UK Arts and Media Reject Plan To Let AI Firms Use Copyrighted Material (theguardian.com) 9
Writers, publishers, musicians, photographers, movie producers and newspapers have rejected the Labour government's plan to create a copyright exemption to help AI companies train their algorithms. From a report: In a joint statement, bodies representing thousands of creatives dismissed the proposal made by ministers on Tuesday that would allow companies such as Open AI, Google and Meta to train their AI systems on published works unless their owners actively opt out.
The Creative Rights in AI Coalition (Crac) said existing copyright laws must be respected and enforced rather than degraded. The coalition includes the British Phonographic Industry, the Independent Society of Musicians, the Motion Picture Association and the Society of Authors as well as Mumsnet, the Guardian, Financial Times, Telegraph, Getty Images, the Daily Mail Group and Newsquest.
Their intervention comes a day after the technology and culture minister Chris Bryant told parliament the proposed system, subject to a 10-week consultation, would "improve access to content by AI developers, whilst allowing rights holders to control how their content is used for AI training."
The Creative Rights in AI Coalition (Crac) said existing copyright laws must be respected and enforced rather than degraded. The coalition includes the British Phonographic Industry, the Independent Society of Musicians, the Motion Picture Association and the Society of Authors as well as Mumsnet, the Guardian, Financial Times, Telegraph, Getty Images, the Daily Mail Group and Newsquest.
Their intervention comes a day after the technology and culture minister Chris Bryant told parliament the proposed system, subject to a 10-week consultation, would "improve access to content by AI developers, whilst allowing rights holders to control how their content is used for AI training."
What's next? (Score:2, Insightful)
...prohibiting art students from studying published work?
ALL human training is done by studying the work of others
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fine. Then make all AI models free to use in perpetuity. Server costs? Training costs? Development costs? All free, forever.
You can't make one argument that it's just "training" and "studying" the works of others, and then justify that it should be a sold product for profit, because the AI company used that data for free, without compensation. So why should they get to repackage it and sell it?
Okay, so you argue that the AI company had to pay to develop the model, so they did something original by creating it. Well, so did the creators of those original works too. What gives anyone else the right to take that work for free?
That's the problem with your thinking. You believe that it is okay for Party A to exploit the work of Party B simply because you found Party A's exploitation useful to you.
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
That response is the most precise and succinct description of the problems at hand.
Pirates ahoy! (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no meaningful case for arguing that the use of copyright material materially undermines the protection it provides to creatives. All their resistance is is an attempt to gouge tech companies. Whilst this may appear an attractive option, ultimately such gouging merely prevents the advance of the technology.
The US constitution is clear: copyrights are granted to 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Art' Article 1 Section 8. This is doing the opposite.
Re: Pirates ahoy! (Score:3)
Agreed. They're just rent seekers. They have no moral standing whatsoever after the Disney Extension.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no meaningful case for arguing that the use of copyright material materially undermines the protection it provides to creatives. All their resistance is is an attempt to gouge tech companies. Whilst this may appear an attractive option, ultimately such gouging merely prevents the advance of the technology.
The US constitution is clear: copyrights are granted to 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Art' Article 1 Section 8. This is doing the opposite.
This is a report from the UK. I don't know why you're wittering on about US stuff.
I'll take that (Score:2)