Remain committed to helping others and ensure that everyone has access to discipleship resources in their own language, free from the artificial restrictions often imposed by the Western Church.

Bruce Erickson 2025

Leave a comment

Share

Chat GPT Is Eating the World

The domain names keep getting better and better! In a July 7 post, the site answers the question, “Which judge will decide fair use next in AI copyright litigation?” They list the current court schedules for what they see as the major GenAI cases. Two takeaways:

• These are all rulings on summary judgment motions that occur well before any trials. Only one ruling is scheduled to occur this year, with the first set for the fall, and the remainder will take place through November 2026.

• As they note, the dust is still settling from recent rulings, so it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions. Don’t expect significant rulings to alter the current direction of GenAI legal practices anytime soon.

Stevens Law Group

I recently attended a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) seminar titled “Protecting Your IP Involving Artificial Intelligence.” David Stevens led it, and from that seminar, I discovered his post, “AI Copyright Infringement: Line Between Inspiration and Violation.” A concise section on Fair Use offers a good summary. It also covers copyright claims and GenAI. Most notably, four brief paragraphs, about halfway through the article, specifically address the question, "Who Owns AI-Generated Content?" It’s worth reading. Pay particular attention to his statement, “Companies using AI should keep detailed records.” Replace the paragraphs on your monitor I mentioned earlier with just this one. Keep detailed records!

Stevens is correct: “AI brings many benefits, but it also raises serious questions . . . Without clear legal guidelines, both creators and companies face uncertainty.” Don’t tackle GenAI and Bible translation without legal input!

Continue to move forward confidently, bravely, but knowledgeably in the world of Bible translation.

Blessings!

Bruce Erickson

Leave a comment

This question needs an answer, but people are really asking two questions: why is the Bible copyrighted, and why is my Bible restricted? The simple answer to the copyright question is: it is automatically copyrighted under modern secular law. Copyright didn’t come from a choice or collusion among Bible Societies. It is a function of the law.

The Bible is copyrighted automatically as a function of copyright law. The essence of copyright law is that anything an author or artist creates that is original and fixed in some form (like written or recorded) is automatically copyrighted. In simple terms, “if you create it, you own it.” Therefore, most of a person’s emails, texts, photos, videos, notes, and social media posts are automatically protected by copyright. You don't need to apply for a copyright; it exists as soon as a work is fixed in a tangible form. No modern translation of the Bible required a copyright application. They were automatically copyrighted the moment they were created.

This is due to a change in copyright law in 1909 in the U.S. that awarded translators a copyright over their translations of public domain texts. This legal shift was a significant victory for publishers, enabling them to profit from works in the public domain, and there is no record of religious leaders opposing this change. Since all Bible versions are translations from Hebrew, Greek, or other languages, the translated versions would now be considered “owned” under copyright law, even though their source texts are in the public domain. The Bible’s copyright didn’t originate from any noble purpose or biblical teaching; it resulted from changes in modern secular law.

You will find little help from Christian publishers and authors in explaining the “Why?” There are websites that claim Bible versions are copyrighted to ensure translators are fairly paid for their hard work. No, Bible versions are automatically copyrighted by law. And copyright does not guarantee that anyone gets paid. You will also hear religious leaders incorrectly say that copyright prevents bad translations. But copyright can’t do that and never has been able to. Copyright can’t and doesn’t prevent heresy. It wasn’t designed to.

So, why are most Bibles restricted? Because the owners of Bible translations intentionally chose to restrict them. Don’t confuse copyright with restrictions and the all-rights-reserved approach used by authors and publishers. No law anywhere in the world requires an author or translator to restrict their copyrighted work in any way. Authors choose to impose restrictions. Man’s ways can be peculiar at times. God’s ways are not. “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,’ declares the LORD.” [Isa 55: 8, bsb].

As we consider others’ access to our created content, consider Elihu’s approach – “Let us discern for ourselves what is right; let us learn together what is good.” [Job 34:4 niv] We certainly don’t need to rely on man’s ways when we can know God’s ways. As David asked of the Lord, “Show me your ways, Lord, teach me your paths.” [Psa 25:4 niv] Imagine what the world would be like if, in 1909, the Western church had refused to pattern itself after the ways of the world and instead made Bibles and discipleship resources available without restrictions.

Bruce Erickson © 2025

Share

Leave a comment

A pdf copy of this post can be found here - https://www.academia.edu/130474949/Why_is_the_Bible_copyrighted

[i] Chain cites 'copyright law' in refusing to print images of Bible verses, woman says. By Jana Winter, Fox News. Nov 21, 2015.

Bartz v. Anthropic

This recent order may be seen as either shocking or expected, depending on whether you’re a producer or consumer. Judge William Alsup of the US District Court, Northern District of California, issued a Fair Use Order on June 23. While the entire order offers valuable insight into Fair Use arguments, the Order’s Overall Analysis (page 30), followed by Alsup’s Conclusion, gets to the core of the issue. My non-lawyer perspective – it’s not over. His order will influence other jurisdictions even if those courts reach different conclusions. And this is just the initial step in the legal process. Alsup clearly states that this case is heading to trial. But a point he makes is undeniable: “The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes.” GenAI’s transformative technology will continue to challenge the courts and future legislation.

Mind the Copyright: The UK’s AI and Copyright Conundrum

Finnegan’s Paranavitane and Cole discuss the IPO Consultation on proposed changes to the UK’s copyright law. Apparently, this consultation aims to promote the development of AI models while protecting the rights of authors. That’s a challenging task in any country! If you’re involved in global projects, this UK effort, along with those in the EU and other countries, should not be ignored. The authors remind us that a significant chasm exists between advocates of authors’ rights and government priorities. Dismiss any government’s AI agenda at your own risk.

Overhearing a mom’s conversation

Last week, my wife and I were walking in a park just in time to pass a mom having an animated phone conversation. In the few seconds it took to pass, I heard her say: “I asked ChatGPT if it was appropriate for my 21-year-old son to pay half of his cell phone bill.” (Feel free to provide your own answer for that one.) I didn’t hear the response, but the question alone was both humorous and unsettling. A conversation like this isn’t new to any of us, but it highlights the importance of the Church and the Bible Translation community being at the forefront of GenAI. The world continues to search for answers, and guiding them toward Scripture first is essential. Blessings to each of you as you lead this effort!

Bruce Erickson

Leave a comment

Why do I feel the weight of responsibility and even empathy so easily for some and not others? Is it the context, the closeness of the person who is hurting, or their experiences that mirror my own more closely? Do I feel compassion more intensely when it's my family?

It is the very essence of God's nature to care deeply for those in need—those who struggle to care for themselves: children, widows, and orphans. Embrace Paul’s wisdom: "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, especially to those in the family of faith." (Gal 6:10)

However, there is often a blind spot in our practice of empathy in a crucial area. It is with my brothers and sisters in the 3,500+ language groups worldwide who still lack complete scriptures in their native tongue. We can easily overlook their appalling lack of Biblical resources while we enjoy abundant content ourselves. More than half of the world's languages still lack a translation of God's word—unthinkable in this digital age.

In 1890, A.B. Simpson penned the words to the poem "A Missionary Cry."

A hundred thousand souls a day,

Are passing one by one away,

In Christless guilt and gloom.

Without one ray of hope or light,

With future dark as endless night,

They're passing to their doom.

It's still just as accurate today; only the numbers are higher. Men, women, and children are dying without hope, never hearing or seeing the precious words of our God in their mother tongue. Don't they deserve better?

Meanwhile, our practice of adopting modern secular copyright laws to claim God's word as our intellectual property often causes unnecessary delays in translating the Bible for those who have nothing. I doubt the Global Church finds our Western secular notions of copyright and our need for control amusing. Should a language group need permission from the West to use our translations as a source for translating God's word into their language? Will bad things really happen if we don't control them? Or will we see the kind of revivals that characterized the earlier days of rapid Bible translation in Church history? I suspect the global church would welcome free and open Bible translations that are without restrictions. And put them to good use.

For now, we might ask ourselves these questions:

• Do we feel enough compassion for the lost to be willing to give up the control and financial gains the world promises in exchange for eternal riches?

• Can we recognize someone with spiritual needs and be moved by the same emotion we feel when we see their physical needs?

• Do we still have the same empathy and concern when it costs us something?

The world is lost, and time is short for those facing a Christless eternity. “They're passing to their doom.” But Jesus came to offer hope and a path to the lost. “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Lk 19:10) The message we, as believers, share is one that cannot be contained by all the laws of the world. It's time we turn to God's Word to learn what He says about these possessions we call copyright, instead of just living by the world’s standards. The Global Church deserves that.

Bruce Erickson – 2025

Leave a comment

[A PDF copy of this post is available at https://www.academia.edu/130180881/_As_we_have_opportunity_and_the_100_000]

Share

Subscribe now

Disney Enterprises (and a whole bunch of related companies) v. Midjourney Inc.

In 1998, Congress passed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (ok, its official name was The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) after heavy lobbying from Disney aimed at preventing the earliest Mickey Mouse works from entering the public domain. It worked. Now Disney is back at it, this time to help derail GenAI.

On June 11, they filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, with a complicated name, but I’ll refer to it as Disney v. Midjourney. It’s too early to draw many conclusions, as this is “document 1,” and it only presents Disney’s view. Its 110 pages will tell you how Disney is wonderful and why “Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism.”

Anthony Lueng of Haldanes law firm in Hong Kong shares his perspective with The Empire Strikes Back. He argues that there is nothing groundbreaking in the lawsuit, but he believes it is perhaps “not a coincidence that Disney and Universal chose to target Midjourney, a significant but relatively small player in the AI industry, rather than deep-pocketed industry leaders.” Are they the least able to fight back? Lueng thinks so. His post is worth reading for a quick overview.

The Assignment with Audie Cornish

Ms. Cornish hosts a CNN podcast where she interviewed Karen Hao, an AI expert, investigative journalist, and author of the book Empire of AI. The episode titled “Is OpenAI Building an Empire or a Religion?” piqued my interest. (The link leads to a video, but you can access the transcript from there. They discuss many topics, but a few are especially noteworthy.)

At 2:39, Cornish and Hao discuss OpenAI as a hybrid company, and the model looks a lot like many ministry orgs in the West. They also talk about “hidden costs," a concept especially relevant in the Bible translation world. At 8:50, they start a discussion on what they believe “can only be described as quasi-religious movements that have been born.” The discussion is relevant and timely.

And again, thank you for the leads you provide. They are always appreciated.

Be Blessed!

Bruce Erickson

Copyright protections are pervasive, covering nearly all works created by authors and artists, including books, letters, photographs, paintings, music, software code, videos, recordings, and other forms of expression. Copyright happens automatically and lasts for an absurdly long time: the life of the author, plus 70 years in most countries. Understanding the basics of copyright law matters if you wish to share your work in the church. It also matters if your writing includes quotes or incorporates the work of others.

So why does copyright even exist, and how did its restrictions enter the church? Perhaps Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in the 1400s was responsible. Mass production, at least at that time, made books available at a fraction of the cost and to a much broader audience. It may also have been influenced by Martin Luther, whose writings, printed in Germany, were distributed on a massive scale partly because there were no copyright controls. His and others' “unprotected” works triggered the Reformation and a spiritual revolution.

As printing technology advanced, writers sought to control and exploit their work. Yet, it was the publishers who held that control. However, authors eventually prevailed when copyright laws were established in England in 1708, in the U.S. in 1790, and soon after in other parts of the world. Finally, the dream of writing as a source of income was a reality—for some. Today, most countries have laws that provide copyright protection. Under modern secular copyright law, the protection is immediate, certain, and guaranteed, even for Bible translations.

The church, especially in the West, was influenced and captivated by this approach. It uncritically adopted modern secular copyright values, a troubling development. The American Standard Version (ASV) began playing the “all-rights-reserved” card in 1901. Religious leaders quickly followed suit, limiting and exploiting their works, leading to the emergence of modern Christian publishing. Consequently, most modern Bible translations and discipleship training resources are released with the "all rights reserved” warning. Today, the way the church manages its copyrighted content differs very little from that of the world. The Western church’s embrace of the world's philosophy on copyright often results in an emphasis on monetizing its donor-funded content, limiting access to Bible translations and discipleship tools in thousands of minority languages.

Yes, authors have a legal right to exploit and restrict their work. But is that always the right or best choice? Must a right always be exercised? Paul said not always. “But we did not exercise this right. Instead, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. (1 Cor 9:12-BSB). Our practices reflect our beliefs in Biblical teaching on possessions (1 Chr 29:12), motivations (Psa 73:28, Mat 5:16), finances (Luk 12:21), sharing (1 Joh 3:17), and how we care for others (Rom 12:13). Copyright law provides authors and artists the opportunity to share or restrict. This should be a topic of discussion in our seminaries and among religious leaders. Discovering God’s ways for our property (in this case, Intellectual Property) regarding the legitimacy of an all-rights-reserved approach versus sharing should always be included in our reasoning and reflected in our choices.

Bruce Erickson © 2025

A copy of this post is available as a PDF at https://www.academia.edu/130014066/Copyrights_Implications_for_the_Church_and_Its_Mission

The world of content production and copyright is often stimulating, challenging, and at times confusing. As you create content for distribution, you enter a realm where almost everything is restricted by licensing agreements. It seems that, as a society, we are hesitant to share for fear of losing potential revenue streams, even though the earnings for most authors are minimal. Authors can easily lose sight of the true purpose behind their creations: the public good and their sincere desire to bless and help others.

These posts address various legal, ethical, and licensing questions involved in creating content for distribution. We hope they assist individuals seeking to understand the fundamental principles of copyright and licensing, while also providing insights into trademarks and their significance in this process. Although this site does not offer legal advice, you will find articles, white papers, and resources that help clarify aspects of copyright law related to content creation. We believe that the public good and the call to disciple others inspire creativity. For leaders and shepherds burdened for others, witnessing lives change provides the greatest incentive to create and is far more rewarding than any material gain.

Copyright – a quick overview

The short version: You create it; you own it. The extended version: Copyright is the protection that governments provide for original works of authorship. It is a modern, secular right that grants authors, composers, and artists exclusive rights to exploit their work. This right is automatic, occurring when an idea is expressed (or fixed) in a tangible form. In most countries, copyright lasts for the author's lifetime plus 70 years. Although there is no “international” copyright law, copyright between countries is broadly similar, as most adhere to the Berne Convention with its common standards.

Receiving copyright protection

Copyright law today differs significantly from what it was in the late 1700s. Initially, individuals had to apply for copyright protection, which was only available for published content, and the protection lasted for a period of 12 to 18 years. Now, the right is automatic and begins when the original expression is written down, typed, drawn, or recorded. It’s that simple. There is no requirement to publish the work, and no registration is necessary to obtain a copyright.

So, who owns the work that a person creates? The maxim in copyright – “you create it, you own it” is true most of the time. Unless considered a work-made-for-hire exception, an author or artist owns everything they create (but only according to precise standards). Employers typically own the work of their employees; however, content created by volunteers for a church or organization is generally owned by those volunteers as authors. When someone copies or otherwise takes advantage of another person’s works without permission, it is referred to as infringement, and the law provides legal remedies to authors whose works have been infringed.

What is copyrightable

The rules defining what is copyrightable encompass various categories, including literary works, musical works (including lyrics), dramatic works, pantomimes and choreographies, pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, movies (even those made with a cellphone), and sound recordings. Authors hold specific rights in all these categories: to restrict copying, control derivatives, control distribution, permit or refuse public performances and public displays, and to control digital copies.

Data and facts do not receive copyright protection since they exist globally and are not regarded as being created by anyone. Additionally, an author’s efforts or hard work alone usually do not result in copyright protection in most countries. Lastly, when a work enters the public domain, it becomes available without restrictions.

Public Domain (PD) and “fair use”

Public domain refers to works that lack copyright protection, typically because they have exceeded the copyright term. Anyone can copy, distribute, create derivative works, or otherwise use public domain content. Regarding Fair Use, it is not a right but a defense against infringement and is often suggested as a solution without a clear understanding of its legal limitations. Caution, knowledge, and legal advice should precede any claim of fair use.

The question of quality

Copyright of a work neither references, implies, nor guarantees its quality or virtue. Copyright does not discriminate based on quality. Once the content is fixed in a tangible format, it receives protection, regardless of its merit. Instead, copyright has always focused on the financial benefits of the protected content, ensuring that only the author can exploit the work. Copyright doesn’t stop dreadful, inappropriate, or heretical works.

The author controls their work, not copyright law.

Finally, it is essential to note that copyright law does not dictate what authors must do with their works. An author, artist, or composer can choose to control their work or opt to share it freely. The “All Rights Reserved” statement found inside the front cover of most books, including those about Biblical matters, reflects a deliberate choice made by the authors. Copyright law doesn’t restrict anything; rather, it enables the authors to restrict, limit, and impose rules on their work, and it allows authors to be as generous as they wish.

It’s not publishers or lawyers who mandate All Rights Reserved. Authors alone can share or restrict. Only the owner of a work has the authority to decide which permissions to grant or to whom they wish to license, assign, or sell them. Copyright law grants them that power.

The author’s responsibility

While this modern, government-sanctioned, secular right may seem appealing, another dimension is added for Christian believers. Biblical teaching should guide the decision to limit or generously share biblical training content. Moses says, "Do what is good and right in the sight of the Lord…" (Deu 6:18). Jesus reminds us to limit or share in the same way we would desire others to do for us (or our family – Mat 7:12). He directs us to stop hiding our lamp (Mar 4:21) and emphasizes that our duty to rescue is greater than our duty to self (Luk 10:37). Sharing is foundational to Scripture, contrasting with the "All Rights Reserved" approach of modern copyright law for secular content. To share or to restrict – choose wisely.

Bruce Erickson © 2025

[A PDF copy of this post is available at https://www.academia.edu/129858193/Copyright_Quick_Overview]

Leave a comment

First – Now that’s funny!

Maybe I’m just easily amused, but the Concord Music v. Anthropic case took a funny turn. At a recent discovery hearing, Anthropic’s counsel informed the court that some of the data submitted by their data scientist included a fabricated citation. They had used Claude. Sometimes GenAI works against you! Not a good way to keep your job. Blake Brittain of Reuters reports the story. Anthropic expert accused of using AI-fabricated source in copyright case.

Andrew Coffman has some interesting thoughts on the recent Copyright Office Release. Recent Firings and Resignations Show The Depth of Disputes Over Copyright Fair Use and Training GenAI. Here are three of those.

• Coffman says the fair use debate over training GenAI may be the largest copyright dispute in history.

• He reminds his readers that while the Copyright Office and ALI (American Law Institute) provide important guidance for the courts, they are not required to follow either.

• He believes that if Congress does not act to address the Fair Use question, then the administration may well try to mold copyright policy to its own goals.

Again, thank you to those who sent me leads on GenAI news. They are helpful and appreciated.

Be Blessed!

Bruce Erickson

The Copyright Office Part 3: “Pre-publication” Generative AI Training Report

After a muted response to Part 2, it seems no one is happy with the Part 3 version released by the Copyright Office. The Washington Post’s response was typical. “Perlmutter’s office released a more than 100-page report on artificial intelligence that raised concerns . . . which some employees suspected may have influenced Perlmutter’s termination.” The 111-page Copyright Office Report is important, but it’s just one step in the process. If you don’t want to read through the lengthy report, Ran Vogel, an IP attorney in Israel, provided the best summary of the Copyright Office Report that I’ve found so far. He states in his conclusion, “Although the U.S. Copyright Office report does not carry legal force, it is likely to influence future litigation, public policy, and legislative action.” He is clear in his beliefs that the unchecked era of AI training using copyrighted content is about over, but his comments are through the eyes of an attorney defending authors, not LLM companies.

The National Science Foundation RFI

Receiving far less press was the RFI with a typical, lengthy government-inspired name: Request for Information on the Development of a 2025 National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Research and Development (R&D) Strategic Plan. An R&D World article provides a quick overview. The bottom line is that the Trump administration is looking to establish policy “for sustaining and enhancing America’s AI dominance.” Most countries are considering similar ideas; in other words, no one wants to be left out of the AI race. Don’t be surprised when legislation is proposed in countries that changes the copyright playing field between authors and LLMs. Stay tuned!

A big “Thank you” to each of you who sent me leads on GenAI news. They are helpful and appreciated as we all strive to stay informed in the GenAI legal world.

Be Blessed!

Bruce Erickson

Ed Newton-Rex

The Hollywood Reporter published a guest column by Newton-Rex titled “Creators Are Losing the Copyright Battle”. He is the founder of Fairly Trained, a non-profit that advocates for content owners in their struggle against AI companies that source content to train their LLMs.

• He surprisingly states, “I think there’s still a real chance that the world settles on a fair balance between AI companies’ and creators’ interests.” Hmmm. I’m not sure that’s true, but it was surprising to hear that he thinks the odds are not necessarily in favor of the authors.

• He also writes that he sees a risk of governments changing copyright law to favor AI companies. This concern is fueled by fears that AI companies may be complicit in stoking governments’ fears about losing the global AI race.

Newton-Rex is not an attorney, so he isn’t commenting on the legal specifics as much as he seems to be aware that winning the GenAI legal wars may not be a slam dunk for authors.

Copyright Alliance

In February 2024, Copyright Alliance issued a position paper entitled "Artificial Intelligence." The paper represents their stance on AI and GenAI efforts and offers a fair treatment of the subject. While this position paper is over a year old, it still reflects current events in the legal world. One point they make that everyone, regardless of their political stance, can embrace is the need to respect the rights of creators and copyright owners. No argument there. I would add that the public good (remember that part of copyright law?) should be part of the conversation. “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also the interests of others.” Phi 2:2 BSB.

In point one, Copyright Alliance admits that new AI laws may be formulated, which certainly have the potential to change the legal narrative. I liked point four, where they discuss the fair use question regarding ingesting content into LLMs. No one knows how the courts will decide on this, but Copyright Alliance addresses its position succinctly, providing a good understanding of an author’s vantage point of fair use and GenAI. It’s worth a look.

Have a blessed weekend!

Bruce Erickson

A Sonnet on the Tumult of Al and Copyright

When minds of men did teach machines to dream,

With lines and forms from art's vast, hallowed chest,

They stirred the law from slumber's gentle seam,

For who owns thought when thought is Al-pressed?

The painter cries, "Thou thief of soul and brush!"

The coder claims, "It learns, yet doth not steal. "

But judges stall, amid the legal crush,

Unsure if minds of code may truly feel.

Lo! Commons seek to guard what all may share,

Yet statutes lag behind the lightning's pace.

The rights of authors float in thin-sliced air,

While models train on every song and face.

Still Congress hems and courts in quand'ry wait –

Can art be born from minds that imitate?

Thus stands the stage: a clash of ink and code,

Where rules are penned vet oft are overthrown.

The future limps along this thorny road,

With questions writ in stone-and yet unknown.

Calum Smyth

Mr. Smyth wrote an interesting article a couple of weeks ago on AI from an investor’s perspective that underscores some of the challenges faced by AI and GenAI. He is a lawyer with the Brussels-based Wiggin Law Firm and previously led the intellectual property function at Barclays Bank. Mr. Smyth is listed in IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists. The article, A.I. and the Law: Businesses and Investors Can No Longer Plead Ignorance, makes the point that, as a lawyer, advising clients on A.I. is uniquely perplexing. Perplexing – I like that word! One thing that is clear is that the scope of AI law in the UK, the EU, and elsewhere remains unclear. Three points in his conclusion bear reading.

• The global uncertainty surrounding the legality of AI systems is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

• The implications of AI and GenAI include IP law, politics, and technology. Mr. Smyth is correct. While we typically follow law and technology events, we often overlook the most unpredictable element: politics. Dismiss it to your own peril.

• Businesses (and organizations) seeking investment would do well to be informed, proactively addressing risks head-on, while using legal foresight to their advantage.

The Authors Guild

The Guild’s post on "AI Licensing: What Authors Should Know" offers a unique perspective from an organization dedicated to helping authors maximize their copyrights. This post presents author’s viewpoints on the GenAI struggle (well, some authors anyway). Here are some key insights:

• They suggest, “It is crucial that we move AI companies away from the current reliance on fair use to licensing.” They have identified the biggest challenge, the fair use defense. But is moving AI companies possible or realistic?

• The Guild acknowledges that further development of AI and LLMs cannot be stopped, noting that hundreds of billions of dollars have already been invested in generative AI. Additionally, they note the U.S. government is working to ensure its leadership in AI development while other countries are trying to attract AI developers to their shores.

• The post raises a point we often overlook. “Different authors have different interests when it comes to AI licensing, and we need to respect and support them all.” Remembering to respect others is important, even if our conclusions on AI and GenAI usage differ from those of others. “In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.” Mat 7:12 BSB

Have a blessed weekend!

Bruce Erickson

Barry Sookman

While participating in a breakout session during the Missional AI Summit in Dallas with Tim Jore, I mentioned a fascinating case, Concord Music v. Anthropic. While few may read the entire ruling, I discovered a recent post from Barry Sookman, a senior counsel in McCarthy Tétrault’s Toronto office, and an expert in technology, copyright, privacy, and AI. He explains the case in detail in AI Copyright Litigation: Recent Legal Developments, noting:

• The court said the relief Anthropic claimed was too broad

• The court noted that the plaintiff (Anthropic ) was unable to demonstrate irreparable harm.

• The court held that the evidence cited by the publishers was insufficient to support their theory that the use of the works would negatively impact the emerging market for AI training licenses.

Judge Eumi K. Lee’s ruling was quite insightful regarding the legal path for GenAI litigation, and Barry provides an excellent summary.

Key court cases

The question of the key court cases to follow is a constant regarding GenAI, particularly with the fair use angle. While a short list includes New York Times v. Microsoft/OpenAI, Authors Guild v. OpenAI, Getty Images v. Stability AI, Kadrey v. Meta, and Concord Music v. Anthropic, these tend to change as rulings evolve since the legal principles are linked and somewhat dependent on each other. What may be more helpful is a list of websites that cover key cases and are updated constantly. I’ve listed a few.

• The law firm BakerHostetler maintains a publicly available list, Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions. (my personal favorite)

• If you enjoy tracking the cases closely, Joe Panettieri of Sustainable Tech Partners (STP) maintains a regularly updated Generative AI Lawsuits Timeline.

• Chat GPT Is Eating The World (you gotta love that name) has a site featuring a Master List of copyright lawsuits against AI companies in the U.S. The heading is dated August 2024, but note that the entries include some up-to-date notations; most importantly, they include background litigation information.

There are many sites out there, though, including just asking Chat GTP.

Enough for this post. Blessings to each of you, and have a blessed Easter weekend!

Bruce Erickson © 2025 This blog is licensed Attribution CC BY-SA 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa).

Nick Redfern, a Principal, and Global Head of Enforcement at Rouse, posted an article last week titled, "To train AI or not to train; that is the question." Don’t expect this short article to provide a definitive answer to his question; instead, he emphasizes an important point. The issues are “more delicate than the question of simply ingesting and training LLMs.” Reading it reminds you that the matters surrounding the question are global, with different countries adopting varied and sometimes opposing methodologies. My take? Don’t expect any legal finality on copyright questions anytime soon. So, keep pressing forward.

From Creative Commons:

Tim and I have discussed Creative Commons copyright compliance extensively in the past, as it has been part of our lives for quite some time. We both hold CC certification. Like the other questions surrounding copyright and Generative AI, nothing comes easy. Expect more updates concerning CC in future newsletters.

CC released a working paper in 2021 by Brigitte Vézina and Sarah Hinchliff Pearson titled, “Should CC-Licensed Content be Used to Train AI? It Depends.” (Don’t expect the article to answer the question.) In GenAI years, 2021 is a long time ago. But the title still remains as pertinent today as it did then. It depends! All copyright determinations are fact-specific.

The article is worth reading, but two comments particularly stand out.

“Sharing ultimately benefits the public.” This recognition should be at the forefront of every follower of Christ. The world needs the gospel, and we are responsible for sharing it! We shouldn’t need CC to prompt us.

CC’s take: “We want to engage in rich conversations on AI’s multiple facets…” My take? It may be time for specific, timely, and prompt actions regarding AI’s multiple facets, not rich conversations. Time is too short, and the need is too great.

Blessings, and have a great weekend!

Bruce Erickson © 2025 This article is licensed Attribution CC BY-SA 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa).

I wanted to highlight some key points related to GenAI and Intellectual Property that may be overlooked in the Bible translation world, at least from my perspective.

At 4:15 AM, Joel Matthew presents a solid working definition of AI—and it’s a good one. However, understanding how the courts define AI, particularly GenAI, is equally important. This is where the freedoms or restrictions regarding GenAI will originate, so having that information can be just as valuable. Several versions are currently in the courts, and I will attempt to compile those.

At 30:00, Roger Hannah references a commonly used term in the translation community: “local ownership “and “local church ownership.” When translating a work from a source text, ownership takes on a legal meaning in that context. This is similar to the biblical term “partner” or “partnership,” which also becomes a legal term when used in working agreements (contracts) between NGOs. As long as it’s never litigated, it functions effectively. Exploring the implications of using the term “local church ownership” would be worthwhile. At some point, as legal knowledge increases, someone may challenge those statements, and organizations may lose the argument. Unfortunately, we often mean that an NGO or Bible Society will own the product the church helped create, not local ownership.

At 44:00, Daniel Whitenack comments on those represented in the panel: a software developer, a startup person, an academic, and a translation consultant. What’s missing? At no point in the discussion does anyone mention the necessity of including a representative from the one discipline that may complicate everyone’s AI work in Bible translation. That is, Intellectual Property. Ongoing discussions about the feasibility of GenAI in translations should involve experts in legal matters. Bringing them in from the start will reduce the likelihood of significant legal expenses later on. Is that self-serving on my part? I don’t believe so. (I’m not an attorney.)

Finally, at 56:00 – What is the biggest opportunity and the biggest threat using AI for Bible translation? James Cuéno poses this question to each panelist. The answers are thoughtful and unsurprising. However, Michael Martin highlights a crucial point: “The biggest threat . . . is how to do all of these types of online activities in a secure way to protect the translators…” Interesting, accurate, and well-said.

Blessings, and have a great weekend!

Bruce Erickson © 2025 This article is licensed Attribution CC BY-SA 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa).

Delta Think:

Are Creative Commons licenses problematic in AI? In December, Dan Pollock wrote an article on their website asking, How much content can AI legally exploit? He is certainly correct that the legal landscape is both complex and evolving. But one paragraph is particularly noteworthy – “The Open Access Paradox.” In it, he touches on the attribution requirement of CC licenses and that may be unworkable. This is the first I have seen this addressed, but I will research the legal argument further. The question becomes, is a CC0 license a must as opposed to CC-BY?

From William & Mary scholars:

AI code is being written by those with little copyright or legal training. Surprise? The study, Developer Perspectives on Licensing and Copyright Issues Arising from Generative AI for Coding, found that only 12% had any formal training in the legal implications of using code generation models. 43% of those had sought out training on their own. (§4.2.4) One of the conclusions of this report is that “Developers expect tools that can provide them with citations and will not lead them unwittingly into legal trouble.” (8.4) That is certainly true of GenAI projects with Bible translation projects. This study is a good reminder of why the legal questions won’t go away easily.

Blessings, and have a great weekend!

Bruce Erickson © 2025 This article is licensed Attribution CC BY-SA 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa).

The Copyright Alliance:

Kevin Madigan, the SVP of Policy and Government Affairs at the Copyright Alliance, wrote an article discussing his (their) views on Andersen v. Stability, Top Takeaways from Order in the Andersen v. Stability AI Copyright Case. This ongoing litigation is unlikely to conclude anytime soon, but after reading Madigan, you might think the copyright plaintiffs have won! However, his remarks illustrate that there are two sides to the debate on copyright infringement in LLM models, underscoring the need for caution as one explores copyright infringement litigation. One of his points (#3) is that “Assertions by AI Companies That They Are Just Copying Unprotected Data Don’t Hold Up.” Yet, with a sense of resignation, he admits that Judge Orrick’s ruling in Andersen “is just one decision in a case that will likely have many more twists and turns, and it shouldn’t be read as an indication of which parties will prevail.”

Almost comically, Administrative Law Judge Kim from the California Public Utilities Commission remarked at a recent ABA forum that “Judge Orrick took it upon himself to actually be the instructor to the practitioners in this one.” Even attorneys are having to be schooled in how to litigate GenAI lawsuits. This is uncharted territory for the courts, where infringement cases will be decided. LLMs and copyright infringement won’t be decided by the Copyright Alliance, in the arena of public opinion, by attorneys representing their clients or by technology bloggers and industry influencers.

Korea and Japan:

It’s fascinating to see the approaches other governments are using to address GenAI questions on copyright. The Korea Copyright Commission (KCC) published a 41-page tome, A Guide on Generative AI and Copyright. It provides insight into the Korean government’s approach to addressing GenAI and is more helpful than many U.S. government publications on the matter. Mostly, though, it’s an engaging look at Korea’s approach.

The KCC acknowledges that “There is an ongoing debate within academia on the applicability of the fair use rule, and there is not yet any legal precedent that directly applies the rule to AI training in Korea or elsewhere.” (pg16) The fair use approaches vary depending on the jurisdiction, which is something to consider, as the location where an LLM is created may impact the rule. It warrants continued attention.

The Japan Copyright Office published a shorter work, General Understanding on AI and Copyright in Japan. The link takes you to a 17-page .pdf overview (thankfully) of the much longer Japan Copyright Office (JCO) document. It’s approach largely mirrors what is occurring in the EU and the U.S. There is a section on dependencies that notes, “The requirements for finding copyright infringement include the elements "similarity" and “dependency." (pg13) This is a recurring theme that must be explored at length as most countries take a similar approach. Practically, all Bible translations, are of necessity, “similar.” A major concern of the JCO is the “sustainability of human creativity” being compromised (pg13), something I don’t believe happens among followers of Jesus Christ. Our incentive is external, not internal, and personal need based.

The most important takeaway from the Korea and Japan publications is the awareness that they are addressing GenAI/copyright infringement issues as aggressively as we see in the West.

Blessings, and have a great weekend!

Bruce Erickson © 2025 This article is licensed Attribution CC BY-SA 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa).