The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Is This What We Want?

Comments

  3. Silence is good, but if they’d released an album containing a single meaningful ‘tut’ of disapproval from each participant, that would cow all concerned into taking immediate action.

  5. Where the new legislation is grossly unfair is that creators can opt out of having their music used, but they need to do so themselves with each individual AI company that may wish to use it. A blanket opt-out has not been catered for in the legislation.
    In my view, it should rather be an opt-in system, where unless permission is granted for use by specific companies, or by any company, any use is not permitted.
    The onus for granting or gaining permission should be on the AI companies, not on the artists.

  8. It’s utterly crap isn’t it. Once again the government sucks up to technology companies and doesn’t give a toss about the creative sector despite the fact that one of them is dedicated to making life worse and the other to making it better. Philistines, though I can’t say I’m surprised.

  9. I got a reply from my MP here’s part of it.

    “The Government ran a consultation on the intellectual property rights of patents and copyright and the impact of artificial intelligence between 29 October 2021 and 7 January 2022. It published its response on 28 June 2022. As you know, the Government proposed a new copyright and database exemption for text and data mining. It has said it received limited quantitative evidence on this subject during the consultation. It added that the exemption will be targeted to limit negative impacts, and that it welcomes further evidence from rights holders, including performers, on how to achieve this.

    It also announced plans for a Creative Industries Sector Vision which it says will set out a long-term strategy focused on promoting growth, including a section on the impact of artificial intelligence on the sector. It previously said this will be published in summer 2022 and now says it will be published in due course.

    Thank you once again for contacting me about this issue. I can assure you I will follow developments on these matters and that the Opposition will continue to take opportunities to raise them with Government ministers.”

    I have a feeling this may be a touch old as she is now in the government.

      • Here’s the updated reply after I wrote directly to say they’d sent the wrong email, they still sent the reply to the petition originators and not to me. This was then forwarded from them.

        I am really sorry you were sent the wrong response to your query, I hope this current response answers your question correctly.
        Thank you for contacting me about creative industries and the application of copyright laws to artificial intelligence (AI).

        Arts and culture are central to our national story. I know the Government recognises the importance of the concerns you raise, and understands the balance between supporting and protecting human-centred creativity and exploring the potential of emerging technologies.

        I support right holders to exercise control over the use of their content in the training of AI models and their ability to be remunerated for their work. Writers, musicians, artists and other creatives should have the ability to know and control the use of their content, as well as the ability to seek licensing deals and fair payment.

        The application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is currently disputed and these are the challenges right holders face today. Right holders are often unable in practice to control how copyright in their work is used or to gain remuneration for their works, this is often particularly true for new or solo artists. This situation is hampering innovation and growth in both our creative and AI sectors. The Government is therefore consulting on plans to provide legal certainty to both sectors.

        The Government’s proposals include a mechanism for rights holders to reserve their rights, allowing creators to license and be remunerated for the use of their work in AI training. Under this proposal, right holders can expressly reserve their rights and AI developers are only allowed to train on materials in which right holders did not reserve their rights. This approach of a data mining exception allows right holders to reserve their rights underpinned by transparency and removes legal ambiguity.

        The Government recognises that for rights reservation and measures on transparency to work in practice, there will need to be appropriate support to encourage widespread adoption and compliance. The Government is keen to ensure that rights holders understand how and where their content is used, while also ensuring any measures are not disproportionate for small businesses and individuals.

        I would like to assure you that this Government stands steadfast behind our world-class creative and media industries that add so much to our cultural and economic life. Thank you once again for contacting me about this issue.

  10. I’ve been involved in the consultation on this. Speaking purely personally, I think the government is in danger of giving up the family silver to fund an arms race with an as yet undetermined final destination. A lot of people are going to burn their houses down chasing the AI dream, I’d really prefer we weren’t one of them. You can’t build sound policy on FOMO.

    Agree completely with what Twang says about re: technology companies and creative companies. The former are still just about trading off the tech utopia dreams of 20 years ago, whereas we have by now plenty of evidence that anything they’re allowed to control pretty quickly sours and curdles.

    If we’re going to have a free for all on IP then suggest the tech bros lead the way by open sourcing all their proprietary code; maybe someone else can find a way to run one of these businesses without trashing wider society.

    • Quite. There’s so much of my life which could be enhanced by A.I. but art and culture is not it. Nothing I’ve seen of machine-rendered images, text or music has bettered that produced by humans. There’s no shortage of human-created art right now – more new tracks released this week than in the previous 50 years {Edith: needs fact-checking}.

      A.I. could enhance my job (part of which is Quality Control), my medical care (part of which is image recognition), and part of which is training (how I’d love to have RoboMe teach my daughter to drive, so that I could stay at home and play records).

      Horses for courses. Leave the fun stuff alone.

Leave a Reply