Former President Donald Trump has abruptly removed Shira Perlmutter from her role as head of the U.S. Copyright Office, igniting a fierce political debate. Reports from CBS News and Politico, along with confirmation from Representative Joe Morelle of the House Administration Committee, suggest that the move is seen by critics as a bold power grab lacking legal justification. Many point to the timing of the dismissal as connected to Perlmutter’s decision to oppose Elon Musk’s proposal for using large amounts of copyrighted material to train AI models.
Appointed in 2020 by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden—who herself was dismissed this week—Perlmutter found herself at the centre of controversy when she declined to support Musk’s expansive vision. Trump hinted at the circumstances on his social media platform, Truth Social, by resharing a post from attorney Mike Davis. That post not only linked to CBS News but also warned that tech executives might soon try to appropriate creators’ copyrights in pursuit of AI profits.
Adding another layer to the debate, a recent U.S. Copyright Office report delves into the complex relationship between AI and copyright law. The report clarifies that while research and analysis might enjoy the safe harbour of fair use, using copyrighted content for commercial AI development crosses legal boundaries. It suggests that developing licensing markets—and even exploring extended collective licensing—could help ensure that copyright holders are fairly compensated.
Legal challenges are already mounting for AI companies like OpenAI, which have been facing copyright infringement claims. OpenAI has asked the government to establish a clearer copyright framework that would allow more flexibility under fair use. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, connected with both OpenAI and his new xAI venture, has backed a radical view by calling for the abolition of existing IP laws—a sentiment echoed by Square’s founder Jack Dorsey.
If you’ve ever wrestled with the clash between rapid technological innovation and traditional legal boundaries, this situation might hit close to home. It’s a practical reminder of how the evolving tech landscape often forces a rethink of established rules and the need to balance creative rights with progress.
