3 years ago, ever since ChatGPT took over the tech industry by storm by its revolutionary approach to creating an AI system that could virtually cause the extinction of various creative outlets just by consuming already established information and deliver you answers right at your fingertips, it lead to some positive response within the industry in regards to a new approach towards tech which had been widely speculated in science fiction material for centuries as well as a public outcry in the form protests from people within the security and creative industry as they feared for one, that there personal data is more susceptible to be manipulated by AI tools such as ChatGPT for commercial or content creation purposes and second, people within the creative spheres felt like they were left hanging in the balance as artificial creativity would replace their original works produced out their minds and onto the paper in various domains such as novels, screenwriting, research, painting etc.

Tech industries across the globe soon followed up, with countries such as China, coming up with their own AI systems such as Deepseek, and many people saw this as a sign of countries using this seemingly newfound means to enhance their strategy in the global power struggle.

Recently, Shira Perlmutter, the head of the Copyright Office in the United States, was fired after she submitted a report claiming that all
“AI training must be considered in fair use.” She said that in her reports, after the claim that the Trump administration was demanding that they must be given access to copyrighted material or content to train AI models and she refused their demands. Following her termination, the head of the Congress Library, Larla Hayden, was fired soon after. Many theories and speculations were floating around as to the former's termination and the report that they submitted. Some within the government were assuming that Trump’s close friendships with billionaires such as Elon Musk, was one of the primary reasons behind the Perlmutter’s dismissal and that he and Trump wanted to establish their AI system to beat China in world dominance and they also feared that IP laws were acting as a blockade in AI and tech advancement. People assumed that he viewed AI as an indispensable tool to establish the US as a major player in the race towards world domination.

Soon after, Attorney Mike Davis gave his statement saying, “ AI companies shouldn’t be able to exploit creators' copyrights like this”. Several other points were being made, such as the Executive branch of the government doesn’t hold any accountability for the Copyright Office; rather, Congress does. So the intervention and termination of both the heads are supposed to be deemed illegal. Trump’s intervention was viewed as both unnecessary and unacceptable, as people felt that it was an intrusion into the authority of cultural institutions. Second, generative content such as music made with the help of AI cannot be made for publishing purposes and allocate royalties from public performances.

Rep. Joe Morelle ( D-NY) censured the termination, stating that it was done for political reasons, which diminishes the authority of the copyright offices and limits its freedom in acting independently as well as sabotages the credibility of the creative industry. He saw this as an abuse of power to force the authority out of Congress so that leaders like Trump and billionaires like Musk could benefit from interfering.

This isn’t also the first time that the Trump administration is known for its drastic and extreme measures. Earlier this year, Trump imposed tariffs on three countries, Mexico, Canada and China as he wanted Americans to buy products made solely in USA and limit the value of goods in terms of export and import from other nations which inevitably would lead to huge investments within the country.

On the other hand, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the firing was expected because of the concerning files that the head had put in books in the library for children while pursuing DEI.

The Copyright Office recently issued a report, but reportedly hasn’t finalized it, saying that the members fired could not be reinstated anytime soon and that things aren’t expected to change drastically anytime soon unless Trump’s new acting head chooses to intervene to overtake guidance.

The Copyright Office also compiled more than 10,000 comments arguing whether or not creators of the copyrighted content should be feasibly compensated. The intervention also seemed to be a threat to the creative market, with the possibility of destabilizing it, and licensing will aid in compensating creators. The office also debated how much data is sufficient for tech developers to create a sustainable AI system, and that there has to be a consent system which doesn’t replace the original creators in the creative marketplace and doesn’t put the responsibility on the shoulders of the creators to opt their creations out of AI training. To establish balance so that neither of the sides is harmed, some AI training and development will be regarded as fair practice, which won’t compete with the immediate creative market. AI training, which will be deemed fair, will be tools utilised to solve societal problems such as language-to-language translation, correcting grammar, and regulating content. On the other, heads of various tech companies and startups have expressed their concerns in paying owners of copyrighted works claiming that this could blow and cripple the roaring AI tech industry.

Whatever the side maybe, the people will have to wait for the official reports from the Copyright Office after a through formal investigation has been concluded to establish the reasons behind the terminations of the two heads while the rest of the world and not just the United States of America battles with the ongoing dilemma between privacy and advertisement, between artificial and original content, between govt. Using AI to fund the modus operandi of billionaires so that they can take over human potential and the government. Using it side by side with the creative domain to aid societal problems.

.    .    .