Sponsors (3)
The bill makes it easier and faster for copyright owners to get records about whether their works were used to train AI models and narrows overly broad requests, but it also imposes compliance costs and risks disclosure of proprietary or sensitive materials with limited procedural safeguards, which could harm smaller developers and chill innovation.
Copyright owners (including small businesses and nonprofits) can more quickly obtain records from AI developers to determine whether their works were used to train generative models via an expedited, court‑administered (clerk‑issued) subpoena process.
Requesters are limited to seeking records about works they likely own or control, which reduces the chance of broad 'fishing' subpoenas into unrelated copyrighted works.
AI developers (including small firms and startups) could be forced to disclose training materials that reveal trade secrets or proprietary model details, risking competitive harm.
Developers may face burdensome compliance costs and short timelines to produce records, increasing operational and legal costs especially for smaller developers.
The summary provides no explicit procedural safeguards (e.g., redaction rules or protective orders), so requesters could obtain sensitive or confidential material without clear privacy or confidentiality protections.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Adds a new Title 17 provision authorizing subpoenas for records related to AI models and defines terms for generative AI and developers, but omits the operative subpoena text.
Official title: To create an administrative subpoena process to assist copyright owners in determining which of their copyrighted works have been used in the training of artificial intelligence models.
Introduced January 22, 2026 by Madeleine Dean · Last progress January 22, 2026
Creates a new statutory provision in Title 17, U.S. Code, that adds a subpoena power for obtaining copies or records related to artificial intelligence models and builds a set of definitions for terms used to regulate generative AI (for example: “artificial intelligence model,” “developer,” “generative artificial intelligence model,” “substantially modify,” and “training material”). The text provided inserts the new section but does not include the operative provisions of the subpoena authority (no procedural rules, agencies specified, enforcement mechanisms, funding, or deadlines are included in the supplied text).