Comparative Law Review

Comparative Law Review

Copyright Challenges in Training Data for Generative AI Systems: A Study in US, EU, and Iranian Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Pouyan Ahmadi 1
Ebrahim Rahbari 2
1 PhD Student in International Trade and Investment Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of International Trade Law & Intellectual Property and Cyberspace Law Department, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
10.22059/jcl.2026.400962.634797
Abstract
This article examines the emerging copyright challenges arising from the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence, particularly large language models (LLMs). The main research question is whether the extraction and use of copyright-protected data for training LLMs constitute an infringement of authors’ rights. Employing a descriptive– analytical method and a comparative approach, this article examines the legal dimensions of using copyright-protected works in training these models. By analyzing recent lawsuits filed against AI developers, the authors explore how copyright exceptions have been interpreted and applied in response to this issue within the legal systems of the United States and the European Union. The findings indicate that, while the U.S. framework allows limited reliance on the fair use exception under certain conditions, the EU’s regulatory system adopts a stricter approach, defining rule-based exceptions for text and data mining. Furthermore, given the growing adoption of AI in Iran, the article evaluates the current state of the Iranian intellectual property regime and highlights significant legal gaps concerning AI training. In Iran, not only is the concept of fair use undefined, but the existing legal framework also fails to address the evolving challenges posed by emerging technologies, underscoring the need for legislative reform in light of these developments.
Keywords
Copyright
Fair Use Exception
Generative Artificial Intelligence
Intellectual Property Law
Law of Emerging Technologies
Subjects
Books
1.     Foster, D. (2019). Generative Deep Learning. Teaching Machines to Paint, Write, Compose and Play. Beijing-Boston-Farnham-Sebastopol-Tokyo, OREILLY.
2.     Karapapa, S. (2023). The Press Publishers’ Right under EU Law: Rewarding Investment through Intellectual Property. Edward Elgar Publishing.
3.     Netanel, N. W. (2008). Copyright's paradox. Oxford University Press.
 
-        Journal Articles and Legal Reviews
4.     Bender, E. M., & Koller, A. (2020). Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 5185–5198). Association for Computational Linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463.
5.     Bonadio, E., & McDonagh, L. (2020). Artificial intelligence as producer and consumer of copyright works: Evaluating the consequences of algorithmic creativity. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2(2), 112–137. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3617197.
6.     Bonadio, E., Dinev, P., & McDonagh, L. (2022). Can artificial intelligence infringe copyright? Some reflections. In Research handbook on intellectual property and artificial intelligence (pp. 245-257). Edward Elgar Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781800881907.00019.
7.     Calderón, R. (2024). AI Training Through Copyrighted Works As Infringement: Perspectives Under The Berne Three-step Test and The Pane Fair Use Test and Plausible Solutions. IDEA-The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for IP, 84-103.
8.     Carroll, M. W. (2019). Copyright and the progress of science: Why text and data mining is lawful. UC Davis Law Review, 53 (2), 893–940. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3531231
9.     Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., & Wang, Y. (2023). A survey on evaluation of large language models. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2307.03109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3641289.
10. Chiou, T. (2021). Copyright lessons on machine learning: What impact on algorithmic art? JIPITEC, (12), 398–427. https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-50250.
11. Craig, C. J. (2022). The AI-copyright challenge: Tech-neutrality, authorship, and the public interest. In Research handbook on intellectual property and artificial intelligence (pp. 134-155). Edward Elgar Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781800881907.00013.
12. Dehghanpour Farashah, S. and Rahbar, N. (2022). Intellectual Property Protection for Intangible Technologies in Autonomous Vehicles in Iran, US, and EU: A Comparative Study with the Focus on Algorithms. Comparative Law Review, 13 (2), 531-551. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2022.336887.634298 (In Persian).
13. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Dwivedi, R., & Balakrishnan, J. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?": Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642.
14. Elgammal, A., Liu, K., Elgammal, N., & Elgammal, K. (2017). CAN: Creative adversarial networks, generating “art” by learning about styles and deviating from style norms. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1706.07068. http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.07068.
15. Floridi, L. (2023). AI as agency without intelligence: On ChatGPT, large language models, and other generative models. Philosophy & Technology, 36(1), 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00621-y.
16. Franceschelli, G., & Musolesi, M. (2022). Copyright in generative deep learning. Data & Policy, 4, e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.09266.
17. Geiger, C., Luth, A., Rosati, E., & Peukert, A. (2018). The exception for Text and Data Mining (TDM) in the Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market–Legal Aspects. Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI), Research Paper 2018-02. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3160586.
18. Ginsburg, J. C., & Budiardjo, L. A. (2019). Authors and machines. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34 (2), 343–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3233885.
19. Guadamuz, A. (2017). Do androids dream of electric copyright? Comparative analysis of originality in artificial intelligence generated works. Intellectual Property Quarterly, (3), 209–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198870944.003.0008.
20. Hadi, M. U., Qureshi, R., Shah, A., Irfan, M., Zafar, A., Shaikh, M. B., ... & Mirjalili, S. (2023). Large language models: a comprehensive survey of its applications, challenges, limitations, and future prospects. Authorea preprints, 1 (3), 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.23589741.v7.
21. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Singh, R. P. (2022). An era of ChatGPT as a significant futuristic support tool: A study on features, abilities, and challenges. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 2 (4), 100089. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100089.
22. Hearst, M. A. (1999). Untangling text data mining. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 3–10). Association for Computational Linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1034678.1034679.
23. Hilty, R. M., & Sutterer, M. (2017). Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of the European Copyright Rules, Part H, Content Circulation in Europe. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition. Research Paper 17-02. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae058.
24. Koos, S. (2025). AI Model Training and Copyright Law: Legal Challenges and Regulatory Approaches in the EU, US, and Asia. Indonesian Civil Law Journal, 1 (2), 55-78. https://hukumperdata.id/ojs/index.php/iclj/article/view/22
25. Kop, M. (2020). Machine learning & EU data sharing practices. Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, Transatlantic Antitrust and IPR Developments. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3409712.
26. Kowala, M. (2024). Protection of Press Publishers in the Age of Generative AI–In Search of Legal Remedies to Adapt to the Pace of Technology. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55 (1), 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01515-y.
27. Leistner, M., & Antoine, L. (2022). IPR and the use of open data and data sharing initiatives by public and private actors. European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4125503.
28. Lemley, M. A., & Casey, B. (2020). Fair learning. Texas Law Review, (99), 743.
29. Lennartz, J., & Kraetzig, V. (2024). Forbidden Fruits? Artistic Creation in the AI Copyright War. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55 (1), 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01551-8.
30. Lior, A. (2021). Insuring AI: The role of insurance in artificial intelligence regulation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 35(1), 63–64. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4266259.
31. Lunney Jr, G. S. (2002). Fair use and market failure: Sony revisited. Boston University Law Review, 82(5), 975–1043. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=301389.
32. Margoni, T., & Kretschmer, M. (2022). A deeper look into the EU text and data mining exceptions: Harmonisation, data ownership, and the future of technology. GRUR International, 71(8), 685–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac054.
33. Netanel, N. W. (2011). Making sense of fair use. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 15 (3), 715–783. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1874778.
34. Nimmer, D. (2003). “Fairest of them all” and other fairy tales of fair use. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66 (1/2), 263–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20059179.
35. Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., & Sutskever, I. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1 (8), 9.
36. Rosati, E. (2018). The exception for text and data mining (TDM) in the proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Technical aspects. European Parliament. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/480649.
37. Rosati, E. (2019). Copyright as an obstacle or an enabler? A European perspective on text and data mining and its role in the development of AI creativity. Asia Pacific Law Review, 27 (2), 198–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2019.1705525.
38. Roumeliotis, K. I., & Tselikas, N. D. (2023). ChatGPT and Open-AI Models: A Preliminary Review. Future Internet, 15 (6), 192. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi15060192.
39. Sadeghi,M. and Javadi Parsa,K. (2025). Legal Policymaking in the field of AI in European Union; Suitable Model for Iranian Law. Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, e729602 doi: 10.22034/law.2025.2065565.1673 (In Persian).
40. Sag, M. (2018). The new legal landscape for text mining and machine learning. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 66 (2), 291–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3331606.
41. Samuelson, P. (2008). Unbundling fair uses. Fordham Law Review, 77 (5), 2537–2604. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol77/iss5/16.
42. Savrai, P. (2025). The Challenges Facing the Human-Centered Copyright Regime with the Evolution of Artificial Intelligence. Economic and Commercial Law Researches, 2 (3), 11-40. doi: 10.48308/eclr.2025.236827.1078 (In Persian).
43. Schönberger, D. (2018). Deep copyright: Up-and downstream questions related to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). Droit d'auteur, (4), 145–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1628/zge-2018-0003.
44. Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., & Klimov, O. (2017). Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347. http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.06347.
45. Senftleben, M. (2023). Generative AI and author remuneration. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54 (10), 1535-1560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01399-4.
46. Shakeri, Z. (2025). The Literary and Artistic Property Law System in the Age of Artificial Intelligence; Considerations for Policymaking in Future Governance. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 11 (1), 41-55. doi: 10.22059/jppolicy.2025.101189 (In Persian).
47. Shakeri, Z. and Esmaili Yadaki, M. (2017). A Comparative Analysis of the Exception of Educational Use in Literacy and Artistic Property Rights. Civil Law Knowledge, 6 (1), 19-30. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.23221712.1396.6.1.3.0 (In Persian).
48. Sobel, B. (2020). A taxonomy of training data: Disentangling the mismatched rights, remedies, and rationales for restricting machine learning. In R. Hilty, J.-A. Lee, & K.-C. Liu (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property. Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198870944.003.0011.
49. Sobel, B. L. W. (2017). Artificial intelligence’s fair use crisis. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 41 (1), 45. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3032076.
50. Strowel, A. (2023). ChatGPT and Generative AI Tools: Theft of Intellectual Labor?. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54 (4), 491–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01321-y.
51. Triaille, J.-P., de Meeûs d’Argenteuil, J., & de Francquen, A. (2014). Study on the legal framework of text and data mining (TDM). European Union Studies KM-03-13-426-EN-N. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2780/1475.
52. Zhao, W. X., Zhang, H., Ding, L., Wang, Y., Gu, Y., Chen, W., Zhang, B., Xu, K., Cai, W., & Chen, H. (2023). A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223. http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.18223.
 
-        Legal Cases
53. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. 2015); https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-4829/13-4829-2015-10-16.html.
54. Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, No. 12-4547 (2d Cir. 2014); https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/12-4547/12-4547-2014-06-10.html.
55. Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. C 24-05417 WHA, (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2025); https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.434709/gov.uscourts.cand.434709.231.0.pdf.
56. Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc., 3:23-cv-03416, (N.D. Cal.); https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2023cv03416/415174; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67538258/tremblay-v-openai-inc/.
57. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984); https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/.
58. THALER v. PERLMUTTER et al, Civil Action 22-1564 (BAH); https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23919666/thalervperlmutter.pdf.
59. The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al., No. 1:23‑cv‑11195 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025). Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv11195/612697/514/.
60. Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., 3:23-cv-03223, (N.D. Cal.); https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2023cv03223/414822; https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2023cv03223/414822/358?utm_source=chatgpt.com. 
 
-        Legal and Technical Websites
61. Gertner, Jon, Wikipedia’s Moment of Truth Can the online encyclopedia help teach A.I. chatbots to get their facts right — without destroying itself in the process?, July 18, 2023; https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/magazine/wikipedia-ai-chatgpt.html. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
62. Guadamuz, Andres, Artificial intelligence and copyright, oct 2017; https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/05/article_0003.html. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
63. Hu, Krystal, ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base, Feb 2, 2023; https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
64. Keary, Tim, 12 Practical Large Language Model (LLM) Applications, October 2, 2023; https://www.techopedia.com/12-practical-large-language-model-llm-applications. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
65. Lock, Samantha, What is AI chatbot phenomenon ChatGPT and could it replace humans?, Dec 5, 2022;  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/05/what-is-ai-chatbot-phenomenon-chatgpt-and-could-it-replace-humans. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
66. Nyambura, Kiarie, Understanding Training Data in Contracts with AI Vendors, November 2023; https://contractnerds.com/understanding-training-data-in-contracts-with-ai-vendors/. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
67. Ortiz, Sabrina, What is ChatGPT and why does it matter? Here's what you need to know, Sep 15, 2023; https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-chatgpt-and-why-does-it-matter-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
68. Self-Supervised Learning, Aug 2023; https://www.dremio.com/wiki/self-supervised-learning/#:~:text=In%20self%2Dsupervised%20learning%2C%20the,to%20create%20its%20own%20labels. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
69. Uszkoreit, Jakob, Transformer: A Novel Neural Network Architecture for Language Understanding, Aug 31, 2017; https://blog.research.google/2017/08/transformer-novel-neural-network.html. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
70. Wolfe, Cameron R., Ph.d., Data is the Foundation of Language Models, Jul 17, 2023; https://cameronrwolfe.substack.com/p/data-is-the-foundation-of-language. (Last visited: 8/17/2025)
Comparative Law Review
Volume 17, Issue 1 - Serial Number 33
Spring & Summer 2026
August 2026
Pages 25-50