The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against an expansive interpretation of DMCA Section 1202, which prohibits removal of copyright management information (CMI), rejecting claims that training AI models on open-source code without CMI creates new copyright liability.
- Court rejects broad DMCA claims tied to AI training data.
- Section 1202 protects CMI removal, not lawful new creations.
- Decision shields small creators from excessive litigation risk.
What happened
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit delivered a significant ruling limiting the reach of Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This section prohibits the intentional removal of copyright management information (CMI) such as author names and copyright notices. A group of anonymous GitHub contributors had sued OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that code generated by their large language models was derived from their copyrighted code but lacked the original CMI.
In rejecting this expansive claim, the court affirmed that removing CMI from an original copyrighted work differs fundamentally from creating a new work that does not contain CMI. The ruling highlights that the DMCA was designed to support traditional copyrights, not to create entirely new liabilities that could restrict non-infringing activities such as those involved in AI training and software innovation.
Why it matters
This decision is a crucial victory for programmers, AI developers, and users of digital content by preventing the misuse of Section 1202 to impose broad new copyright liabilities. Had the plaintiffs' interpretation prevailed, it would have enabled copyright holders to file costly lawsuits against many legitimate and creative uses, including remixing artwork, educational adaptations, reverse engineering for research, and search engine indexing.
Such a precedent could have disproportionately harmed independent developers and small creators who lack the resources to defend against protracted litigation. The ruling thus preserves a balanced copyright regime that encourages technological innovation and free expression while maintaining protections against actual copyright infringement.
What to watch next
While this ruling narrows the scope of Section 1202 liability, copyright infringement claims and contract disputes related to AI-generated code remain viable legal pathways for rights holders. Courts will continue to face complex copyright questions as new technologies evolve, and future decisions will likely build on this foundation to further define lawful uses of copyrighted material in AI and beyond.
Stakeholders should monitor related legislative and judicial developments, as lawmakers and courts seek to adapt intellectual property laws to emerging technologies. This includes ongoing debates over digital copyright enforcement and bills addressing AI-generated content, all of which will influence how creativity and innovation can flourish in the digital era.