A legal test for generative-AI copying: an output infringes only if it could not have been produced without a specific training work, and under formal modeling this rule implies a sharp divide — when organic creation is light-tailed, individual dependence fades and regulation is unlikely to constrain generation, but with heavy-tailed creation regulation can remain binding.

Main Finding

The paper proposes a counterfactual, generative-account definition of infringement for AI outputs: an AI-generated work infringes an existing work c if that output could not have been generated without c being in the model’s training corpus. Modeling generators as closure (consequence) operators, the authors characterize the set of permissible (non-infringing) outputs and show a sharp asymptotic dichotomy: if new human creations are drawn from a light-tailed distribution, dependence on any single existing work vanishes as corpora grow and almost all generable outputs become permissible; if innovation is heavy-tailed, corpora can continue to contain essential, non-redundant works and a positive measure of outputs may remain infringing indefinitely.

Key Points

• New infringement criterion: counterfactual dependence. Output is infringing iff it is generable with the full corpus but not generable when a particular existing work is removed.
• Generators abstracted as closure operators (preservation, monotonicity, idempotence). This captures many mechanisms (interpolation, recombination, iteration).
• Example generator classes:
  • Convex-hull generator (convex combinations of existing points),
  • Splice generator (coordinate-wise recombination),
  • Box generator (composition of splice and convex hull).
• Permissible set = outputs generable even after removing any single existing work. Violation set = generable outputs that rely essentially on at least one specific existing work.
• Structural properties:
  • Permissible set grows monotonically with corpus size; closed under further generation (combining permissible outputs cannot create a violation).
  • Comparative statics: adding a previously-violating work strictly expands the permissible set; adding a work that is already permissible leaves the permissible set unchanged.
  • A sufficient condition for non-emptiness of the permissible set uses the Radon number (convex-geometry condition).
• Long-run asymptotics (main theorem):
  • Light-tailed innovation: ratio of permissible to generable outputs → 1 almost surely as corpus grows (single works cease to be essential; redundancy builds).
  • Heavy-tailed innovation: persistent essentialness; a nonzero fraction of outputs remains violations even for large corpora.
• Legal & conceptual distinction: this counterfactual notion can diverge from “substantial similarity.” An output might infringe under the counterfactual test without resembling the source, and vice versa.

Data & Methods

• Methodology: theoretical, formal model. No empirical dataset is analyzed.
• Formal ingredients:
  • Representation of creations as points in R^d and corpora as measurable sets.
  • Definition of generator g: a map from corpora to corpora satisfying preservation, monotonicity, idempotence (i.e., a closure operator).
  • Definitions of c-permissible and c-violation sets, global permissible and violation sets as intersections/unions across corpus elements.
• Examples and constructions to illustrate intuition (convex hull, splice, box).
• Use of convex geometry (Radon number, Tukey-depth intuition for convex-hull case) to derive non-emptiness and geometric properties.
• Probabilistic asymptotic analysis: model of sequential corpus growth (new works drawn i.i.d. from a distribution with specified tail behavior) to derive almost-sure limits of permissible/generable ratios under light vs heavy tails.
• Comparative static propositions on how permissible set changes with additions to the corpus.

Implications for AI Economics

• When policy matters depends on the geometry of creative production:
  • If creative output distributions are light-tailed (high redundancy), restricting outputs via the counterfactual rule would become essentially non-binding as data scale up. Regulatory limits on permissible outputs would not meaningfully constrain model outputs in saturated markets.
  • If creativity is heavy-tailed (persistent novelty and a few unique works), output-based liability can remain binding indefinitely: single works retain leverage and outputs may continue to depend essentially on particular originals.
• Intellectual property design:
  • The counterfactual criterion provides a principled alternative to “substantial similarity” that aligns liability with marginal dependence on training data rather than observed resemblance. This changes litigation incentives and the target of enforcement (which works are “essential” to a harmful output).
  • In large-corpus settings where dependence vanishes, ex ante constraints on training (e.g., licensing) matter more for creator compensation than ex post output rules. Conversely, in heavy-tailed domains, ex post liability or licensing may remain critical to protect creators.
• Market structure and bargaining:
  • Persistence of essential works (heavy tails) gives creators bargaining power and supports licensing markets/ex-post remedies; redundancy (light tails) weakens bargaining power and may encourage different business models (platform-as-aggregator, subscription).
  • The results complement prior work (Gans 2024; Yang & Zhang 2025): policy choices (fair-use scope, copyrights on outputs) interact with corpus scale and innovation tails to affect welfare and incentives.
• Litigation and enforcement:
  • The counterfactual test is conceptually attractive but may be practically hard to implement (requires reasoning about generative pathways, models’ architecture, and counterfactual retraining). Empirical estimation of whether an output is generable without a given work will be technically costly and litigation-intensive.
  • The model highlights where enforcement resources may be most valuable: domains with heavy-tailed returns (e.g., blockbuster media, iconic visual styles) versus domains where redundancy renders enforcement low-value.
• Policy priorities and empirical program:
  • Empirically estimating tail behavior of creative production becomes crucial: regulators should invest in measuring whether artistic/creative output distributions are heavy- or light-tailed in relevant domains.
  • Policy interventions could be tailored: stronger ex post protections (or licensing mandates) in heavy-tailed domains; looser output restrictions and focus on market/redistribution solutions in light-tailed domains.
• Extensions and caveats:
  • The model is abstract and static; welfare implications (consumer surplus, creators’ incentives, innovation) require embedding the criterion into dynamic economic models (production choices, licensing, investment in model quality).
  • Practical application needs operational testing procedures to assess counterfactual generability for particular models and works.
  • Strategic behavior by creators (e.g., intentionally producing “essential” works) or modelers (selective dataset curation) could alter the tail properties and thus policy outcomes.

Overall, the paper reframes infringement as a question of essential dependence in generation, links enforceability to statistical properties of human creativity, and provides a sharp guide for when output-based ownership rules will matter economically.