The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts

Them's Fighting Prayers

Neal C. Ternes — 2025-12-10

Bridging the Workers' Data Value Gap in the Age of Corporate Automation

Mattias Rättzén — 2025-12-10

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (“AI”) is transforming corporate innovation, enabling the automation of work traditionally performed by humans. Companies increasingly rely on internal data to develop and train AI systems, much of which originates from their own workforces. This includes work products created by employees or contractors in the course of their duties, here referred to as “workers’ data.” Workers’ data may hold significant value as it is often of high quality, high quantity and of high relevance. Yet, ironically, if workers’ data is used for automation purposes, it could displace the very employees who were responsible for generating the data in the first place. The risk of a “job apocalypse,” where hundreds of millions of jobs could be replaced by AI in the coming years, becomes increasingly real as more companies push towards automating parts of their workforces. Work products used to generate workers’ data will often qualify as copyright-protected works. The workers, who are authors in copyright law, will often have assigned their copyright to their respective employers or contractees, whether by statute or by contract. However, that companies may own the copyright for the work products, including the data, does not necessarily confer unlimited freedom of use. This Article critically examines thelegal boundaries on the use of workers’ data for AI and automation purposes, focusing on the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States. Overall, the current legal framework largely falls short of adequately protecting workers’ rights when it comes to use of their data by employers, with one important exception. In the EU, the DSM Directive introduces a right for authors to claim additional remuneration where the economic value derived from their works is significantly greater thanwhat they were originally paid. This right to contract adjustment, commonly referred to as the “best-seller” rule, may, in certain cases, help workers whose data are being used without fair remuneration, bridging what is coined as the “workers’ data valuegap.” Whether workers are entitled to further remuneration will depend on highly fact-specific circumstances, and outcomes are likely to vary from case to case.The urgency of addressing these issues cannot be overstated. Workers’ data is expected to play an increasingly central role in corporate automation projects worldwide, with consequences that extend far beyond the EU. Without a clear and coherent legal framework, there is a dual risk. On the one hand, companies may undervalue or fail to properly compensate for the human contributions that make automation possible; on the other hand, legal uncertainty or excessive compensation claims could deter or slow down automation initiatives. This Article calls for economic, policy, and legal research to explore these questions in greater detail, and to develop balanced solutions that both protect workers’ rights and foster innovation in the coming age of corporate automation.

Detachable Speech: Artistic Expression, Same-Sex Weddings, and the First Amendment

Paul Szynol — 2025-12-10

In the last decade, courts have consistently upheld objections to public accommodation laws that would obligate unwilling vendors to provide services for same-sex weddings. At the heart of these disputes is the claim that, when they are required to provide wedding services to same-sex couples, vendors who oppose same-sex marriage are unconstitutionally forced to endorse them. These cases typically classify wedding content, such as photography and wedding cakes, as a form of artistic, personal, and ideological speech that endorses same-sex weddings. In this paper, I argue that wedding content not only isn’t a form of endorsement, but that it is altogether devoid of political, religious, and ethical values attributable to the service provider. Rather than personal and ideological speech, wedding content is a form of speech that I call detachablespeech—that is, speech which is intentionally designed for adoption by another party, and, conversely, isn’t meant to convey the creator’s personal ideology. From advertisements and marketing materials to sitcoms and commissioned film screenplays, contentgenerators who work in creative industries routinely and voluntarily create expression that doesn’t reflect their personal values. Indeed, in some cases, detachable content—e.g., a greeting card or a sign meant for the front lawn—is fungible and arguably doesn’t even become speech until it’s adopted by another party. Similarly, wedding content is not designed to convey the service provider’s values any more than a greeting card reflects the manufacturer’s personal point of view. Wedding content, rather than ideological speech,is a form of speech widget produced to specification. The recognition that wedding content is not an endorsement substantially weakens the First Amendment challenge to public accommodation laws in connection with same-sex weddings.

Cover and Front Matter

Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts — 2025-12-10

Once Upon an Infringer: What Similarity Analysis Can Learn From Structural Folkloristics

Madeline Mooney — 2025-12-10