ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Limitations of current copyright frameworks for large language models trained on scientific literature.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent copyright lawsuits against artificial intelligence (AI) and large language model (LLM) developers have ignited debates over how to balance technological innovation with the public interest. In the scientific research field, the performance and reliability of LLMs trained on scientific literature (SciLit-LLMs) depend heavily on access to comprehensive, up-to-date full-text sources. This paper argues that the current copyright framework, including the U.S. fair use doctrine, often regarded as a flexible solution for AI-related copyright issues, is ill-suited for SciLit-LLMs. First, the normative values emphasized in scientific-such as accuracy, transparency and interpretability-fundamentally conflict with the "transformative use" requirement central to copyright law. Second, the expression of scientific literature is intended to ensure scientific precision rather than to convey creative originality, remains insufficiently considered under current copyright law. Third, the fair use doctrine's emphasis on limiting the proportion of use from a single copyrighted work contradicts the need for comprehensive training on information-dense scientific texts. Finally, commercial use restrictions impede the sustainable development of SciLit-LLMs and preclude a mutually beneficial model for researchers, publishers, developers, and the public. Imposing current copyright restrictions on these models is unjustified, unnecessary, and risks perpetuating scientific biases. We therefore propose reconstructing copyright exceptions for scientific literature and removing commercial use restrictions to better support scientific innovation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.