Proposed CLEAR Act Would Create New Notification Requirements for AI Training and Copyright Protected Work
On February 11th, 2026, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House of Representatives introduced the Copyright Labeling and Ethical AI Reporting (CLEAR) Act. The legislation seeks to create new federal notification requirements that must be followed by generative AI companies that engage in training using copyright protected works. Here, our Florida copyright lawyer provides an overview of key things to know about the proposed legislation.
Background: Generative AI Training Exposes Gaps in Copyright Law
Generative artificial intelligence models increasingly rely on massive datasets of human-authored content to “train” the underlying algorithms that generate text, images, audio, and other creative outputs. Those datasets often include material protected under U.S. copyright law. That is true even though copyright owners have not licensed or consented to such use. Copyright law gives authors exclusive rights to reproduce and prepare derivative works from their creations, and courts remain divided over whether generative AI training constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act. As a result, artists, authors, musicians, performers, and other creators have raised concerns that their works are being used without permission, compensation, or even transparency about when and how their content is incorporated into AI training data.
Note: AI and copyright is by no means a resolved legal issue. There are a number of AI-related copyright cases that are pending in courts throughout the United States.
Proposed Law: What the CLEAR Act Would Require
The CLEAR Act would impose new federal notification obligations on developers of generative AI models that use copyrighted works in their training datasets. Under the proposed legislation, companies would be required to file a detailed notice with the Register of Copyrights listing every copyrighted work included in training data before releasing an AI model to the public. This notice would need to identify the work and, if available, provide a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for each training source. The Register would maintain a publicly accessible database of all submitted notices. Supporters of the law argue it would create more transparency.
Key Proposed Provision: The notice requirement would also apply retroactively to AI models already made available.
Enforcement and Civil Penalties (Strong Remedies)
As drafted, the proposed law has very strong remedies. Indeed, non-compliance would carry civil penalties. AI developers who fail to submit the required notice could face penalties up to $2.5 million, payable to the Copyright Office to support enforcement and administration. Copyright owners would have a private cause of action in federal court to seek compliance and penalties, and prevailing plaintiffs could recover attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Call Our Florida Copyright Law Attorney Today
At Perkins Law — Brand Protection, our Florida copyright attorney is an experienced advocate for clients. If you have any questions about AI training and copyright protection, our team can help. Contact us today for a fully confidential initial consultation. We handle copyright law matters in Boca Raton and throughout South Florida.
Source:
schiff.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/CLEAR-Act-Text.pdf
