Why AI Giants Can Use Song Lyrics While Human Authors Can't: The Copyright Double Standard

Eminem, AI and Me: Why Artists Need New Laws in the Digital Age

I’m writing a memoir about the financial risks millennials took under what I call “desperation capitalism.” It tells the story of how I turned a few thousand dollars into over a million trading stocks, only to lose everything and end up owing nearly $100,000 in phantom taxes. To set the tone, I wanted to quote a line from the song Bloodbuzz Ohio by the National: “I still owe money to the money to the money I owe.” But my publisher informed me that quoting even a 12-word lyric could cost a fortune due to strict copyright laws. So, no epigraph.

That same rule also blocks me from quoting Eminem’s iconic line from Lose Yourself: “You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow, this opportunity comes once in a lifetime.” It’s frustrating because these lyrics perfectly capture the mindset behind my story.

Here’s where things get complicated. If I were an AI company with a large language model (LLM), I could scrape every lyric ever written—from Eminem to the National—and then generate new content inspired by them. Ask the AI to “write a rap in Eminem’s style about losing money, inspired by Bloodbuzz Ohio,” and it could produce a few lines mixing both sources. And according to recent US court rulings, this is considered “fair use.” No royalties owed. No permission needed.

This feels unfair. Why can’t I quote a lyric in a book, but AI can repurpose the same words freely? The law treats individuals and big tech companies differently. Eminem’s publishing company, Eight Mile Style, has even sued Meta for copyright infringement, accusing the tech giant of exploiting artists’ work without licenses or payments. This highlights a clear tension between creators and AI companies.

LLMs don’t “think” or “create” like humans. They analyze patterns in massive datasets—often containing copyrighted work—and generate text that mimics human creativity. But the output is essentially a remix of existing content, often without attribution or compensation. That’s a problem.

This isn’t about me wanting to use a lyric in my book at any cost. If the law says I can’t, I accept that. But the law should be consistent for everyone. If AI tools can freely use copyrighted materials to generate new content, then human creators deserve the same freedoms or protections.

The current legal landscape favors corporations with deep pockets over individual artists and writers. It risks devaluing creative work and threatens those whose livelihoods depend on intellectual property rights. If AI products are disrupting industries, they should disrupt copyright laws too—making them fairer and clearer for all creators.

Ultimately, artists need new laws that protect their work in the digital age. Laws that recognize the role of AI while ensuring creators are respected and compensated. Without this balance, we risk losing the very voices that shape culture and creativity.

• Learn about copyright basics for creatives: U.S. Copyright Office
• Explore AI’s impact on creative industries: Complete AI Training - AI Tool Databases