Justine Bateman, a talented artist and director, delivered a speech outside Netflix on July 13, 2023, in Los Angeles, during the Writers Guild conference. Bateman voiced her apprehension regarding AI systems that were “consuming 100 years of film” and television content, potentially disrupting the film industry’s structure and displacing a significant portion of its workforce. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill, File Credit)
Country music artists, romance novelists, game developers, and voice actors are urging the U.S. government to offer immediate assistance in light of the threat posed by artificial intelligence to their professions.
Expressing fear, a blogger stated, “Choose control AI.” He expressed concerns that AI could replicate his voice, echoing sentiments shared in thousands of letters recently submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office.
In contrast, technology companies seem satisfied with the current situation as it enables them to analyze vast amounts of published content to enhance their AI systems’ ability to imitate human behavior.
The top official in charge of rights in the country has not yet taken a definitive stance. While contemplating whether rights reforms are necessary for a new era of interactive AI tools that generate compelling images, audio, video, and text, she conveyed that she is open to input from all parties, as reported by The Associated Press.
During an examination, Shira Perlmutter, the U.S. Register of Copyrights, mentioned, “We have received nearly 10,000 comments.” She emphasized that each comment is reviewed by a person, not a computer, and a significant portion of them are personally reviewed by her.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
Under Perlmutter’s leadership, the U.S. Copyright Office recently registered over 480,000 copyrights last month, encompassing millions of individual works. However, the office is facing challenges regarding copyrights for AI-generated content. Since copyright laws aim to protect works created by human authors, claims related to entirely AI-generated content have generally been rejected.
Perlmutter poses a thought-provoking question: Is there a threshold at which human involvement in controlling the creative aspects of AI-generated content can be deemed as contributing authorship? This query arises as humans input content into AI systems and provide directives on the output.
The Copyright Office has solicited public feedback on this issue. Moreover, the unauthorized use of copyrighted works sourced from the internet to train AI systems, often without permission or compensation, has sparked significant concern within the artistic community, drawing hundreds of comments.
As the initial comment period closed in early October with over 9,700 submissions, a subsequent round of responses is scheduled for December 6. Following this, Perlmutter’s office will work on providing recommendations to Congress and other stakeholders regarding the necessity for potential changes.
ARTISTIC COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES
Justine Bateman, known for her work as an actor and director in “Family Ties,” expressed her worry about AI models assimilating “100 years of visual content” and television programming, potentially disrupting the traditional framework of the film industry and replacing significant portions of its creative workforce. She shared these concerns during a presentation at the U.S. Copyright Office.
Bateman emphasized that this phenomenon appears to be a significant infringement on American creative rights throughout history and urged for swift action to address this issue.
Lilla Zuckerman, a television showrunner for “Poker Face,” echoed similar sentiments, advocating for the industry to combat what she perceives as a “plagiarism machine.” She warned against allowing Hollywood to be dominated by profit-driven entities seeking to eliminate human creativity from the entertainment sector.
Marc Beeson, a prominent country music songwriter based in Nashville, highlighted the precarious position of the music industry. While acknowledging the potential benefits of AI, Beeson likened it to a double-edged sword, capable of causing irreparable damage if not regulated properly, akin to a weapon in the wrong hands.
While individual commentators dominated the discourse, major music publishers, such as Universal Music Group, and various author groups and media outlets, including The New York Times and The Associated Press, raised similar concerns regarding AI’s impact on creative industries.
FAIR USE DEBATE
Major tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, argue to the Copyright Office that their AI training practices align with the “fair use” doctrine, permitting limited use of copyrighted materials for purposes such as education, research, or transformative works.
Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, highlighted that AI training in the UK operates under the understanding that the Copyright Act does not prohibit the use of copyrighted materials for training Generative AI models. They emphasized that the objective of AI training is to identify patterns across a broad spectrum of content, not to replicate specific works.
In the legal realm, courts have predominantly favored technology companies when addressing patent issues related to AI systems. A recent case challenging AI image-generation was largely dismissed by a federal judge in San Francisco, although certain aspects of the case were allowed to proceed, offering a mixed outcome for visual artists.
Drawing parallels to Google’s legal battles over its online book library, software companies point to Google’s successful navigation of copyright challenges as a precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings in 2016, affirming that Google’s digitization of books and display of excerpts constituted fair use, despite objections from authors.
However, former law professor and bestselling romance author Heidi Bond, known as Courtney Milan, argued that this comparison is flawed. While acknowledging the scope of fair use, Bond contended that Google Books obtained legal copies from libraries and institutions, unlike some AI developers who engage in what she describes as “outright piracy” of written works.
Perlmutter assured that the Copyright Office is actively working to address these complex issues and determine the appropriate course of action.
