AI-Related Outcry over Copyright Infringements
The Great Debate: Rebooting Copyright Law for AI Training in the UK
The UK is locked in a fiery debate about overhauling copyright laws for AI training, and it's getting messy. One of the loudest voices echoing in the House of Lords is Baroness Kidron, who's been blasting the government's proposition to let AI systems learn from copyrighted material without permission from creators, likening it to a "shotgun wedding on slave terms."
She accuses the government of being swept off its feet by Silicon Valley's economic promises and blindly adopting a deal that leaves creators high and dry, stripped of their property rights while tech giants cash in on creative labor. This chorus of critics insists that the only safeguard is to cling to the "golden age UK copyright law of 1709."
But, here's the twist - this portrayal is nothing more than a smokescreen. The reality is far cry from the story being spun.
The Roots Run Deep: British vs Continental Systems
The U.S. copyright system took its inspiration from the UK, and back in 1790, when America inherited it, the British copyright tradition was all about protecting economic interests, controlling reproduction, and guaranteeing financial benefits for copyright holders. Contrary to the continental system, it showed little concern for authors' personal rights over how their works were used.
Now, the UK has flexed its reform muscles over the years, with tweaks in 1911, 1956, and 1988. Yet, these changes, for the most part, have kept the core focus on economic interests while curbing the rights of individual creators. Even the creator rights zooming in on correct crediting and preventing certain changes to a work that landed in 1988, remain narrow and, often, waivable.
A Dish Best Served Warm: Who's Feeling the Heat?
The long-standing balance in UK copyright law shapes the industries we're seeing in the crossfire today. Many of the traditional industries vocal in their defense, like entertainment, have long leveraged creative works under copyright rules that have allowed them to observe, analyze patterns, and build upon online contributions from communities – all without seeking permission.
Let's dive into a couple of examples:
- Dance Moves: Black Artists and Gaming Companies It's a well-known fact that Epic Games, and many gaming companies like it, rake in millions by selling emotes, often virtual recreations of viral dance moves created by Black artists and posted online. These moves might be copyrightable on their own, but the dance moves themselves are fair game since both U.K. and U.S. copyright law only protects choreography when it's in a fixed form.
- On Fleek: Catchphrases Commodified In 2014, Kayla Lewis coined the phrase "on fleek" in a six-second Vine clip. Advertisers soon swooped in, leveraging "on fleek" to sell hundreds of products without Lewis' permission, thanks to copyright law's distinction between the original expression of ideas and the ideas themselves.
The Music Industry: A Chorus of Imitation
The music industry, a vocal critic of AI training, has a history of its own when it comes to borrowing and profiting from musical styles rooted in historically marginalized communities – slipping that under the radar without permission or recourse.
Take Sir Paul McCartney, for instance, who's been voicing concerns about AI ripping off artists' work. But, his concern conveniently sidesteps the legal distinction in copyright law that allowed The Beatles, and the entire music industry, to freely borrow from and profit off musical styles rooted in historically marginalized communities, due to the law only protecting specific recordings and compositions.
Defining Morality in an Ever-Changing Landscape
In nobly defending copyright, the opposition is framing AI training as a violation of fundamental rights, akin to forced labor. But history shows us that exceptions like these have long been a part of UK copyright law.
To call the government's proposal a "shotgun wedding on slave terms" is not just misinformed, it's reckless, oblivious to historical exceptions in copyright law that haven't protected certain creative works, and to the fact that the proposal doesn't involve altering creators' control over their work but instead imposes new restrictions on AI training – restrictions that have never applied to traditional industries.
In the quest for a fairer system, policymakers should broaden their view, departing from copyright principles that have left many creators empty-handed and ensured continued exploitation of creators from marginalized communities. If the goal is preserving the status quo, lawmakers must acknowledge the current reality: AI should not be treated differently from traditional industries in terms of learning from creative works, while also adhering to existing limitations on creators' control over their work.
Image Credits: Flickr/Friends of Europe
Key Insights:
- Historical Evolution of UK Copyright Law: The Statute of Anne in 1710 kicked off copyright protection in England. Over the centuries, copyright laws have gone through several revisions to further extend protection, eliminate the need for separate registrations in different countries, and establish international copyright standards through the Berne Convention. The current core of UK copyright law lies in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
- Focus on Economic Interests and Creator Rights: Throughout its history, UK copyright law has prioritized economic interests and creator rights. Economic interests encompass rights to reproduce, distribute, and communicate works to the public. Creator rights emphasize moral rights that protect an author's right to be identified as the creator of a work and to object to derogatory treatment.
- Comparison with U.S. Copyright System: Both the U.S. and U.K. emphasize creator rights and economic interests in their copyright laws. However, the U.S. tends to have more flexible exceptions to copyright through the "fair use" doctrine, which allows for broader exceptions to copyright infringement, compared to the UK's "fair dealing" concept. Additionally, the U.S. provides limited moral rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, while the UK recognizes these rights fully.
- The ongoing debate about AI training and copyright law in the UK extends to the discussion of economic interests in the field of technology, particularly finance, as the government's policies might impact the financial benefits that tech giants could reap from AI's learning from copyrighted material.
- As the UK continues to review and update its copyright laws, it is crucial to consider the balance between protecting creators' rights and promoting advancements in AI, business, and technology, ensuring that the copyright law of 1709 does not hinder progress while still safeguarding the interests of creators.
