Experts Share: Could The Removal Of IP Laws Affect Innovation And The Creative Industry?

Jack Dorsey, known for co-founding Twitter, recently started intense debate when he posted on X, calling for the removal of intellectual property law. Elon Musk agreed in support, which amplified reactions from writers, artists, and other creative communities.

A lot of people were shocked by these tweets, because authors, musicians, and news outlets depend on these rules to maintain control over their work. Lawsuits tied to Dorsey’s OpenAI project have surfaced, alleging that text from news articles and books was used to train their models without formal consent, which in turn brought about new legal battles.

The dispute shows a tension between creative minds and ‘innovative’ enterprises that crave enormous amounts of data to train AI tools. One faction insists that permission and payment are essential, while the other side calls for fewer fences around knowledge.

 

What Could Happen To Copyright?

 

Nicole Shanahan, who practises law, challenged Dorsey’s tweet and views by mentioning that IP statutes are what keep human-made work distinct from AI. She warned that if these rules no longer exist, creations once credited to individuals might be swallowed by automated programmes.

Lawsuits have become heated, with newspapers, authors, and artists claiming their material was extracted without any go ahead. They maintain that feeding AI technology with copied words or images robs them of rightful rewards. Meanwhile, Dorsey insists that true creativity needs no interference from bureaucratic frameworks.

Elon Musk, who has encountered patent battles himself, appears to share Dorsey’s viewpoint. He has been locked in disputes over technology that includes electric vehicles and space travel. Many onlookers believe he is frustrated by repeated legal hurdles, though that does not guarantee he would completely drop IP in practice.

Court rulings so far have not been kind to sweeping usage of copyrighted text or code in training algorithms. The fair use doctrine sometimes offers an avenue for creative or research-based projects, though judges have turned skeptical when the activity is purely commercial…

 

Experts Comment: Could This Affect Innovation?

 

Our Experts:

 

• Kate Swaine, Co-Head of Intellectual Property, Gowling WLG
• Ben Michael, Attorney, Michael & Associates
• Matthew Asbell, Partner, Lippes Mathias
• Philip Bacon, Marketing, Managed Ltd
• Iona Silverman, IP Partner, Freeths
• Jill Bainbridge, Intellectual Property Partner, Harper James
• Jann-Michael Greenburg, CEO, Tresona
• Cheney Hamiliton, Research Analysis Designer, Bloor Research
• Euan Duncan, Partner, MFMac

 

Kate Swaine, Co-Head of Intellectual Property, Gowling WLG

 

 

“Those calling for an end to IP laws argue that it would lead to more competition and more innovation – all at an accelerated pace. That, they argue, is good for industry but also for consumers as greater competition and innovation will drive down cost.

“However, IP protection provides creators with a mechanism by which they can be rewarded for their creativity and innovation. Without that incentive, creators and companies are likely to be reluctant to invest the same amount into research and development. Why innovate if others can simply copy what you create and reap the rewards?

“Rather than accelerating innovation, ending IP laws may well lead to a decline in creativity.”

 

Ben Michael, Attorney, Michael & Associates

 

 

“The removal of IP laws would absolutely impact the creative industry. Creatives of all kinds would lose the rights to their works that have been existent for all of these years, which would then allow other people, businesses, and technologies to essentially “rip off” these creatives without consequence. That could have a major impact on the income of tons of creatives and could even negatively impact the financial wellbeing of the creative industry at large.”

 

Matthew Asbell, Partner, Lippes Mathias

 

 

“It is overly simplistic to imagine that intellectual property attorneys would only be against the banning of intellectual property laws on the principle that supporting such a ban would render us unemployed. Apart from preventing our own unemployment, we are motivated in our opposition by the underlying principles behind intellectual property law – to recognise the value of creativity and encourage the sharing of knowledge and culture for the benefit of society.

“The United States was founded in part on the principles of intellectual property. It is enshrined in our Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, referred to as the IP Clause, explicitly grants Congress the power to enact laws that promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing exclusive rights to authors and inventors. To suggest abolishing intellectual property rights is not a minor policy proposal, it’s tantamount to calling for a fundamental reimagining of the American system.

“Moreover, combined with the idea of imposing tariffs to encourage domestic manufacturing, the proposal envisions a totally different role for this country within the global economy: one where Americans are just the workers producing the innovations from abroad.

“The rationale behind intellectual property rights is clear and deeply economic: without the ability to own exclusive rights in their innovations, while creators and inventors might still innovate, they would have little incentive to share their ideas. Their creations, if disclosed, could be freely copied and commercialized by others, the value of their ingenuity, lost, and the motivation to create, diminished.

“That’s why it’s so surprising and frankly, disappointing to hear successful entrepreneurs who have built their empires relying on the benefits of intellectual property protections, now calling for its elimination. Both Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey have benefited extensively from IP protections in the growth of their companies. For instance:

• Tesla and its related entities hold a handful of copyright registrations, 90 active trademark applications and registrations, and 579 patents and patent applications, including about 15 in which Elon Musk himself is listed as an inventor. These numbers just account for the United States alone, and are multiplied by a number of countries throughout the world.

Twitter/X Corp. owns over 150 trademark applications and registrations and about 424 patents and patent applications, along with 23 copyright registrations, all in the United States alone, with these numbers again being only a portion of its global portfolio.”To now suggest that intellectual property rights are somehow irrelevant or unnecessary is not only disingenuous, it’s dangerous. Are we saying we no longer wish to be a nation of innovation? Are we seeking to turn the United States into a manufacturing economy modeled after the China of previous decades; just as China, notably, is strengthening its own IP laws and protections, taking ownership stakes in major markets throughout the world, including the United States itself?

“If we eliminate intellectual property rights, we risk becoming incapable of competing globally. We would be ceding leadership in creativity, science, and technology to countries that are actively investing in IP development and enforcement and encouraging innovation through legal protections. In such a world, only those who can afford to keep innovations secret or litigate aggressively would benefit, and this would apply only to technologies in which maintaining such secrecy is possible.

“That’s not a vision of progress; it’s a recipe for stagnation. With the banning of intellectual property, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, Hollywood, and Disney World would disappear alongside Shark Tank and the world of startups. We can all just take jobs in the factories, mines, and farms, rely only on outsiders and artificial intelligence for “creativity”, and take a back seat to global development.

“In short, abolishing intellectual property rights would not level the playing field, it would destroy it. The idea is not just short-sighted; it’s a travesty.

“One has to wonder what would motivate the suggestion. The only thing I can think of is that there’s a desire to create greater uncertainty in the marketplace that if these wealthy men can control when there’s uncertainty, and when the markets are impacted by that uncertainty, they can plan investments in order to make themselves richer.

“In other words, I don’t think they really believe what they’re saying. I think this is a form of insider trading. Let’s just say something ridiculous that will send the public into a frenzy, drive down the market so that we can pick up shares that will quickly recover. If they do really mean what they’re saying, which I sincerely doubt, then why stop at Intellectual Property? Why not also get rid of land ownership? Let’s just make it a communist society. What’s really perplexing though is that this is coming from people who have thrived on the capitalistic society that we have.”
 

 

Philip Bacon, Marketing Managed Ltd

 

 

“Those truly concerned by it, need to look back at what has happened in the past. Take the music industry as a prime example, while not IP, track have been reworked, rerecorded, and sampled over and over again. It doesn’t diminish the original’s value, in fact it’s a compliment.

“So while the removal of IP protection initially might feel like a bad thing, ultimately it is going to lead to more creativity and building on better foundations.”

 

Iona Silverman, IP Partner, Freeths

 

 

“AI’s use of content is unprecedented. If we rewind a few years, we can all be fairly comfortable that I am allowed to listen to a song, be inspired by it, and write my own (not too similar) song. I am not, however, allowed to copy someone else’s song or to use it without permission (for instance, in my social media post). The problem with AI, is that it does not copy or use copyright protected works in the traditional way, instead it learns from them to create something new. In the old world that was entirely permissible.

“However, the rate at which AI can consume content, and churn out new content is unprecedented. There is understandable concern from creatives across all sectors that AI will use their works to flood the market with new content. This will drive prices down, meaning already poorly paid creatives will receive even less for their work.

“As usual, copyright is slow to evolve: it cannot keep pace with technology.

“The Government’s proposal is to allow AI to mine data for any purpose, including commercial purposes. This would effectively mean that AI would be permitted to learn from any creative works that it can access, without any remuneration being due to the creators. The Government has proposed that the exception would only apply where a user has lawful access to the creative work, meaning any works where rights are reserved could not be used. Query whether a simple reservation of rights in the form of robot.txt would be sufficient in practice to deter the avaricious monster that is AI. It is likely that a full paywall would be required.

“What is clear is that after the Government’s proposals are implemented (whatever shape they make take) we can expect to see a string of copyright cases to ascertain how the new laws should be interpreted, and ultimately what is fair, as rightsholders continue to fight for recognition and fair compensation.”

 

Jill Bainbridge, Intellectual Property Partner, Harper James

 

 

“The removal or weakening of intellectual property (IP) protections would have a significant and far-reaching impact on innovation and the creative industries. At their core, IP rights are designed to reward and encourage creativity by granting creators and innovators the ability to benefit commercially from their work. Without these protections in place, creators have less motivation to innovate and invest in new ideas.

“In sectors such as technology, music, literature and design, the journey from idea to market-ready product or work is often time-consuming, expensive, and high risk. IP protections give individuals and businesses the reassurance that their investment, whether in time, money or resources, can lead to a return. Strip away that safety net, and you introduce hesitation. Not just from creators, but from investors too. The appetite to back innovation becomes significantly less attractive without the legal mechanisms in place to prevent copying or unauthorised use.

“IP rights also play a vital role in encouraging knowledge sharing. By offering protection, they allow creators to disclose their ideas publicly, fuelling further development and competition, without fear of immediate exploitation. Remove that framework, and the result may be reduced collaboration between organisations.

“The UK’s creative industries in particular are a major contributor to the economy. Weakening copyright, trade mark or design rights would jeopardise livelihoods and reduce the volume and diversity of creative output available to the public. Robust IP protections are a key part of that environment, ensuring creators are supported, industries remain competitive, and the wider economy continues to grow.”

 

Jann-Michael Greenburg, CEO, Tresona

 

 

“Within industrialised economies, absolutely. Innovation requires significant capital expenditure – whether that capital is spent on recording equipment and instruments, developing pharmaceuticals and seeing them through multiple test trials, or creating unique branding for a product or service. Indeed, much of the music industry is built on advances and recoupment models.

“It is difficult if not impossible to incentivise investors to support new products and services, including music, when the end products can be freely copied and used without permission and payment, diminishing the return on investment or potentially eliminating it altogether. The reality is that the speed and growth of innovation has only increased despite the existence of robust IP laws, indicating that IP laws are not a problem.”

 

Cheney Hamiliton, Research Analysis Designer, Bloor Research

 

 

“The removal or weakening of IP protections would have a significant chilling effect on innovation and the creative industries. IP rights don’t just protect ideas, they provide the foundation of trust, investment and reward that allow creators and businesses to take risks. With generative AI, where digital replicas and synthetic content can be produced at scale, IP protections are more important than ever because without them, creators lose control over how their work is used, commercialised and imitated, and this can disincentivise original thinking and experimentation.

“We’re already seeing blurred lines between ownership and automation. As we move into a world of digital twins and outcome-based labour models, particularly under frameworks like FusionWork™, we must ask: who owns the outputs of an AI trained on human creativity?

“Yes, we should absolutely aim for innovation, but not at the cost of fairness. Removing IP protections could lead to a “content commons” dominated by the biggest tech players, where human creators are commoditised or excluded entirely. If we want a future of ethical, diverse, and impactful innovation, IP rights aren’t optional, they’re essential.”

 

Euan Duncan, Partner, MFMac

 

 

“Yes – removing intellectual property (IP) protections would have a seriously damaging impact on innovation and the creative industries.

Copyright and other IP rights give creators the legal foundation to protect and benefit from their work. Without them, there’s far less incentive to invest in original content, particularly in industries like music, film, and television, where ideas are easily copied.

Even with current protections, proving infringement is challenging. Without any legal framework, creators would be left exposed. IP laws don’t hold back innovation – they support it by giving people the confidence to create and invest knowing their work will be protected.”