Executive Summary
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly capable of generating outputs that resemble human creativity, all without much human direction. This Article interrogates the frequent assertion among commentators, scholars, and policymakers that such AI-generated content is or will become a near-perfect substitute for human creative works. That assumption underpins widespread fears of AI displacing creative professions and undermining copyright law’s role in incentivizing human ingenuity. This Article challenges that narrative by identifying and analyzing foundational distinctions between artificial and human creativity—specifically, the absence in AI of intrinsic motivation, intentionality, and authenticity. These human-centric qualities are often essential to works that resonate emotionally and experientially with audiences, rendering human and AI outputs imperfect substitutes—and, in many cases, complements rather than competitors.
Drawing on literature in creativity studies, economics, and law, the Article establishes a framework for understanding when AI outputs are most likely to function as substitutes (e.g., in functional or utilitarian works) and when human creativity will retain market and cultural value (e.g., in expressive, emotionally resonant works). It then explores the implications of this analysis for copyright law. Contrary to some predictions, copyright remains essential in incentivizing human creative output, especially in collaborative environments where AI serves as a tool rather than an autonomous creator. The Article argues that copyright law is not facing obsolescence but rather a critical juncture requiring doctrinal adaptation. In particular, the Article evaluates pressing issues such as the copyrightability of AI-assisted works, the threshold for human authorship, and the growing influence of “market dilution” theories under copyright law’s fair use doctrine.
Ultimately, this Article offers a forward-looking vision in which copyright law continues to promote human creativity while evolving to accommodate a world where artificial and human forms of creativity increasingly intersect. Courts, the Copyright Office, and Congress must carefully distinguish between human and artificial contributions in shaping doctrine that balances innovation, legal coherence, and cultural values.
