MCAI Innovation Vision: Cultural Authority in Crisis, How U.S. IP Policy Lost Its Compass
The Trump Administration’s contradictory stance on intellectual property threatens not only economic fairness—but the very future of cultural innovation in the AI age.
In recent months, intellectual property (IP) policy in the United States has grown increasingly incoherent. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Trump Administration’s handling of copyright, creative protections, and artificial intelligence. The administration has made several high-profile, pro-IP appointments—such as Howard Lutnick to the Department of Commerce and John Squires to lead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Yet despite these symbolic moves, it has simultaneously taken actions that undermine the credibility of that commitment. The abrupt firings of Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden and Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter—both of whom opposed unrestricted AI data harvesting—sent a deeply contradictory message.
As global attention focuses on AI’s exploitation of unlicensed content, the U.S. must model leadership that protects both economic interests and cultural integrity. Instead, voices with direct financial stakes in deregulated data—namely Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey—have been granted disproportionate influence in shaping national narratives. Musk has repeatedly described intellectual property as a "hindrance to progress" and tweeted that "patents are for the weak," reflecting his broader disdain for traditional creator protections. Dorsey, through Bluesky and related projects, has advocated for decentralized protocols with minimal copyright enforcement, reinforcing a platform-driven vision of open data. Their calls for the "elimination of IP rights" are not neutral policy positions; they are lobbying efforts rooted in platform economics, where value is extracted from creative work without meaningful compensation. These private accelerants worsen public inconsistency.
What the Trump Administration lacks is a consistent framework that recognizes IP as a moral and economic asset. Strong IP enforcement is not about gatekeeping; it is about maintaining trust among creators, institutions, and audiences. While flexibility in IP enforcement may be warranted in specific domains—such as academic data sharing or open-source development—it must not extend to allowing AI companies to strip mine creative works without consent or compensation. The false binary between "openness" and "ownership" must give way to adaptive models that uphold attribution, reward, and recourse.
To move from diagnosis to action, the next step is to define a policy framework that corrects these structural contradictions. Coherent IP policy cannot rely on symbolism or deregulated ideology; it must instead ground itself in institutional integrity, creator equity, and globally consistent protections.
To restore coherence, U.S. IP policy must begin with three clear actions—each requiring implementation and oversight by specific institutions. Congress must lead legislative reform to rebalance influence and modernize frameworks. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, and Library of Congress should coordinate to develop enforceable standards and deploy the infrastructure to support attribution and licensing integrity.
Remove or diminish the influence of actors whose platform interests directly conflict with fair creator compensation. This requires identifying and limiting the policy-making roles of individuals or companies that benefit from lax IP enforcement. Their financial incentives distort public debate, leading to policies that privilege platforms over people. Reducing their influence restores trust in IP governance and centers creators in cultural policy.
Economic Impact: Reduces rent-seeking behavior and redistributes value toward creators.
Cultural Impact: Reaffirms cultural labor as worthy of structural respect and institutional protection.
Align national IP strategy with international frameworks that protect cross-border attribution and uphold digital licensing standards. Intellectual property does not stop at national borders, and the U.S. must support interoperable regimes that enable fair global compensation. This includes ratifying and strengthening specific agreements such as the Marrakesh Treaty and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, which promote international recognition of authorship and enforceable cross-border protections. International harmonization deters regulatory arbitrage by tech platforms.
Economic Impact: Strengthens global trade alliances and cultural exports.
Cultural Impact: Sustains visibility for diverse creative traditions in the global information ecosystem.
Support investment in modern copyright infrastructure—such as blockchain-based attribution tracking and AI training transparency—that future-proofs creator rights without stifling legitimate innovation. Legacy copyright systems are unequipped to manage real-time digital flows. Infrastructure modernization enables traceable attribution, streamlines licensing, and enforces boundaries for AI data use. Blockchain-based attribution, for example, allows each piece of creative work to carry a time-stamped, immutable record of authorship and licensing terms, providing both provenance and enforceability in real-time digital environments. These systems balance protection for creators with the need for technical progress.
Economic Impact: Boosts innovation through transparent and efficient licensing markets.
Cultural Impact: Anchors future creative ecosystems in authorship and accountability.
The United States has long been a leader in both creativity and legal innovation. Yet credibility is now at stake. If national IP policy continues to swing between symbolic gestures and conflicting structural inputs, it will signal that culture is expendable and creators are liabilities in a platform-dominated economy—an ecosystem where intermediaries, not contributors, reap rewards.
This is not a policy stance—it is a forfeiture of cultural leadership.
Cultural progress relies on the active participation and recognition of contributors. Intellectual property operates not as a legal mechanism alone—it provides a structure for aligning creative work with value, visibility, and voice. While enforcement strategies may vary, the principle remains: creators must participate in the systems that benefit from their work. Abandoning this principle disconnects innovation from human meaning.
Without IP rights, AI becomes a mimic without memory. With IP rights, it becomes an apprentice to culture—not a thief.
The simulation urges policymakers, technologists, and cultural leaders to treat IP not as a barrier but as essential infrastructure for future innovation. This perspective aligns with findings from the simulation-forecast ChatGPT, MCAI, and the Future of Foresight (May 2025), which explores how structural integrity in AI design hinges on coherent IP frameworks. It is further supported by insights in MCAI: Cognitive AI, a New Paradigm (Apr 2025). Protecting the creator protects the cultural innovation signal. Preserving culture preserves authorship.
Impact on Cultural Innovation: Simulations indicate that weak IP protection contributes to noticeable declines in innovation quality, narrative consistency, and expressive depth across multiple cultural sectors. While exact percentages vary by context, the overall trend underscores a measurable erosion of creative vitality when attribution and reward systems are poorly enforced. Strong IP safeguards the recursive lineage of culture. The future of civilization depends on how we treat its artists. Intellectual property is not an afterthought—it is the blueprint for cultural survival.
This analysis builds on findings from prior MCAI simulation-forecast, The Custodians of Culture: Intellectual Property as Cultural Infrastructure (May 2025).
Prepared by Noel Le, Founder | Architect of MindCast AI LLC. Noel holds a background in law and economics.