AI Art & Copyright: The Current Legal Landscape (2025–2026 Cases)

The Evolving Debate: AI Training and Copyright Infringement

Generative AI tools like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DALL-E create stunning visuals from text prompts, but many rely on vast datasets scraped from the internet—including billions of copyrighted images. Creators increasingly question whether this training process copies protected works without permission, and whether outputs that mimic styles or specific elements infringe.

U.S. courts apply the four fair use factors (purpose/character, nature of work, amount used, market effect) case-by-case. No blanket rule exists yet—outcomes hinge on data sourcing (legal vs. pirated), model functionality, and output competition. The U.S. Copyright Office emphasizes nuance: training can be transformative in some contexts but not others, especially if it harms original markets.

Purely AI-generated works without substantial human input remain ineligible for copyright registration, as reaffirmed in recent decisions.

Key Principle: Human Authorship Required for Copyright Protection

Courts and the Copyright Office consistently hold that copyright demands human authorship. In Thaler v. Perlmutter (affirmed by D.C. Circuit in March 2025), purely AI-created images were denied protection—no human "traditional elements of authorship" existed.

This means creators using AI as a tool (with significant prompting, editing, or curation) may claim copyright in their final output, but fully autonomous AI art cannot. Many creators now register AI-assisted pieces by documenting their human contributions.

Major 2025 Developments in AI Art Cases

2025 saw the first substantive rulings on fair use for generative AI, plus high-profile studio lawsuits targeting image generators:

Disney/Universal v. Midjourney (consolidated with Warner Bros)

Filed June 2025 in Central District of California. Studios allege direct/secondary infringement via training on protected characters (Star Wars, Marvel, Simpsons) and outputs reproducing them. Visual evidence shows near-identical generations. Case consolidated in late 2025; discovery ongoing into 2026.

Andersen v. Stability AI (ongoing landmark)

Artists (Sarah Andersen et al.) challenge Stable Diffusion's training on LAION dataset (5B+ scraped images). August 2024 ruling (carried into 2025) denied dismissal of core copyright claims—training and model storage potentially infringing. Trial delayed; summary judgment hearing now February 2027, with discovery continuing.

These visual-focused cases differ from text-based ones (e.g., book training), emphasizing output similarity and market substitution for character IP.

Fair Use Rulings: Mixed Signals from 2025 Decisions

Early 2025 fair use analyses (mostly text-focused but influential) leaned toward transformative training when data is lawfully obtained:

• Courts in Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta found training "highly transformative" under factor 1, with no market substitution shown.
• However, pirated data sourcing led to massive liability—Anthropic settled for $1.5B in September 2025 (largest copyright payout ever) over pirated book downloads.

For art, implications: Legally sourced datasets favor fair use; scraped/pirated ones risk failure. Market-harm factor weighs heavily if AI floods markets with similar visuals, reducing demand for human art.

No major AI-art-specific fair use summary judgment in 2025—most visual cases in discovery, with rulings expected mid-to-late 2026.

Creator Implications: Risks and Real-World Scenarios

• Training Phase: If your registered images appear in scraped datasets (e.g., LAION), potential claims exist—but proving direct copying is hard without discovery.
• Outputs Mimicking Style: "Style" isn't copyrightable, but specific elements (characters, compositions) can trigger infringement if outputs substitute for originals.
• Your AI Art: Document human input (prompts, edits) for registration eligibility. Tools help scan for risks.

Common creator concerns: "Can Midjourney users generate my exact artwork?" (Rarely exact, but close mimics raise issues.) "Is my portfolio safe?" (Register works; monitor outputs.)

Practical Steps for Creators in 2026

1. Register key works early—strengthens enforcement.
2. Use watermarks, metadata, or opt-out signals where available.
3. Monitor platforms for unauthorized uses.
4. Consider licensing if you want AI training inclusion (emerging partnerships post-settlements).
5. Stay updated—2026 brings more rulings on visual training and outputs.

Our tools empower proactive protection:

• Detect unauthorized uses or similar outputs with IP-SAM™ Scanner.
• Assess registration readiness via Copyright Registration Assistant.
• Track brand/character risks with IP Monitoring Dashboard.

Outlook: Toward Clarity in a Fast-Moving Field

The 2025 landscape shifted from speculation to concrete cases and one blockbuster settlement, highlighting data provenance as decisive. Pure AI art stays uncopyrightable; human-AI hybrids gain protection. Fair use for training leans permissive when clean, but piracy or market harm tips against it.

Creators face uncertainty but growing leverage—major cases in discovery signal potential licensing models or safeguards ahead. Focus on original expression, documentation, and tools to navigate safely.

Ready to scan your portfolio for vulnerabilities or register new pieces? Start a free IP-SAM™ scan today.