Introduction

The copyright law faces one of its most dramatic changes in a long time by 2025. What once was a stable legal framework designed to support books, music, movies and traditional media has turned into a battlefield, with writers, technology firms, government and lawyers debating the future of outward creativity in the first place. At the centre of the conflict is intelligence (AI), a set of technologies that can write musical works, pictures, prose, and even films. However, with the advancement of AI creativity, there are increasing concerns about ownership of this technology, who earns money from it, and what it means to be a writer.

Recent headlines indicate that this is not a hypothetical argument but an ongoing battle. In December 2025, Disney sued Google, claiming it had monumentally infringed its copyrights by utilising its copyrighted content to train its AI models, and issued a cease-and-desist warning about how intense the confrontation had become, elevating content creators and AI creators.

This paper examines this new terrain: the legal disputes surrounding AI and copyright, the latest global approaches to policy, the effects of all this on artists and creators, and what it may lead to for the future of creativity worldwide.

Copyright Foundation: The Core of Human Creativity

The principles of copyright law assume that a single inventor or creator creates the work, whether it is a song, a book, a painting or a movie. And that the law should protect the right of such creator to control and make a profit out of their creations. This idea has its roots in centuries of history, long before computers or artificial intelligence existed.

In most of the structures, including the United States Copyright Act, acquisition of copyright protection requires:

• Creation- The work should be created on its own.

• Creation- The creative drive must have its source in an individual.

• Format- The creation has to exist, exist physically (i.e. it is written down, recorded, or made).

In early 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office and several federal courts recognised these grounds and held that works created solely by AI could not be copyrighted, as they lacked a human author.

It means that a novel written entirely by an AI, a picture painted by itself, or a musical piece composed by a machine without human assistance can usually not be legally safeguarded, according to current legislation.  For not only creators but also those who observe the law, this raises pressing concerns: Who has the right to the works that AI can create that are just similar to other traditional art pieces? Who is the copyright holder, and who is paid well enough?

Law vs. Technology: Tech Giants vs. Media Powerhouses

As AI systems, including those for generating text, images, and videos, become increasingly widely available, the issue of copyright infringement is increasingly contested by a variety of large corporations over how they train their technologies.

Disney vs. Google

A tale that dominated tech and media news coverage, The Walt Disney Company sent a cease-and-desist letter to Google, claiming that the tech giant has violated the copyright of its works by using Disney content to power AI models like Gemini and Imagen without permission or compensation.

These indictments relate to the following issues:

• Training data transparency:  Did Google use Disney movies, characters or media without any permission?

• Compensation and licensing: Should AI companies pay the rights holders when they use the copyrighted content?

• Authority over materials: Do rights holders have the right to decide how their content will be used to train AI?

This conflict went hand in hand with Disney's $1 billion licensing deal with OpenAI, and it is the route many firms are taking worldwide: on one side, they license and collaborate with a particular group of AI designers; on the other, they sue others. This twofold approach is a shift: now, the key right owners not only consider AI as an innovative means but also a possible threat to their intellectual property.

Other Cases and Copyright Wars

This is not the only conflict between Google and Disney. Laws are now being fought, both over AI training datasets and other artistic works with copyright implications:

• Artists and publishing giants have filed lawsuits against AI image generators for training on copyrighted, web-scraped material.

• The music industry fits well with issues such as triumph over sampling and unauthorised use, which would demand the extent (or scope) of what AI is capable of learning from human recordings.

• The disagreements over content licensing and royalties are growing at an alarming rate across the U.S., Europe and Asia.

• These cases are compelling the courts to confront legal issues that, no more than five years ago, appeared to be science fiction.

Governments Get Involved: Regulation, Reform and Royalties

Governments are beginning to recognise that existing copyright laws were not designed for AI, and many are considering sweeping reforms.

India’s Copyright Act Reform

To resolve AI-specific issues, such as a new system of blanket licensing, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) introduced changes to its Copyright Act in December 2025. This may involve paying royalties to content owners when AI companies use online materials to train their staff, who are operating under a general organisation.

At the same time, an Indian government committee suggested that AI industry players should pay royalties to use locally owned copyrighted material in their training sets - yet another suggestion that is much more liberal than the U.S. approach to fair use. Such developments represent a shift toward recognising the financial rights of creators in the age of AI, not as a concept but through practical regulations.

U.S. Legislative Engagement

In America, policymakers have not been left behind:

• The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act was proposed to require AI developers to disclose copyrighted works used in their training sets. 

• The ELVIS Act is a trailblazing state law that Tennessee enacted in 2024 to safeguard performers against AI-powered abuses of their voices and likenesses by third parties. 

• Such legislative attempts reflect a broader trend: governments are becoming more aware of the need to strike the right balance between innovation and creator protection.

The Discussion, on Human-AI Creativity: Who Should be Recognized?

One prominent philosophical discussion about copyright in the era of AI concerns authorship. Traditional copyright assumes that creativity belongs to man. But generative AI opposes this fact.

The Implication of Human Author has not lost its significance

Copyright offices throughout the world have clarified that copyright must be accompanied by human intervention to facilitate its protection. Unprotected AI outputs that do not rely meaningfully on human creative work are said to be unprotectable, i.e., they are not the subject of copyright. At the same time that a human author uses AI as a tool, such as editing, using, or incorporating AI parts into a composition, that collaborative work can qualify as copyrightable.

Who Prevails: Creators, Corporations or AI?

Within the context of this transformation, different stakeholders are playing politics:

• Content creators would want protection, fair compensation and rights regarding the use of their works.

• Technology companies are seeking guidance on which data may be authorised for AI training and how to avert extreme legal risks.

• Officials and regulatory agencies strive to balance out innovation fairly.

• Legal uncertainties seek to dissatisfy the customers and users with access to AI tools.

• As 2025 approaches, this strain remains unresolved. The directions are evident:

• The courts will continue to define the limits of copyright law through legal challenges.

• Governments will develop regulatory policies.

• Due to the time change, there will be changes in the legal meanings of authorship, ownership, and originality.

We will one day have special copyright regimes for AI-assisted works, obligatory licensing regimes, and even novel models of economic rights that remunerate creators every time AI uses their work.

Finding: A Copyright Turning Point

Copyright laws have changed with the times, from the printing press to the internet. It is with the rise of AI that the question most potentially arises: a technology that does not simply broadcast content, but creates it.

The year 2025 marks a moment. Cases of legal conflicts between Disney and Google highlight the intensifying conflicts. U.S. legislative programs. And India shows that governments can no longer ignore the effects of AI. In addition to the legal mandate, the authorship emphasises that copyright must protect economic fairness and cultural inherent worth. When the boundary is crossed, the machine's creativity fades, but one thing is definite: the copyright law cannot be the same. It needs to adapt. Risk alienating creators in a time when we could have algorithms that can paint, compose, and innovate.

We can only secure our future when copyright safeguards our developments and the creative people who fascinate us with their works of art, balancing the impacts of innovation with the appreciation of human creative efforts.

Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship. All views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and represent their independent analysis. ClearLaw.online does not endorse, verify, or assume responsibility for the author’s views or conclusions. While editorial standards are maintained, ClearLaw.online, the author, and the publisher disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from reliance on this content. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information herein. Use of this article is at the reader’s own risk.