Throughout 2026, thousands of writers, artists, and actors have protested AI companies training models on their work without permission. As of March, 87 copyright lawsuits against AI firms were pending in U.S. courts. Now, a proposal for a new intellectual property right-called "learnright"-aims to give creators control over whether AI systems learn from their content.
The Creators Coalition on AI said "technology should strengthen human creativity, not undermine it." Nearly 10,000 authors contributed their names to a book titled "Don't Steal This Book" that was left blank except for the author list, symbolizing the threat to livelihoods if AI training goes unchecked.
Copyright law's limits in the AI era
Copyright law has long drawn a clear line: you can't copy someone's work without permission, but you can learn from it. That bargain assumed human limits-no single person could memorize thousands of works and instantly generate competing variations. AI systems break that model by ingesting millions of articles, books, and images at speeds and scales once impossible, then producing content that competes directly with the originals.
When an AI system can instantly mimic or paraphrase creative work, it reduces the incentive to purchase the original. Current markets for creative human expression may not survive without a new legal framework.
A proposed seventh exclusive right
A research paper published in the Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property proposes adding a seventh exclusive right to copyright law: a "learnright." AI companies would need to license content before using it for training, compensating creators through market-based fees. The approach does not require government price-setting. Instead, it would work through licensing systems similar to ASCAP, which collects performance royalties from radio stations and venues and distributes them to songwriters and publishers.
Specialized brokers could emerge to negotiate deals on behalf of creators-some focusing on news, others on fiction or art. Large companies like Google and OpenAI would pay more; small startups would pay proportionally less. Creators would choose brokers, and pricing would be determined by supply and demand.
Enforcement mechanisms
The proposal includes three enforcement tools. First, mandatory auditing of AI company training data, focusing on inputs rather than tracing outputs. Companies would need to document all data sources used for training. Second, whistleblower reward programs that give employees significant financial incentives to report unauthorized content use. Third, penalties steep enough to make compliance the obvious choice.
Why this matters for legal professionals
The learnright proposal sits at the intersection of copyright law, technology, and market regulation. Legal professionals working in AI for Legal areas will need to track these developments, as they could reshape licensing, compliance, and litigation strategies. The doctrine of unjust enrichment-that AI companies are profiting from copyrighted works without compensation-already provides a legal basis for restitution claims, regardless of statutory changes.
Plaintiffs in existing lawsuits and groups like the Creators Coalition Against AI are organized and mobilized, giving any legislative push a built-in constituency. The market-based framework avoids heavy-handed intervention, making it a model that could draw bipartisan support. AI has evolved faster than the law. It's time for the law to catch up.
Your membership also unlocks:
