Former USPTO Official Urges AI Copyright Protections
As legal battles proceed, calls for creator rights highlight the ongoing debate over the use of training data.
Updated on Oct. 27, 2026 in Artificial Intelligence
Live Poll
Should AI companies be required to obtain permission before training models on copyrighted works?
Former USPTO deputy director Coke Morgan Stewart is calling on the U.S. government to reinforce intellectual property protections amid ongoing legal battles over AI training. This follows a September 2026 government filing asserting that training large language models on copyrighted text is not automatically illegal.
Why it matters
The intersection of copyright law and AI development is being tested in federal court, with outcomes likely to determine the economic incentives for creators. Establishing clear intellectual property standards may define how startups compete in the evolving AI ecosystem.
Research into patent examiner leniency shows a correlation between lax approval rates and downstream success, with startups under lenient examiners seeing 55% higher employment and 80% higher sales growth five years later. It remains unclear how these historical patent trends might influence current judicial interpretations of copyright in AI.
The players
Coke Morgan Stewart
The current president and CEO of the Council for Innovation Promotion and former deputy director of the USPTO.
OpenAI
An AI research and deployment company currently facing consolidated litigation regarding its use of copyrighted text for model training.
The New York Times
A major media publisher currently involved in copyright infringement litigation against AI developers.
The details
Federal copyright law requires courts to evaluate four factors: the purpose and character of the use, the type of work, the amount used, and the potential market effect. The government is currently weighing these elements in litigation involving The New York Times and OpenAI, where publishers allege that unauthorized use of copyrighted text for model training violates existing protections. This creates a regulatory framework where the definition of fair use remains the central technical and legal hurdle.
Timeline
July 2026: Coke Morgan Stewart concluded her term as USPTO deputy director.
Sept. 1, 2026: The U.S. filed a 20-page Statement of Interest in OpenAI litigation.
Oct. 27, 2026: Stewart publicly urged the preservation of creator protections.
Nov. 20, 2026: Deadline for replies on summary-judgment motions in the case.
The Tech Race
The debate over AI intellectual property follows the precedent set by current consolidated litigation regarding OpenAI. This case marks a critical point in determining if training practices are inherently unlawful or protected under fair use.
Changes in intellectual property law could shift how startups and content creators manage the economic value of their data in AI workflows. Stakeholders should monitor the November 2026 filing deadlines, which may provide early signals regarding how federal courts weigh creator rights versus AI development.
The takeaway
The tension between AI model training and intellectual property rights remains a primary friction point for the future of digital content. Observers should track the upcoming summary-judgment replies on Nov. 20, 2026, as they will likely clarify the court's stance on fair use in AI.
What happens next
Legal proceedings continue as replies on summary-judgment motions in the consolidated OpenAI case are due on Nov. 20, 2026.
Further reading
For broader context on how regulatory shifts impact the industry, visit the Artificial Intelligence section.
Live Poll
Should AI companies be required to obtain permission before training models on copyrighted works?
