AI, Copyright and Halakhah

by R. Gil Student

Lawsuits are in progress about whether AI developers infringe on the rights of content creators when training models on copyrighted material. If my book, Articles of Faith: Traditional Jewish Faith in the Internet Era, is among the trillions of points of data used, for example, to train ChatGPT, do I have a copyright claim? That question is now before the US courts. I would like to discuss here a different issue. Do you, the user, violate AI’s copyright by using its content without attribution? On this question, I suspect that Jewish law is stricter than American law.

I. Copyright

ChatGPT does not retain copyright over its outputs. Its terms of use explicitly state: “We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output.” Similarly, Anthropic’s terms for Claude say: “Subject to your compliance with our Terms, we assign to you all of our right, title, and interest—if any—in Outputs.” Under American law, this appears to settle the matter. Granted, if a court later determines that these models were trained in violation of copyright, that could retroactively affect users’ rights to the outputs. Barring that, there is no other legal issue in taking the AI’s outputs and signing your name to it unless you are specifically told to create original content (e.g. a homework assignment).

This is significant within halakhah, where there are two primary views on copyright. According to Rav Nachum Menashe Weisfish, in his Copyright in Jewish Law, the majority opinion believes that halakhah grants intellectual property rights to content creators. The minority opinion believes that there is no copyright in halakhah beyond the law of the land. In this case, both views would agree that AI holds no copyright, since the developers have explicitly waived it. However, that is not the end of the halakhic discussion.

II. Giving Recognition

Rav Moshe Feinstein (20th cen., US) was asked about cheating on high school Regents exams. He writes that students in school are forbidden from copying answers because of geneivas da’as, misleading others. You are falsely claiming to possess knowledge. If this deception leads to a higher GPA and ultimately employment, Rav Feinstein says that you are stealing from your employer with every paycheck you receive based on false grades. That constitutes actual, ongoing geneivah (theft) in addition to the initial geneivas da’as (Iggeros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, vol. 2 no. 30).

Rav Chaim Sofer (19th cen., Hungary) was asked whether you may say a Torah insight in the name of a non-Orthodox scholar. He answers that it is improper to do so (as I discuss at length in my book, Articles of Faith, ch. 14). However, he adds that you may not take credit for the insight. Rather, you should say that you heard it from someone else, to avoid stealing intellectual credit (Machaneh Chaim, vol. 3 no. 11).

Similarly, Rav Nachum Menashe Weisfish (op cit., 16:5): “It is prohibited for one to accept undeserved credit. Thus, it is forbidden to relate thoughts of another and claim them as one’s own.” He adds (16:24): “If a person permits others to repeat his thoughts without mentioning his name, then doing so does not constitute theft. However, one may not give the impression of being the originator of the thoughts, as it is forbidden to accept undeserved honor for knowledge, etc., which one does not truly possess.” Applying this to AI, presenting its output as your own misrepresents your knowledge, skills and achievements. This constitutes geneivas da’as and may lead to outright geneivah.

III. Showing Gratitude

Rav Aaron Levine (21st cen., US) takes this further. argues that failing to properly cite sources is not just misrepresentation but also a lack of hakaras ha-tov, gratitude. If you quote a primary source because you saw it cited in a secondary work, you must also credit that secondary source, since it acted as your teacher. Even if you verify the original, the person who led you there deserves acknowledgement. Rav Levine connects this to the teaching in Avos 6:6: “Whoever repeats something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world” (Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law, pp. 31-35).

However, AI is not a person to whom you owe gratitude. It is an object, a stick or a stone. Are we obligated to show gratitude to inanimate objects? Perhaps surprisingly, we see unequivocally from midrash that we are, indeed, expected to show gratitude to inanimate objects. In the biblical story of the ten plagues, Moshe does not initiate the first two plagues — water and frogs (Ex. 7:19-20, 8:1-2). The midrash explains that since the Nile protected Moshe as a baby, God insisted that he show gratitude by refraining from punishing the river (Shemos Rabbah 9:10). The same idea applies to the third plague of lice, which started in the dirt in which Moshe hid the Egyptian he killed (Ex. 8:12-13; Shemos Rabbah 10:7). Commentators explain that for the sake of our own character, we must recognize the benefits we receive from inanimate objects and respect them accordingly (e.g. Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl, Sichos Le-Sefer Shemos, p. 19).

IV. Ghostwriting

At the same time, halakhah acknowledges the role of common practice. Ghostwriting is sometimes accepted. I have personally ghostwritten articles for well-known rabbis. These pieces reflected their ideas and were reviewed and approved by them. In such cases, readers understand that extremely busy public figures may employ others to help articulate their thoughts. Within that context and expectation, there is no deception.

But in other contexts, ghostwriting is clearly dishonest. For example, it is not acceptable to submit someone else’s writing for academic credit or for pay without disclosing the actual author. Again, it is a matter of assumptions based on industry standards. When it comes to editing, there is even more room for external help — whether human or electronic.

Ultimately, halakhah takes industry standards and assumptions into account, including regarding AI. If there is no assumption that the stated author actually wrote the words, then there is no concern for theft. With ghostwriters and editors, omission of credit may involve ingratitude but if you pay the author or editor with the understanding that he will not be mentioned, then he waives his right to mention. Since ChatGPT grants permission to use its outputs without attribution, it can be argued that it likewise waives the right to be credited. Nonetheless, unless prevailing norms suggest otherwise, halakhah generally expects users to disclose when content is generated by AI. Of course, norms and standards change over time.