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

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

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

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

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).

The Deloitte report:

Deloitte takes a fascinating look at GenAI with Deloitte’s State of Generative AI in the Enterprise Quarter four report. With the rapid advancement of AI technologies, they contend that “many now believe that Moore’s Law is effectively dead.” GenAI is the new reality and not going away. Deloitte discusses three recurring stages as organizations use GenAI: experimentation, deployment, and then scaling. (pg7) They observe that “accessing the right data proved to be the biggest bottleneck,” while being a central factor for GenAI success (pg11). That is probably as true for the Bible translation world as it is in the largest of companies. They also contend that it “will take at least five years to validate and substantiate the KPIs (key performance indicator) fully.” A key question they ask – “Will organizations have the patience and sustained commitment to work through their GenAI challenges, or will they cut and run before their investments have a chance to pay off?”(pg26)

The report is easy to read, full of charts and a good look at GenAI in corporate America.

Simon Portman:

Simon is a lawyer at the U.K. firm Marks&Clark, advising Nordic clients, particularly in Finland and Norway. He recently authored an article titled “AI generated copyright and the evolving regulatory framework”, giving perspectives on the current developments in E.U. law. He emphasizes that understanding the differences between the E.U. and the U.S. approaches is crucial for conducting business in both and offers insights on the upcoming European AI Act. This law would require developers “to disclose in detail in a publicly available manner when they have trained their LLMs . . . on third party content.” Hmm… that certainly has ramifications for Gateway language projects utilizing GenAI. He acknowledges the challenges everyone faces in this field, noting that the E.U. Act “looks set to be rapidly outstripped by the exponential evolution in machine-learning capability.” The challenges and conflicts of copyright law and GenAI will not be resolved anytime soon. And as the Deloitte report underscores, the major players are not waiting for that to happen.

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 U.S. District Court in Delaware recently ruled in Thomson Reuters v. Ross. Those scrubbing data have closely monitored this case for their LLMs because of its implications for a fair use defense.

I’ve provided a link if you want to read the 23 pages. You probably don’t. However, if you are interested in how a court decides fair use cases, pages 16-23 offer an instructive look at how fair use is determined and what defines what is essential.

I’ve included a link to an article by Chad A. Rutkowski of BakerHostetler titled " What Thomson Reuters v. Ross Does and Doesn’t Say About Fair Use and Generative AI. “ Chad argues that both those who believe it undermines the fair-use defense and those who think this case is irrelevant to GenAI are mistaken. He states, “It is neither of those things.” On page 2, Chad differentiates between “small models” and LLMs, offering an intriguing perspective from an attorney’s viewpoint. Ultimately, those hoping to receive a ruling clarity from this important case must wait for future court decisions; nothing about GenAI and copyright infringement is simple or straightforward.

Second:

You may have seen or heard about the U.S. Copyright Office's January release titled, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence. " This release discusses the copyrightability of works created using GenAI.

It is a compendium of the responses received from a 2023 Notice of Inquiry (NOI) representing copyright owners and consumers. It is approximately 35 pages long and provides many valuable insights. Keep in mind that the Copyright Office does not create or enforce laws. Although it holds significant weight, its role is solely advisory.

Two key points emerged as I read through the report.

1) The report explains how, whether intentionally or not, to circumvent the issue of GenAI works not being copyrightable (pg 12).

2) They argue that existing laws can address questions of copyrightability and AI without necessitating legislative change.

The report illustrates the importance of monitoring evolving case law when creating a product using GenAI.

A final point: the Copyright Alliance believes that “low quality, AI-generated works will overtake [o]ur popular culture.” I don’t think that’s the case, but many in the Christian publication space may. Watch for it and be prepared to defend against it.

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).