The debate about the AI usage limits and how is this going to actually affect the creators It is very complex, and it has only just begun. From discerning to what extent AI’s ability to create works outside of humans will continue to grow to the logical ethical and legal concerns that appear around a tool that, from its very definition, is in a completely unexplored area. At the moment, George RR Martin and other authors are taking steps in search of more demanding regulation.
What has happened? A federal judge in Manhattan has given the green light for the lawsuit filed by George RR Martin and other authors against OpenAI and Microsoft for alleged copyright violation. The creator of ‘Game of Thrones’ and his colleagues accuse these companies of use his works without authorization to train ChatGPT. According to the ruling issued on October 27, 2025, there are reasons for the case to move forward, since ChatGPT’s proposal for a sequel to the saga was substantially similar to Martin’s work already protected by copyright.
The determining test. It came when lawyers asked ChatGPT to create a fictional sequel to ‘A Clash of Kings’. The chatbot immediately spawned a novel called ‘Dance of Shadows’, a sequel that included a new Targaryen heir named Lady Elara, a rebellious sect of the Children of the Forest, and a mysterious form of ancient dragon-related magic. This ability to recreate elements from Martin’s universe made the question clear: how could the AI know his work in such detail without having fed on it?
The precedents. The origins of this legal conflict date back to September 2023, when Martin, accompanied by 17 other authors (including people like Michael Chabon, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Jia Tolentino, John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen and Sarah Silverman) raised his voice against what he considered a systematic exploitation of his work. The case was brought by the Authors Guild union, in a lawsuit that spoke of “systematic theft on a massive scale”, arguing that the tool makes use of their works without paying royalties and without the writers’ consent.
The letter. Months before the lawsuit, these authors and many others, such as Margaret Atwood or Nora Roberts, they had sent a letter to large technology companies conveying their concerns about generative AI technologies. In that document they warned about “the injustice inherent in exploiting our works as part of your AI systems without our consent, credit or compensation.” The accusation was clear: ChatGPT had not only learned from his books; Now I could replicate them.
Other attacks. We are at a key moment in determining the legal implications of generative AI. At the beginning of 2025, for example, it was decided by the juries a similar dispute against Anthropicwhich concluded with an out-of-court settlement: the company paid $1.5 billion to authors whose works were used without permission. This precedent shows that technology companies are willing to negotiate to avoid court rulings that could establish binding jurisprudence.
In England, by contrast, the High Court of England determined that Stability AI did not infringe copyright by train your model with Getty imagesthat is, a decision in literally the opposite direction, which has generated alarm among European creators. In all these cases the debate about “fair use” or fair use: The technology companies argue that the training of their models constitutes a transformative use of works, similar to when search engines index content. The creators reply that it is a massive appropriation that replaces, not complements, the original work. And in the background, a shock that has only just begun.
Header |Gage Skidmore
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings