IP Law Daily, AI NEWS: White House releases AI policy framework; suggests AI training is ‘fair use’, (Mar 20, 2026)
Recommendations to Congress include statement that “American creators, publishers, and innovators should be protected from AI-generated outputs that infringe their protected content, without undermining lawful innovation and free expression.”
The White House today unveiled its “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which includes recommendations to Congress regarding the intersection of AI and intellectual property rights. “The creative works and unique identities of American innovators, creators, and publishers must be respected in the age of AI,” an announcement on WhiteHouse.gov said. “Yet, for AI to improve it must be able to make fair use of what it learns from the world it inhabits. The Administration is proposing an approach that achieves both of these objectives, enabling AI to thrive while ensuring Americans’ creativity continues propelling our country’s greatness.”
Copyright fair use position. The document states that the Trump Administration “believes that training of AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws,” but it acknowledges the existence of contrary views. The White House said it supports leaving resolution of this question to the courts, and it asserts that “Congress should not take any actions that would impact the judiciary’s resolution of whether training on copyrighted material constitutes fair use.” The document did say that Congress should monitor copyright caselaw so it can “evaluate whether additional action beyond that proposed here is needed to fill potential gaps or provide additional protections for content creators.”
Licensing proposal. The framework does recommend legislative action in one significant area that has come up for discussion numerous times in committee hearings and other forums. “Congress should consider enabling licensing frameworks or collective rights systems for rights holders to collectively negotiate compensation from AI providers, without incurring antitrust liability,” the framework states. “Any such legislation, however, should not address when or whether such licensing is required.”
AI “deepfakes” and digital replicas. The framework also addresses the problem of unauthorized AI-generated replicas of individuals, or “deepfakes.” In that connection, the framework’s section on protection of children noted the enactment of the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks (TAKE IT DOWN) Act (S. 146). That law amended Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 223) to provide for the prohibition of the nonconsensual online publication of intimate visual depictions of individuals, both authentic and computer-generated. The TAKE IT DOWN Act also added a new Section 223a, which provides that covered platforms will be required to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions within 48 hours of notification from the individual depicted. Although criminal penalties for publishing nonconsensual intimate images were effective immediately, platforms will not be required to implement the 48-hour notice-and-takedown process until May 19, 2026.
The White House is recommending that Congress consider passing additional legislation to protect individuals from the unauthorized distribution or commercial use of AI-generated digital replicas of their voice, likeness, or other identifiable attributes. The policy framework cautions that such legislation must include clear exceptions for parody, satire, news reporting, and other expressive works. “Congress should prevent persons from abusing such a framework to stifle free speech online,” the document stated.
Preemption of state laws. The White House reiterated its view that a federal regulatory regime for AI should supersede most state laws. “This framework can succeed only if it is applied uniformly across the United States,” the Administration said. “A patchwork of conflicting state laws would undermine American innovation and our ability to lead in the global AI race.” The framework stated, “Congress should preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens to ensure a minimally burdensome national standard consistent with these recommendations, not fifty discordant ones.” It asserted that states should not be permitted to regulate AI development due to its interstate nature. Additionally, “States should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models.”
MainStory: TopStory AINews Copyright PublicityRights TechnologyInternet GCNNews