When artistic material is used to teach AI models, the U.K. government has started a discussion to find ways to safeguard the rights of writers, composers, and artists. The goal is to promote technological innovation while allowing designers to manage their copyrighted content.
A proposal has been made to require accountability from AI engineers, like OpenAI and Google, regarding the imaginative content they use and how they get it. If they choose to withdraw their work from being used to teach models or negotiate licensing agreements, it will also give rights holders the ability to do so.
Despite the fact that numerous licensing agreements have already been reached between software companies and artists, the government claims that some creators have had to seek more support because of the existing copyright regime.
The plan also seeks to encourage technology businesses to “have access to high-quality materials to educate leading AI models in the UK and promote advancement across the UK AI business.” It proposes creating a rule to apply to the UK laws that now forbid using copyrighted material without authorization to train business models. This change aims to give AI companies more control over what content they may use legally.
” Both businesses are currently being held back from reaching their full potential by uncertainty about how rights law applies to AI.” It can make it hard for designers to control or get pay for the use of their work, and creates legal dangers for AI firms, stifling AI investment, technology, and adoption”, the authorities said in a press release.
The Intellectual Property Office will lead the conversation until Feb. 25, 2025, and it will also ask for opinions on public figures ‘ character rights and copyright protection in the framework of deepfakes or words copying. In May, OpenAI faced criticism for using a tone almost identical to Scarlet Johansson’s in its GPT-4o video without her consent.
Observe: Google to Label AI-Generated Images in Search Results
Peter Kyle, the U. K.’s systems secretary, said in the press release that the emphasis is “balancing solid protections for creators while removing barriers to Artificial development”.
It is obvious that neither our creative industries nor our AI sectors can compete on the global stage under our current AI and copyright laws, he continued.
Unsatisfied with the proposal by the creative industry
The creative sector has not acted favorably on the suggestions. The Independent Society of Musicians has “immediate concerns” about the effectiveness of the opt-out system for performers. According to the Council of Music Makers, “explicit consent must always be obtained from music-makers,” and licensing agreements should result in them receiving fair compensation for their contributions.
Several high-profile musicians, including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush, and ABBA’s Björn Ulvaeus, have recently voiced their concerns about how AI companies use copyrighted works without permission.
The CEO of the British phonographic industry, Dr. Jo Twist, stated in a statement to Music Week:” We are firmly convinced that a copyright exception would bring the AI and creative industries closer to a consensus on a functioning licensing model; in fact, we think it would further dissuade tech companies from doing so.”
Publishers Association CEO, Dan Conway, agreed, saying in a statement that” there has been no objective case made for a new copyright exception, nor has a water-tight rights-reservation process been outlined anywhere around the globe”.
Baroness Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer, AI ethics expert, and former filmmaker, told The Guardian that she was “very disappointed” with the proposals as they would allow AI firms to” shirk their responsibilities”.
On the other hand, techUK, the UK’s technology trade association, “welcome ( s ) the Government’s commitment to finding a solution that creates a competitive and supportive environment for both the UK tech and creative sectors”, as per its statement. It is in everyone’s best interest to address these issues in a way that promotes growth and innovation.
launched to press the government to uphold copyright laws.
The consultation was held one day after the Creative Rights in AI Coalition, a group that urged the UK government to protect copyright laws and establish a dynamic licensing market, was launched. Members include the BPI and bodies representing authors, illustrators, publishers, and photographers.
The government must support three demands made by the Creative Rights in AI Coalition: one, that existing copyright laws be upheld, giving intellectual property owners exclusive rights over their work, including control over licensing for AI companies.
SEE: Behind the Controversy: Why Artists Hate AI Art
The coalition states on its website that” we must ensure the onus will be on generative AI firms to seek permission and engage with rights holders to agree on licences.” ” Tech firms must be content to pay for the high-quality copyright-protected works that are necessary to train and ground accurate GAI models, just as they are content to pay for the enormous quantity of electricity that powers their data centers.”
It added that strong copyright laws would encourage AI companies to pay for artists ‘ content, keeping the original training data and the resulting AI-generated work in high quality.
The government should ensure that creators are informed of how their content is used in AI development and support policies that balance the advancement of AI technologies with the protections of creative rights.
This week’s proposal does cover these principles. However, it remains to be seen whether they are sufficient for the coalition. The Publishers Association and the Authors ‘ Licensing and Collecting Society are just a few of the members who have indicated they will take part in the consultation. The coalition has a statement from TechRepublic.
