I recently attended a hearing on May 2 on AI and visual arts as part of an Artificial Intelligence Initiative sponsored by the US Copyright Office. This informative session brought together interested parties including representatives from the Copyright Alliance, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), Library Copyright Alliance, Emory University Law – AI Humanity Initiative, Microsoft, National Writers’ Union and others.
There were several interested points made worth commenting on –
Point #1: AI work should not be hindered but AI practitioners should respect the rights of original art creators.
- In my mind, the point of the discussion is not to hinder technological advancements. Copyright laws encouraging ethical practices by AI businesses will not hinder the progress but only encourage better practices to start. Another point made along these lines that I agree with is that Congress needs to not wait on companies to be ethical and responsible on their own when their primary goal should be making money. Congress should act to pass thoughtful regulation to address potential copyright infringements and give creators some redress.
- Highly famous works with old or no copyright remain susceptible to being utilized by AI practitioners for any and everything under the sun. This is why I’ve always been an advocate of the estate of the deceased artist having copyright protection when there is no art society or organization to protect the rights of the work by the deceased artists. These artists can no longer speak for their work.
Point #2: Instead of passing more restrictive copyright laws for AI-generated works, the US Copyright Office should issue fair use guidelines similar to the education and fair use doctrine. This would provide the necessary training and help on ways for AI practitioners to avoid infringing upon existing copyrights.
- The main difference between AI work and education/fair use is the end product. In the former, there is a lot more money involved with AI products. AI companies have already sprung up to train their models using high-quality original works by artists of all kinds. A fair use doctrine which is lean on providing legal protection for artists who have been infringed upon, will probably not cut it at this point.
Point #3: AI should be thought off as a powerful advancement for critical thinking by promoting the spread of knowledge and science. We should think of AI as a “co-pilot” sitting alongside of humans.
- Having been in technology since the early ’80’s, this point reminded me of the early days of Office Assistant (remember Clippy) all the way to humanless-driven cars. Are we still trying to replace astronauts with monkeys…no, robo-monkeys, right? This machine as co-pilot scenario has been posited at the start of many major advancements for machines and robotics. AI companies are training large language models in writing and coding…is this to assist humans or to replace. If I had $5 to bet, I’d put it on the latter. As with many advances, there will be a portion of humans left behind…what is that old saying, “adapt or die”.
Resources –
- Copyright Alliance
https://copyrightalliance.org/ - Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
https://ccianet.org/advocacy/emerging-tech/ - Library Copyright Alliance
https://www.arl.org/library-copyright-alliance/#:~:text=The%20Library%20Copyright%20Alliance%20(LCA,affect%20libraries%20and%20their%20users. - Emory University Law – AI Humanity Initiative
https://aihumanity.emory.edu/ - Microsoft AI
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai - National Writers’ Union
https://nwu.org/ - US Copyright Office, Artificial Intelligence Initiative
https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2023/1004.html - US Copyright Office, Education and Fair Use Doctrine
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/#:~:text=About%20Fair%20Use,protected%20works%20in%20certain%20circumstances.
HEATH Information 