GenAI Weekend Reads
How The Copyright Alliance sees things, and a fascinating look at how Korea and Japan describe GenAI.
Reading about the legal developments surrounding GenAI might make you wonder if anything makes sense and question who you can trust. There are many different views out there. The Korea and Japan downloads are an entertaining(?) look at how other governments are trying to stay ahead of the education curve as GenAI explodes.
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).