Copyright Borders in the Era of AI: Reconsidering the Concept of Free Use
Abstract
The article examines current issue of legal qualifying use of copyright objects in artificial intelligence training. The author substantiates the need to amend the Civil Code of the Russian Federation by establishing a special case of free use of works for the purpose of training neural networks, including data collection. Based on the analysis of foreign experience and judicial practice, the author concludes that the use of works in the intellectual analysis of texts and data in digital form, including for the purpose of training neural networks, should be recognized as lawful provided that the form of the works is not perceived by human senses. It is proposed to extend this exception to any works in the public domain, including materials from the Internet and closed databases to which developers have obtained legal access. The paper substantiates the inexpediency of introducing a fee for the use of works in the process mentioned, as this may lead to a decrease in investment in technology development and complicate the process of training neural networks. At the same time, permissible and impermissible cases of use are clearly delimited: internal memorization of materials is not considered a violation, however, content generation with reproduction of significant parts of protected works is qualified as a violation of exclusive rights. It is substantiated the generation of works in the style of a particular author during neural network training based on his works may also constitute a violation of exclusive rights. Particular attention is paid to issues of liability for violations. The author proposes a differentiated approach according to which both the developer of the neural network and the user may be held liable, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. The study emphasizes the approach proposed will maintain a balance between protecting the rights of content creators and the need to develop AI technologies are important for solving global challenges in various spheres of public life.
References
Dermawan A. (2023) Text and Data Mining Exceptions in the Development of Generative AI Models: What the EU Member States Could Learn from the Japanese ‘Non-Enjoyment’ Purposes? Journal of World Intellectual Property, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 44–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12285
Feldman R. (2025) AI versus IP. Rewriting Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 217 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009646833
Foong C. (2025) GenAI Models and Copyright Infringement: Doctrinal Challenges and Regulatory Gap-Filling Using Unfair Competition Principles. University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 70–96. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5327096 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53637/UIFZ7074
Hellwig F. (2013) Change in Copyright Law as a Market Intervention to Realize the Welfare Potential of Text Mining in Scientific Research. Leipzig: University of Applied Sciences, 91 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2386238
Kalyatin V.O. (2015) Prospects of Applying the Doctrine of Fair Use in Russia. Zakon=Law, no. 11, pp. 40–47 (in Russ.)
Lee E. (2025) Fair Use and the Origin of AI Training. Houston Law Review, vol. 63, pp. 101–223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5253011
Lemley M.A., Casey B. (2021) Fair Learning. Texas Law Review, vol. 99, pp. 101–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3528447
Lucchi N. (2025) Generative AI and Copyright. Training, Creation, Regulation. Tilburg: University Press, 173 p. URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IUST_STU(2025)774095
Lukas A.J. (2023) Generative Artificial Intelligence under German Copyright Law. Part 1, pp. 1–12. Available at: SSRN: URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4635645, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4635645
Murray M. (2025) AI Training is Fair Use: The Beginning of the End of the Copyright Assault on Gen AI. 2025, pp. 22–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5395242
Opderbeck D. (2024) Copyright in AI Training Data: A Human-Centered Approach. Newark (N.J.): Seton Hall Law School Legal Studies Research, 52 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4679299
Pasquale F., Malone T., Ting A. (2025) Copyright, Learnright, and Fair Use: Rethinking Compensation for AI Model Training. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, vol. 23, issue 1, pp. 205–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5855063
Sag M., Yu P. (2025) The Globalization of Copyright Exceptions for AI Training. Emory Law Journal, vol. 74, pp. 1163–1227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4976393
Senftleben M. (2022) Compliance of National TDM Rules with International Copyright Law: An Overrated Nonissue. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, no. 10, pp. 1477–1505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01266-8
Senftleben M. (2023) Generative AI and Author Remuneration International. Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 1535–1560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01399-4
Torrance A., Tomlinson B. (2023) Training is Everything: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and “Fair Training”. Dickinson Law Review, vol. 128, pp. 233–255.
Tylec G., Kwiecień S. et al. (2024) Is it Possible to License Works Used in the Learning Process of Artificial Intelligence Algorithms? SSRN: URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4729495 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4729495
Copyright (c) 2026 Vorozhevich A.S.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Licensing, Copyright, Open Access and Repository Policy.




