ADVERTISEMENT
As the European Artificial Ininformigence Act (AI Act)comes into force, groups representing artists state there are still many loopholes that necessary to be resolveed for them to thrive in a creative world increasingly dominated by AI.
The AI Act, celebrated for being the first comprehensive legislation to regulate AI globally, is riddled with problems, these organisations state.
Groups like the European Composer and Songwriter Alliance (ECSA) and the European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers (GESAC) argue that it fails to protect creators whose works are utilized to train generative AI models.
Without a clear way to opt out or obtain paid when tech companies utilize their music, books, movies, and other art to train their AI models, experts state that their work is continually at risk.
“The work of our members should not be utilized without transparency, consent, and remuneration, and we see that the implementation of the AI Act does not give us,” Marc du Moulin, ECSA’s secretary general, notified Euronews Next.
‘Putting the cart before the horse’
The purpose of the AI Act is to create sure AI stays “safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory and environmentally frifinishly,” the European Commission, the European Union’s executive body, states in an explainer on the law.
The law rates AI companies based on four levels of risk: minimal, limited, high, or unacceptable. Those in the unacceptable range are already banned, for example AIs that are manipulative or that conduct social scoring, where they rank individuals based on behaviour or economic status.
Most generative AI falls into a minimal risk category, the Commission states. The owners of those technologies still have some requirements, like publishing summaries of the copyrighted data that companies utilized to train their AIs.
Under the EU’s copyright laws, companies are allowed to utilize copyrighted materials for text and data mining, like they do in AI training, unless a creator has “reserved their rights,” Du Moulin stated.
Du Moulin stated it’s unclear how an artist can go about opting out of their work being shared with AI companies.
“This whole conversation is putting the cart before the horse. You don’t know how to opt out, but your work is already being utilized,” he stated.
The EU’s AI Code of Practice on General-Purpose (GPAI), a voluntary agreement for AI companies, questions providers to commit to a copyright policy, put in place safeguards to avoid any infringements of rights, and designate a place to receive and process complaints.
Signatories so far include major tech and AI companies such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI.
AI providers have to respect copyright laws, the Commission states
The additional transparency requirements under the AI Act give artists clarity on who has already utilized their material and when, du Moulin added, creating it difficult to claim any payment for work that’s already been scraped to train AI models.
“Even if the AI Act has some good legal implications, it only works for the future – it will not be retroactive,” Du Moulin stated.
“So everything which has been scraped already … it’s a free lunch for generative AI providers who did not pay anything”.
Adriana Moscono, GESAC’s general manager, stated some of her members attempted opting out by sfinishing letters and emails to individual AI companies to obtain a license for their content, but were not successful.
“There was no answer,” Moscono notified Euronews Next. “There was absolute denial of the recognition of … the necessary to respect copyright and to obtain a license. So please, European Commission, encourage licensing”.
Thomas Regnier, a Commission spokesperson, stated in a statement to Euronews Next that AI providers have to respect the rights holders when they carry out text and data mining, and if there have been infringements, they can settle it privately.
The AI Act “in no way affects existing EU copyright laws,” Regnier continued.
Mandate licence neobtainediations, groups question
Du Moulin and Moscono are questioning the Commission to urgently clarify the rules around opting out and copyright protection in the law.
“The code of practice, the template and the guidelines, they don’t provide us any capacity to improve our situation,” Moscono stated. “They’re not guaranteeing … a proper application of the AI Act”.
The advocates stated the Commission could also mandate that AI companies neobtainediate blanket or collective licenses with the respective artist groups.
Germany’s Society for Musical Performing and Mechanical Reproduction Rights (GEMA) filed two copyright lawsuits against AI companies OpenAI, the parent of ChatGPT, and Suno AI, an AI music generation app.
While not directly related to the AI Act, Du Moulin states the verdict could determine to what extent AI companies could be bound to copyright laws.
The Commission and the European Court of Justice, the EU’s high court, have also signalled that they will review the text and data mining exemption in the copyright legislation issued in 2019, Du Moulin stated.
New AI companies have to create sure they are compliant with the AI Act’s regulations by 2026. That deadline extfinishs to 2027 to companies already operating in the EU.
Leave a Reply