The Relative Virtues of Bottom-Up and TopDown Theories of Fair Use
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Relative Virtues of Bottom-Up and TopDown Theories of Fair Use on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Relative Virtues of Bottom-Up and TopDown Theories of Fair Use on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Relative Virtues of Bottom-Up and TopDown Theories of Fair Use on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Relative Virtues of Bottom-Up and TopDown Theories of Fair Use on LinkedIn
Some conceptions of the fair use limitation of US copyright law have their groundings in the case law out of which the doctrine emerged. (I call these the “bottom-up” approaches.) Other theories of fair use have sprung from the very bright minds of copyright scholars whose collective goal has generally been to bring some needed coherence to the common law of fair use. (I call these “top-down” approaches.) The Dual-Grant Theory of Fair Use is the latest of the top-down theories to have appeared in the literature.
For better or worse, plagiarism norms have existed since time immemorial. This Essay responds to Professor Lemley and Ouellette's "Plagiarism, Copyright, and AI" and argues that academic plagiarism norms are not justified by efficiency and morality. Rather, authors should be free to decide for themselves whether and when attribution is necessary.
Critics of generative AI often describe it as a “plagiarism machine.” They may be right, though not in the sense they mean. With rare exceptions, generative AI doesn’t just copy someone else’s creative expression, producing outputs that infringe copyright. But it does get its ideas from somewhere. And it’s quite bad at identifying the source of those ideas. That means that students (and professors, and lawyers, and journalists) who use AI to produce their work generally aren’t engaged in copyright infringement. But they are often passing someone else’s work off as their own, whether or not they know it. While plagiarism is a problem in academic work generally, AI makes it much worse because authors who use AI may be unknowingly taking the ideas and words of someone else.
Disclosing that the authors used AI isn’t a sufficient solution to the problem because the people whose ideas are being used don’t get credit for those ideas. Whether or not a declaration that “AI came up with my ideas” is plagiarism, failing to make a good-faith effort to find the underlying sources is a bad academic practice.
We argue that AI plagiarism isn’t—and shouldn’t be—illegal. But it is still a problem in many contexts, particularly academic work, where proper credit is an essential part of the ecosystem. We suggest best practices to align academic and other writing with good scholarly norms in the AI environment.
Critics of generative AI often describe it as a “plagiarism machine.” They may be right, though not in the sense they mean. With rare exceptions, generative AI doesn’t just copy someone else’s creative expression, producing outputs that infringe copyright. But it does get its ideas from somewhere. And it’s quite bad at identifying the source of those ideas. That means that students (and professors, and lawyers, and journalists) who use AI to produce their work generally aren’t engaged in copyright infringement. But they are often passing someone else’s work off as their own, whether or not they know it. While plagiarism is a problem in academic work generally, AI makes it much worse because authors who use AI may be unknowingly taking the ideas and words of someone else.
Disclosing that the authors used AI isn’t a sufficient solution to the problem because the people whose ideas are being used don’t get credit for those ideas. Whether or not a declaration that “AI came up with my ideas” is plagiarism, failing to make a good-faith effort to find the underlying sources is a bad academic practice.
We argue that AI plagiarism isn’t—and shouldn’t be—illegal. But it is still a problem in many contexts, particularly academic work, where proper credit is an essential part of the ecosystem. We suggest best practices to align academic and other writing with good scholarly norms in the AI environment.