American copyright-intensive industries contribute 3.37 trillion to US GDP

As the debate over copyright and its relevance in an AI-driven world intensifies, the US Chambers of Commerce Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC) has published a new report which robustly defends the economic value of copyright to the US economy.

According to the report, Unlocking Creativity - A Study of the Socioeconomic Benefits of Copyright, produced for GIPC by Oxford Economics:

Copyright is more than a legal tool—it’s a catalyst for creativity and a driver of prosperity. From software and architecture to music, film, and publishing, copyright-intensive industries are at the heart of the global knowledge economy. This report makes a compelling case for strong copyright protections and enforcement to ensure continued innovation, cultural richness, and economic resilience.

Looking just at the economic value of copyright for the US economy, the report highlights:

• $3.37 trillion: Contribution of total copyright industries to the U.S. GDP in 2023, over 12% of the economy.

• 21.14 million jobs: 9.91% of the U.S. workforce is employed in copyright-intensive or related industries, with average wages 50% higher than the national average.

• $272 billion: U.S. copyright sector exports in 2023, outpacing agriculture, chemicals, and aerospace.

For the US, the report’s authors say:

“Copyright protections are not just legal safeguards—they are the foundation of our creative ecosystem and a critical driver of our economic and cultural leadership.”

But copyright protection is under threat from digital piracy, the report notes:

• $29 to $71 billion: Estimated annual cost of digital piracy to the U.S. economy, along with up to 560,000 jobs lost.

• Piracy’s impact: Digital piracy correlates with a decrease in the quality, production, and creative risks taken in developing creative content.

It’s not just about the US, though; the report notes that the global creative economy is valued at $12 trillion and supports over 50 million jobs worldwide. The report states:

“Almost every country reports that copyright-intensive industries support at least 5% of national employment. In the U.S., the percentage is more than 8% or 16 million jobs.”

Significantly, while the report does not explore the impact of Artificial Intelligence on copyright (presumably because it was outside the remit of the research), it does touch on the AI challenge tangentially:

“As the global economy moves toward digital transformation, it is more important than ever to safeguard the copyright protections that facilitate the exchange of ideas and other intangible goods and services. This is the marketplace of the future and a proven engine for economic growth, job creation, creative production, cultural exchange, and more.”

Ironically, the GIPC study has been published as the battle over AI and whether tech companies can use copyrighted material in training their new AI systems heats up. Tech companies are claiming their use of copyright materials is ‘fair use’ and ‘transformative’; copyright defenders are saying that AI ‘scraping’ of artistic works is devaluing copyright and creators’ income streams.

It is also only a month since the US Copyright Office published a report which many interpreted as a criticism of ‘big tech’ companies for using copyrighted materials without any kind of recompense or even acknowledgement. However, the report’s conclusion was hardly that damning:

“In our view, American leadership in the AI space would best be furthered by supporting both of these world-class industries that contribute so much to our economic and cultural advancement. Effective licensing options can ensure that innovation continues to advance without undermining intellectual property rights. These groundbreaking technologies should benefit both the innovators who design them and the creators whose content fuels them, as well as the general public.”

Even so, it allegedly was a trigger for President Trump firing the head of the US Copyright Office, Register Shira Perlmutter. Perlmutter is fighting her dismissal in court; and the copyright industry appears to be backing her, on the grounds that it was the USCO’s opposition to giving tech companies free rein over using copyrighted materials that got her ousted (see this article from Music Business Worldwide).

This was around the time he also fired Carla Hayden, the US Librarian of Congress, the head of the Library of Congress, and officially Perlmutter’s boss, as the Guardian reports. Hayden, the first woman and African American to hold the role, was supposedly targeted by conservative organization, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF), over the Library’s support for ‘radical’ children’s books and works written by people who oppose President Trump.

Only this week, the AI industry was hailing two US court decisions as major victories over copyright defenders, although the truth is more complex.

In one, Meta managed to get a case filed against it by a group of authors thrown out – but only on the grounds that they "made the wrong arguments," US District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled, as reported in EuroNews and elsewhere. However, the EuroNews article observes: “Chhabria repeatedly said Meta and other AI companies have turned into serial copyright infringers as they train their technology on books and other works created by humans.”

In the other case, EuroNews reports, US District Judge William Alsup ruled that AI company Anthropic wasn’t breaking the law by using copyright works to train its system; but then said it still had to answer a court case over whether it had obtained the materials used illegally, by sourcing books from pirate websites instead of buying them.