A Study on the Normative Framework and Policy Dynamics of the Fair Use Doctrine under U.S. Copyright Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/1rqdpn28Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Fair Use, Copyright, China-U.S. Comparison, Generative AI.Abstract
Large models such as ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion rely heavily on automated scraping and machine learning of massive amounts of text, images, and code during pre-training. Whether this process, in its legal nature, constitutes an infringement of the copyright holder’s exclusive rights or can be exempted through the fair use doctrine has become one of the most controversial frontier propositions in current intellectual property law. This article analyzes whether generative AI’s scraping of training data constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law. It systematically examines the application boundaries of the four-factor framework in AI scenarios, integrates the Copyright Office report and congressional legislative dynamics, reveals the tripartite game pattern among the judiciary, the administration, and the legislature, and provides methodological enlightenment for China’s relevant institutional design.
Downloads
References
[1] Cooper, A. F., & Grimmelmann, J. (2025). The files are in the computer: On copyright, memorization, and generative AI. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 100, 141.
[2] Lee, E. (2025). Fair use and the origin of AI training. Houston Law Review, 63, 105.
[3] Sag, M. (2024). Fairness and fair use in generative AI. Fordham Law Review, 92, 1887.
[4] Lucchi, N. (2024). ChatGPT: A case study on copyright challenges for generative artificial intelligence systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 15(3), 602–624.
[5] Sag, M. (2023). Copyright safety for generative AI. Houston Law Review, 61, 295.
[6] Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
[7] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
[8] Leval, P. N. (1990). Toward a fair use standard. Harvard Law Review, 103(5), 1105–1136.
[9] Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021).
[10] Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023).
[11] Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
[12] U.S. Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and artificial intelligence, part 3: Generative AI training (Pre-publication version). U.S. Copyright Office.
[13] Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024, H.R. 7913, 118th Cong. (2024).
[14] AI Accountability and Personal Data Protection Act, 119th Cong. (2025).
[15] Office of Senator Josh Hawley. (2025, July 21). Press release on the AI Accountability and Personal Data Protection Act.
[16] Chamber of Progress. (2025, July 21). Hawley-Blumenthal bill undermines innovation.
[17] Miller Canfield PLC. (2025, August 4). Senators introduce legislation to curb use of personal data and copyrighted works for gen AI training.
[18] The White House. (2026, March). AI national policy framework. The White House.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.






