Creative Ownership in the Age of AI: Rethinking Copyright Infringement

Paper: 2602.12270 Authors: Annie Liang, Jay Lu Categories: econ.TH, cs.AI, cs.GT

Abstract

This paper addresses a fundamental challenge in copyright law posed by generative AI: the ability to imitate creative style without copying specific content. The authors propose a novel infringement criterion based on counterfactual dependence—an AI output infringes if it could not have been generated without a particular work in the training corpus. Using closure operators to model generative systems, they characterize permissible AI generation and discover a striking dichotomy: in light-tailed creative distributions, individual works become asymptotically irrelevant to AI generation, rendering regulation ineffective; in heavy-tailed distributions, regulation remains persistently constraining.

Key Contributions

• Introduces a counterfactual dependence criterion for AI copyright infringement that moves beyond “substantial similarity”
• Models generative AI systems as closure operators mapping training corpora to generated outputs
• Proves a sharp asymptotic dichotomy based on the tail behavior of creative work distributions
• Demonstrates that light-tailed creativity leads to vanishing dependence on individual works
• Shows that heavy-tailed creativity maintains persistent regulatory constraints on AI generation
• Provides formal characterization of permissible generation under the proposed framework

Theoretical Framework

The paper models a generative system as a closure operator $\mathcal{G}: 2^W \to 2^W$, where $W$ is the space of all possible works. For a corpus $C \subseteq W$, $\mathcal{G}(C)$ represents all works the AI can generate from $C$. A work $w$ is permissible if there exists a corpus $C$ not containing any work that $w$ depends on, yet $w \in \mathcal{G}(C)$.

The counterfactual dependence criterion states that an AI-generated work $w'$ infringes on work $w$ if $w' \in \mathcal{G}(C)$ but $w' \notin \mathcal{G}(C \setminus \{w\})$ for some corpus $C$ containing $w$. This captures the intuition that $w$ was essential to generating $w'$.

The closure operator framework satisfies three natural properties: extensivity ($C \subseteq \mathcal{G}(C)$), monotonicity (larger corpora enable more generation), and idempotence (applying generation twice yields the same result as once).

The Asymptotic Dichotomy

The paper’s central result reveals how the statistical properties of organic creative production determine long-run regulatory effectiveness. Consider a sequence of creative works $w_1, w_2, \ldots$ generated organically over time, and let $C_n = \{w_1, \ldots, w_n\}$.

Light-tailed case: When the influence of individual works decays sufficiently fast (light-tailed distribution), for any work $w_i$, the probability that a randomly generated work depends on $w_i$ approaches zero as $n \to \infty$. Formally, $\mathbb{P}(w \text{ depends on } w_i \mid w \in \mathcal{G}(C_n)) \to 0$. This implies that copyright regulation becomes asymptotically irrelevant—AI systems can generate virtually any permissible work without depending on any specific copyrighted work.

Heavy-tailed case: When creative influence follows a heavy-tailed distribution (e.g., power law), certain works maintain persistent influence. The probability that generated works depend on highly influential works remains bounded away from zero even as $n \to \infty$. This means regulation continues to constrain AI generation indefinitely, as removing influential works from training data meaningfully restricts the output space.

This dichotomy has profound implications: in domains where creativity is relatively uniform (light-tailed), copyright law may be unable to effectively regulate AI; in domains with “superstar” works (heavy-tailed), regulation remains potent.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The framework suggests that copyright policy for AI should be domain-specific, reflecting the underlying distribution of creative influence. In fields like stock photography or background music, where individual works have limited influence, attempting to enforce copyright through training data restrictions may be futile. The AI can approximate any style or content using alternative works.

Conversely, in domains with iconic works—think of distinctive artistic styles, landmark literary voices, or signature musical compositions—copyright holders retain meaningful leverage. Removing these works from training data substantially limits what AI can generate.

The paper also highlights a tension in AI development: companies may prefer training on diverse, light-tailed corpora to minimize legal risk, while the most valuable AI capabilities may require learning from heavy-tailed distributions containing highly influential works.

From a legal perspective, the counterfactual dependence criterion offers a more principled basis for infringement claims than substantial similarity. It asks: “Was this specific work necessary for the AI to generate this output?” rather than “Does the output look similar to this work?” This shift could resolve current litigation ambiguities around style imitation.

Takeaways

1. Traditional copyright concepts like “substantial similarity” are inadequate for generative AI, which can imitate style without copying content
2. A work-specific counterfactual dependence test—asking whether AI output could exist without a particular training work—provides a more suitable infringement criterion
3. The effectiveness of copyright regulation on AI depends critically on whether creative influence follows light-tailed or heavy-tailed distributions
4. In light-tailed creative domains, individual works become asymptotically irrelevant, making copyright regulation ineffective against AI generation
5. In heavy-tailed domains with “superstar” works, copyright regulation maintains persistent constraining power over AI systems
6. Policy should be domain-specific, recognizing that one-size-fits-all AI copyright rules will be either too restrictive or too permissive depending on the creative field
7. The mathematical framework using closure operators provides a rigorous foundation for analyzing permissible AI generation under various regulatory regimes