mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The algorithmic muse and the public domain: Why copyrights legal philosophy precludes protection for generative AI outputs

arXiv 2512.13750 ↗First posted 15 Dec 2025cs.CY cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Generative AI (GenAI) outputs are not copyrightable. This article argues why. We bypass conventional doctrinal analysis that focuses on black letter law notions of originality and authorship to re-evaluate copyright's foundational philosophy. GenAI fundamentally severs the direct human creative link to expressive form. Traditional theories utilitarian incentive, labor desert and personality fail to provide coherent justification for protection. The public domain constitutes the default baseline for intellectual creations. Those seeking copyright coverage for GenAI outputs bear the burden of proof. Granting copyright to raw GenAI outputs would not only be philosophically unsound but would also trigger an unprecedented enclosure of the digital commons, creating a legal quagmire and stifling future innovation. The paper advocates for a clear distinction: human creative contributions to AI-generated works may warrant protection, but the raw algorithmic output should remain in the public domain.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Dec 2025.

Builds on

3 of 48 references.

References · 3

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2020Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Modelscited by 21,076
  3. 2023A Survey of Large Language Modelscited by 2,576

Built on by

Not cited yet.