Copyright and AI training data

Separate the material inside a record.

An operational record may mix factual events, company-authored explanations, customer messages, diagrams and third-party manuals. Different elements can raise different issues. Build the rights review around the material proposed for delivery, not a broad claim that the company “owns the data.”

Avoid a universal rule about training.

The US Copyright Office’s AI report Part 3 examines generative AI training and licensing. Its official index still identifies the May 2025 pre-publication version on this guide’s review date. The report is analysis, not a new statute or a blanket determination that all AI training is permitted. Specific uses and disputes require current legal review.

Ask what you can actually grant.

Review employee and contractor arrangements, customer terms, vendor licenses and any previous distribution. Establish whether the proposed entity can authorize the intended scope. Public availability or possession of a copy should not be treated as proof of permission to sublicense it.

• Who created each type of content?
• What agreements establish the company’s rights?
• Are third-party attachments excluded or separately licensed?
• Does the grant cover training, evaluation and onward distribution separately?
• Which rights remain with the source company?

Review outputs and transformations separately.

Summaries, annotations, synthetic records and trained models can introduce further questions. Ask how they will be created, used and retained, what restrictions carry forward and whether the proposed contract makes commitments the parties can actually perform. Do not assume a generated replacement erases the source-rights problem.

Create a focused counsel brief.

Include the source categories, proposed recipient and uses, relevant agreements, planned exclusions and unresolved evidence. Ask the adviser to address the actual jurisdictions and transaction rather than requesting a general answer about “AI data.” This guide is a review agenda, not a legal opinion or a substitute for checking developments in the specific matter.