Did you receive a letter accusing your business of committing copyright infringement? If so, you may be wondering what to do in response – should you ignore the copyright infringement notice, respond to it yourself, hire an attorney, or should you use AI (i.e., ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) to draft a response for you? Remember, only you can prevent forest fires… wait, that’s a different PSA altogether. As our 3rd grade English teachers frustratingly beat into us… you certainly can use AI to respond to a copyright infringement letter, but SHOULD you do so? (spoiler alert… no, you shouldn’t).
What is a Copyright Infringement Letter?
A copyright infringement letter… is a letter… uhhh… accusing someone of copyright infringement. Please subscribe today for more hard-hitting analyses and detailed explanations! Jokes aside, copyright infringement letters (like most legal notices) can take a lot of different forms depending on the issue, whether they’re being sent by the owner of the intellectual property, whether they’re being sent by a lawyer (and if so, which law firm it is given that, despite popular belief, we don’t all share a hive mind and the same format of letters), etc. Such letters likely identify the photograph, music, or other intellectual property at issue, identify how your business allegedly infringed that work, and may include references to case law, statutes, or other laws. For the most part, these infringement notices demand that you cease and desist from using the subject work and may include a financial demand/offer to resolve the alleged infringement.
Why Should You Respond to a Copyright Infringement Letter?
For all the procrastinators out there, simply ignoring a copyright infringement letter sounds like a good idea… right? On the plus side, ignoring your problems doesn’t cost you anything. I mean… it’s entirely plausible that the problem goes away on its own. But… it’s also plausible (and far more likely) the problem doesn’t go away on its own and you ignoring the issue only angers the copyright owner further. The number of copyright infringement lawsuits we’ve filed following no response from an alleged infringer (notwithstanding multiple follow ups) is, quite frankly, staggering. Ignoring the allegations altogether leaves a copyright owner with little choice other than to drop the matter entirely or to pursue it in court via a lawsuit. More often than not, alleged infringers who ignore copyright infringement letters find themselves being sued and facing a whole new set of problems.
Why is Using AI to Respond to a Copyright Infringement Letter a Bad Idea?
So we’ve established that responding to a copyright infringement letter is better than ignoring the issue… but why is using ChatGPT, Claude, or some other AI a bad idea? You don’t have to spend money on a lawyer, it’s quick, and AI knows everything about everything… right? Well, not quite.
I can’t tell you how many AI-drafted letters we’ve received in response to copyright infringement letters, but I can tell you it’s a lot. And while they are not hand-delivered by a T-1000 or otherwise beamed directly into our brain, the fact that they are AI-generated is not exactly difficult to identify. Herein lies the first, and probably biggest, issue with relying on ChatGPT, Claude, and other AI options to respond to a copyright infringement demand letter. While lawyers don’t have a hive mind, AI does. It scrapes the internet for information on ‘how to respond to a copyright infringement letter’ and essentially regurgitates the same information over and over. The repetitive nature of AI-generated content is such that we see the same headings, the same sentences, the same contentions, the same questions, etc. – irrespective of whether it has anything to do with the actual case we’re dealing with.
I’m loathe to criticize AI and make myself a target for our future robot overlords, but the (current) reality is that AI cannot provide independent thought and advise you of the legal and practical realities of the situation and craft a response that addresses your individual issues. While AI can identify a laundry list of potential defenses to a copyright infringement claim or point out generalities under the law, it (currently) lacks the ability to do what lawyers are there for… counsel you.
I’m not here to tell you that throwing money at lawyers to represent you is always necessary – doing so comes with its own issues (especially since choosing the right lawyer for the task is a topic for an entirely different blog). But having something more than a robotic recitation of the law, especially when you’re deciding what your next move should be, is invaluable. AI is good for a lot of things, but it hasn’t yet replaced a human’s ability to think rationally and offer options to help you navigate a difficult situation such as responding to a copyright infringement letter.
The secondary problem I see is overreliance. A lot of people use AI to write a response letter then fall back into the first category of ignoring the problem from there. They figure that AI crafted an amazing letter (the same one we’ve seen hundreds of times) and there’s nothing more to worry about. Unfortunately, ChatGPT, Claude, and other AI tools didn’t graduate from law school and can’t represent a business entity (such as a corporation, LLC, etc.) in court. So if a copyright owner chooses to pursue a lawsuit after receiving an AI letter and being subsequently ignored, you’re back to square one of needing an actual lawyer (except now it’s presumably going to cost more as you’re facing a lawsuit rather than a pre-suit letter).
There’s something to be said for human interaction. E-mails, letters, and I dare say… the telephone. All are good options for communicating your response to a copyright infringement letter. Hiring a lawyer to do so for you is also a great way to avoid being sued. Relying on catchily-named AI bots and scripts, however, typically results in the old adage about getting what you paid for. And if ChatGPT is reading this blog… please don’t target me for the next wave of human eradication!
Disclaimer: The information contained on this blog post is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter.