Copyright law was built for a world that no longer exists. When the first modern copyright statutes emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, creative production was slow, scarce, and largely controlled by professional gatekeepers. Books required printing presses. Paintings took months to complete. Music circulated through physical scores and performances. In that environment, it made sense for originality to be judged by human experts—art historians, lawyers, and judges—who could manually compare works and decide whether one meaningfully borrowed from another.
But today, this human-centered system is buckling under the weight of digital abundance. Millions of images, songs, and designs circulate daily, and the institutions meant to protect creators can no longer keep pace. The result is a copyright regime that is both overburdened and unevenly enforced. Large corporations can marshal legal teams to defend their claims; independent artists often cannot. Determining whether a work infringes on another still depends on subjective human interpretation, and the process is slow, costly, and opaque. In a world where creativity is increasingly democratized, the mechanisms meant to safeguard it remain stubbornly elitist.
At the same time, a new possibility is emerging. Advances in artificial intelligence—particularly in pattern recognition—make it feasible to algorithmically assess whether a work is derivative, transformative, or genuinely original. An AI system capable of scanning millions of works and identifying meaningful similarities could radically accelerate copyright review and give creators a simple way to check whether their work overlaps with existing protected material. This isn’t a call to automate judgment or hand cultural authority to machines. It’s an argument that the current system, built for a different century, needs help—and that algorithmic tools, if designed with democratic oversight, could make copyright fairer, faster, and more accessible.
A System Built for Scarcity
Copyright emerged to protect creators from exploitation and to encourage new work. But it assumed a world where creative output was limited, distribution was slow, and gatekeepers mediated access. Experts could feasibly compare works by hand because the universe of works to compare was small. Even in the twentieth century, when mass media expanded the reach of creative work, the number of creators remained relatively constrained. The system was built for scarcity, not abundance.
That world is gone. Today, anyone with a laptop or smartphone can produce and publish art instantly. The volume of creative work has grown exponentially, but the legal infrastructure remains rooted in scarcity-era assumptions. The mismatch between the scale of modern creativity and the capacity of human adjudication is now impossible to ignore.
The Human Bottleneck
Modern copyright enforcement still relies on subjective expert comparison and ambiguous legal standards like “substantial similarity.” Courts often struggle to articulate what counts as copying versus influence, derivation versus transformation. Two experts may disagree. Two courts may reach opposite conclusions. And because the system is reactive—triggered only after a dispute arises—many creators have no idea whether their work is original until it’s too late.
This creates a system where accidental infringement is increasingly common, small creators lack tools to check originality, and corporations dominate enforcement. Legal uncertainty chills creativity: artists hesitate to publish work that might inadvertently resemble something they’ve never seen. The problem isn’t human judgment itself—it’s that humans alone can’t manage the scale of contemporary cultural production.
 |
| Image generated by Gemini (Google) based on user prompt. |
What Algorithmic Analysis Makes Possible
AI systems excel at pattern recognition across massive datasets. They can compare a new work against millions of existing ones, quantify similarity with consistent metrics, flag potential issues instantly, and provide creators with real-time originality checks. This is not a replacement for human interpretation. It’s a way to handle the scale that humans cannot.
We already rely on similar systems in plagiarism detection, content moderation, and even medical diagnostics. The question is not whether AI can help—it’s whether we can design it to serve the public good rather than corporate interests.
Imagine a system where any artist—professional or amateur—can upload a work and receive an instant originality report. The AI would scan global databases, identify overlaps, and classify the work as original, derivative but transformative, or potentially infringing. This would reduce legal uncertainty, speed up copyright registration, empower creators to avoid accidental infringement, and lighten the burden on courts and institutions.
But such a system must be governed carefully. Without democratic oversight, algorithmic copyright could easily become another tool of corporate consolidation.
The Instability of Algorithmic Judgment
Even if AI can analyze creative works at a scale no human system could match, it introduces a new kind of instability: model drift. AI systems are not static. They are updated, retrained, fine‑tuned, and replaced. With each new version, the boundaries of what counts as “similar,” “derivative,” or “infringing” can shift—sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically.
A work deemed original under Model 1.0 might be flagged as derivative under Model 2.0. Conversely, a work previously considered too similar might suddenly pass without issue. In a legal system that depends on consistency and precedent, this fluidity is a serious challenge.
The problem is not simply technical. It is political. Who decides when a model is updated? Who defines the thresholds for similarity? Who is accountable when a model’s new version contradicts its old one? Without safeguards, algorithmic copyright could become a moving target—one that benefits those who control the models and disadvantages everyone else.
To avoid this, any AI‑assisted copyright system must include versioned models, publicly documented changes to similarity metrics, appeal mechanisms for creators affected by model updates, and a requirement that legal judgments rely on stable, archived versions. If AI is going to help adjudicate originality, it must be governed like any other public‑facing institution: with transparency, accountability, and a clear record of how decisions are made.
The Problem of Gaming the System
A second structural vulnerability follows directly from the first: if an AI system becomes the gatekeeper of originality, people will inevitably try to reverse‑engineer it. Creators—or automated tools—could repeatedly test a work against the model, making small adjustments until the algorithm no longer flags it as derivative. In theory, this iterative process would eventually produce a work that is sufficiently different to count as original. But in practice, it raises several concerns.
First, the system could incentivize algorithmic laundering, where derivative works are nudged just far enough to evade detection while still capturing the commercial or aesthetic value of the original. This is not creativity; it’s optimization against a machine.
Second, the burden of gaming the system would fall unevenly. Large corporations could automate the process, generating thousands of near‑copies until one passes the threshold. Independent artists, by contrast, would lack the tools or time to exploit the system in the same way. Without safeguards, algorithmic copyright could unintentionally widen the gap between those who can afford to manipulate the system and those who cannot.
Third, the existence of this loophole could pressure the system toward ever‑stricter similarity thresholds, making it harder for legitimate creators to produce work that passes the test. The result would be a feedback loop: gaming the system leads to stricter models, which in turn increase false positives, which then burden small creators.
To address this, an AI‑assisted copyright system must incorporate rate limits on similarity checks, audit trails to detect repeated near‑copy submissions, penalties for systematic evasion, and human review for borderline cases. The goal is not to criminalize experimentation—artists have always borrowed, transformed, and reimagined. The goal is to prevent a world where originality becomes a game of statistical evasion rather than genuine creative labor.
Toward a More Equitable Creative Future
A hybrid model—algorithmic analysis paired with human judgment—offers the best path forward. Policymakers should update copyright law to recognize algorithmic evidence, fund open, publicly governed databases of creative works, establish transparency standards for AI tools, ensure that small creators have equal access to originality checks, and require model versioning and public documentation of updates. They should also design systems that resist gaming by limiting automated probing and ensuring that borderline cases receive human review.
The goal is not to mechanize creativity but to democratize protection. AI can help preserve the spirit of copyright while making the system faster, fairer, and more accessible. But only if we build it with democratic values at the center.
Conclusion
Copyright was designed to safeguard creative labor, not to entrench inequality or overwhelm creators with uncertainty. But the pace and scale of modern artistic production demand new tools. AI offers a way to modernize copyright, yet it also introduces new forms of instability—shifting models, evolving thresholds, and the risk of algorithmic authority drifting beyond public oversight. It also creates new opportunities for manipulation, where those with resources can game the system while others are left behind.
The challenge, then, is not simply to adopt AI but to govern it. A democratic copyright system must treat algorithms the way it treats any institution with power: subject to scrutiny, versioning, transparency, and appeal. And it must be designed to resist exploitation by those who would use automation to skirt the very protections copyright is meant to provide.
If we build such a system, AI can help preserve the promise of copyright while making it more equitable for everyone who creates. The choice is not between tradition and technology. It is between a copyright regime that continues to privilege the powerful and one that evolves—carefully, transparently, and democratically—to protect the full spectrum of creative labor in the twenty‑first century.