30 Jun AI, COPYRIGHT AND HALACHAH

Lawsuits are in
progress about whether
AI developers infringe
on the rights of content
creators when training
models on copyrighted
material. If my book,
Articles of Faith:
Traditional Jewish Faith in the Internet Era,
is among the trillions of points of data used,
for example, to train ChatGPT, do I have a
copyright claim? That question is now before
the US courts. I would like to discuss here
a different issue. Do you, the user, violate
AI’s copyright by using its content without
attribution? On this question, I suspect that
Jewish law is stricter than American law.
I. Copyright
ChatGPT does not retain copyright over its
outputs. Its terms of use explicitly state: “We
hereby assign to you all our right, title, and
interest, if any, in and to Output.” Similarly,
Anthropic’s terms for Claude say: “Subject to
your compliance with our Terms, we assign
to you all of our right, title, and interest—if
any—in Outputs.” Under American law,
this appears to settle the matter. Granted, if
a court later determines that these models
were trained in violation of copyright, that

could retroactively affect users’ rights to the
outputs. Barring that, there is no other legal
issue in taking the AI’s outputs and signing
your name to it unless you are specifically told
to create original content (e.g. a homework
assignment).
This is significant within halachah, where
there are two primary views on copyright.
According to Rav Nachum Menashe
Weisfish, in his Copyright in Jewish Law,
the majority opinion believes that halachah
grants intellectual property rights to content
creators. The minority opinion believes that
there is no copyright in halachah beyond
the law of the land. In this case, both views
would agree that AI holds no copyright, since
the developers have explicitly waived it.
However, that is not the end of the halachic
discussion.
II. Giving Recognition
Rav Moshe Feinstein (20th cen., US) was
asked about cheating on high school Regents
exams. He writes that students in school are
forbidden from copying answers because
of geneivas da’as, misleading others. You
are falsely claiming to possess knowledge.
If this deception leads to a higher GPA and
ultimately employment, Rav Feinstein says

that you are stealing from your
employer with every paycheck
you receive based on false grades.
That constitutes actual, ongoing
geneivah (theft) in addition to
the initial geneivas da’as (Iggeros
Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, vol. 2
no. 30).
Rav Chaim Sofer (19th cen.,
Hungary) was asked whether you
may say a Torah insight in the
name of a non-Orthodox scholar.
He answers that it is improper to
do so (as I discuss at length in my
book, Articles of Faith, ch. 14). However,
he adds that you may not take credit for
the insight. Rather, you should say that you
heard it from someone else, to avoid stealing
intellectual credit (Machaneh Chaim, vol. 3
no. 11).
Similarly, Rav Nachum Menashe Weisfish
(op cit., 16:5): “It is prohibited for one
to accept undeserved credit. Thus, it is
forbidden to relate thoughts of another and
claim them as one’s own.” He adds (16:24):
“If a person permits others to repeat his
thoughts without mentioning his name, then
doing so does not constitute theft. However,
one may not give the impression of being the
originator of the thoughts, as it is forbidden
to accept undeserved honor for knowledge,
etc., which one does not truly possess.”
Applying this to AI, presenting its output
as your own misrepresents your knowledge,
skills and achievements. This constitutes
geneivas da’as and may lead to outright
geneivah.
III. Showing Gratitude
Rav Aaron Levine (21st cen., US) takes this
further. argues that failing to properly cite
sources is not just misrepresentation but
also a lack of hakaras ha-tov, gratitude. If
you quote a primary source because you
saw it cited in a secondary work, you must
also credit that secondary source, since it
acted as your teacher. Even if you verify
the original, the person who led you there
deserves acknowledgement. Rav Levine
connects this to the teaching in Avos 6:6:
“Whoever repeats something in the name of
the one who said it brings redemption to the
world” (Moral Issues of the Marketplace in
Jewish Law, pp. 31-35).
However, AI is not a person to whom you
owe gratitude. It is an object, a stick or a
stone. Are we obligated to show gratitude
to inanimate objects? Perhaps surprisingly,
we see unequivocally from midrash that we
are, indeed, expected to show gratitude to
inanimate objects. In the biblical story of the
ten plagues, Moshe does not initiate the first
two plagues — water and frogs (Ex. 7:19-

20, 8:1-2). The midrash explains that since the
Nile protected Moshe as a baby, G-d insisted
that he show gratitude by refraining from
punishing the river (Shemos Rabbah 9:10).
The same idea applies to the third plague
of lice, which started in the dirt in which
Moshe hid the Egyptian he killed (Ex. 8:12-
13; Shemos Rabbah 10:7). Commentators
explain that for the sake of our own character,
we must recognize the benefits we receive
from inanimate objects and respect them
accordingly (e.g. Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl,
Sichos Le-Sefer Shemos, p. 19).
IV. Ghostwriting
At the same time, halachah acknowledges
the role of common practice. Ghostwriting
is sometimes accepted. I have personally
ghostwritten articles for well-known rabbis.
These pieces reflected their ideas and were
reviewed and approved by them. In such
cases, readers understand that extremely busy
public figures may employ others to help
articulate their thoughts. Within that context
and expectation, there is no deception.
But in other contexts, ghostwriting is clearly
dishonest. For example, it is not acceptable to
submit someone else’s writing for academic
credit or for pay without disclosing the actual
author. Again, it is a matter of assumptions
based on industry standards. When it comes to
editing, there is even more room for external
help — whether human or electronic.
Ultimately, halachah takes industry standards
and assumptions into account, including
regarding AI. If there is no assumption that
the stated author actually wrote the words,
then there is no concern for theft. With
ghostwriters and editors, omission of credit
may involve ingratitude but if you pay the
author or editor with the understanding that
he will not be mentioned, then he waives
his right to mention. Since ChatGPT grants
permission to use its outputs without
attribution, it can be argued that it likewise
waives the right to be credited. Nonetheless,
unless prevailing norms suggest otherwise,
halachah generally expects users to disclose
when content is generated by AI. Of course,
norms and standards change over time.