✅ Generative AI and copyright: why you can't afford to sit this out
Two conflicting US court rulings on AI and copyright may feel remote, but they point to a bigger dilemma for anyone working in media, publishing or public relations.
An article published this week in Harvard Business Review by Michael D. Smith and Rahul Telang reports on the escalating battle between generative AI companies and the creative industries, now being played out in US courts.
The two professors work at the intersection of technology, economics and media at Carnegie Mellon University. Their warning is stark. Generative AI is being built on the back of unlicensed creative content, and this threatens the business model of any organisation that publishes media.
In the US, legal interpretations are diverging. One judge calls it fair use, while another calls it a form of intellectual property. In the UK, the Intellectual Property Office has pushed the issue into the long grass, and regulators are struggling to keep up with the technology.
Generative engine optimisation (GEO) provides a counterpoint. Proponents argue that it presents new opportunities for creators rather than simply exploiting them.
GEO is an emerging discipline that helps individuals and organisations ensure their content is visible and favoured by AI-generated outputs. It’s similar to how search engine optimisation (SEO) works for web visibility.
While GEO opens up tactical opportunities for visibility and reach, it does not negate the ethical and strategic challenges around consent, attribution and control. Communicators must balance both perspectives.
The most important questions for communicators aren’t legal. They’re strategic. How do we advise organisations when there are no rules, the stakes are high, and the reputational risks are significant?
Ben Verinder, with whom I’m co-editing and writing AI for Public Relations: A How-To Guide for Implementation and Management (available for pre-order via Amazon), has long argued that public relations practice must seize the professional advisory opportunity on AI-related risk issues such as copyright.
Creativity commodified
Smith and Telang report that the creative sector represents almost eight per cent of the US GDP. In the UK, it exceeds £125 billion. Approximately 2.4 million people are employed in the industry.
Yet AI companies are freely mining their output to train AI models that could, in turn, displace the very people who created the content. It’s not just an economic question. It’s an ethical one. Is it acceptable for technology firms to profit from human creativity without permission, credit or compensation?
Speaking on the Rest is Entertainment podcast, television producer, presenter and writer Richard Osman said this week that this issue should be at the top of Lisa Nandy's in-tray, as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, due to its potential economic impact on the UK creative industries.
Smith and Telang offer practical guidance to creators: pull your content from AI training sets, license what you can and control what you share. This serves as a baseline for professional communications, but much more is needed:
A clear position on how AI platforms can use organisational content.
A public policy that outlines values and ethical principles around data use and content training.
An internal playbook that helps strike a balance between innovation and intellectual property protection, particularly in reputation-sensitive sectors such as media, academia and publishing.
A strategic approach to how GEO can be used to ensure content is discoverable and accurately represented.
A moment for public relations practice to step up
Smith and Telang warn that we may be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. They’re right. But here’s what they miss: communicators are the ones who can stop that from happening.
We are the connective tissue between creators and technologists. We understand narrative, ethics, value and consent. That makes us uniquely positioned to lead on this issue, rather than react to it.
We need to stop treating copyright as a technicality or a compliance matter. This is not just a legal footnote. It’s a defining challenge for reputation, trust and the future of creativity. And if communicators don’t lead, no one else will.