Music labels' AI lawsuits create copyright puzzle for courts; Reuters, August 4, 2024

Blake Brittain, Reuters; Music labels' AI lawsuits create copyright puzzle for courts

"Suno and Udio pointed to past public statements defending their technology when asked for comment for this story. They filed their initial responses in court on Thursday, denying any copyright violations and arguing that the lawsuits were attempts to stifle smaller competitors. They compared the labels' protests to past industry concerns about synthesizers, drum machines and other innovations replacing human musicians...

The labels' claims echo allegations by novelists, news outlets, music publishers and others in high-profile copyright lawsuits over chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude that use generative AI to create text. Those lawsuits are still pending and in their early stages.

Both sets of cases pose novel questions for the courts, including whether the law should make exceptions for AI's use of copyrighted material to create something new...

"Music copyright has always been a messy universe," said Julie Albert, an intellectual property partner at law firm Baker Botts in New York who is tracking the new cases. And even without that complication, Albert said fast-evolving AI technology is creating new uncertainty at every level of copyright law.

WHOSE FAIR USE?

The intricacies of music may matter less in the end if, as many expect, the AI cases boil down to a "fair use" defense against infringement claims - another area of U.S. copyright law filled with open questions."

An academic publisher has struck an AI data deal with Microsoft – without their authors’ knowledge; The Conversation, July 23, 2024

Wellett Potter, Lecturer in Law, University of New England , The Conversation; ; An academic publisher has struck an AI data deal with Microsoft – without their authors’ knowledge

"In May, a multibillion-dollar UK-based multinational called Informa announced in a trading update that it had signed a deal with Microsoft involving “access to advanced learning content and data, and a partnership to explore AI expert applications”. Informa is the parent company of Taylor & Francis, which publishes a wide range of academic and technical books and journals, so the data in question may include the content of these books and journals.

According to reports published last week, the authors of the content do not appear to have been asked or even informed about the deal. What’s more, they say they had no opportunity to opt out of the deal, and will not see any money from it...

The types of agreements being reached between academic publishers and AI companies have sparked bigger-picture concerns for many academics. Do we want scholarly research to be reduced to content for AI knowledge mining? There are no clear answers about the ethics and morals of such practices."

The Media Industry’s Race To License Content For AI; Forbes, July 18, 2024

 Bill Rosenblatt, Forbes; The Media Industry’s Race To License Content For AI

"AI content licensing initiatives abound. More and more media companies have reached license agreements with AI companies individually. Several startups have formed to aggregate content into large collections for AI platforms to license in one-stop shopping arrangements known in the jargon as blanket licenses. There are now so many such startups that last month they formed a trade association—the Dataset Providers Alliance—to organize them for advocacy.

Ironically, the growing volume of all this activity could jeopardize its value for copyright owners and AI platforms alike.

It will take years before the panoply of lawsuits yield any degree of clarity in the legal rules for copyright in the AI age; we’re in the second year of what is typically a decade-long process for copyright laws to adapt to disruptive technologies. One reason for copyright owners to organize now to provide licenses for AI is that—as we’ve learned from analogous situations in the past—both courts and Congress will consider is how easy it is for the AI companies to license content properly in determining whether licensing is required."

Original sins and dirty secrets: GenAI has an ethics problem. These are the three things it most urgently needs to fix; Fortune, June 27, 2024

 SAGE LAZZARO, Fortune; Original sins and dirty secrets: GenAI has an ethics problem. These are the three things it most urgently needs to fix

"The ethics of generative AI has been in the news this week. AI companies have been accused of taking copyrighted creative works without permission to train their models, and there’s been documentation of those models producing outputs that plagiarize from that training data. Today, I’m going to make the case that generative AI can never be ethical as long as three issues that are currently inherent to the technology remain. First, there’s the fact that generative AI was created using stolen data. Second, it’s built on exploitative labor. And third, it’s exponentially worsening the energy crisis at a pivotal time when we need to be scaling back, not accelerating, our energy demands and environmental impact."

OpenAI and Google DeepMind workers warn of AI industry risks in open letter; The Guardian, June 4, 2024

 Nick Robins-Early, The Guardian; OpenAI and Google DeepMind workers warn of AI industry risks in open letter

"A group of current and former employees at prominent artificial intelligence companies issued an open letter on Tuesday that warned of a lack of safety oversight within the industry and called for increased protections for whistleblowers.

The letter, which calls for a “right to warn about artificial intelligence”, is one of the most public statements about the dangers of AI from employees within what is generally a secretive industry. Eleven current and former OpenAI workers signed the letter, along with two current or former Google DeepMind employees – one of whom previously worked at Anthropic."

Creatives Battling AI Companies Over Copyright Turn to Congress; Bloomberg Law, January 29, 2024

Isaiah Poritz, Legal Reporter; Diego Areas Munhoz 

Reporter, Bloomberg Law ; Creatives Battling AI Companies Over Copyright Turn to Congress

"In 1908, the Supreme Court ruled that “piano rolls,” a new and increasingly popular technology that automatically played songs without a human musician, didn’t violate copyright law—a blow to the music industry. Songwriters and composers felt their livelihoods threatened but had no grounds to demand royalties from piano-roll makers that copied their sheet music.

That was until Congress stepped in the following year, amending the law to address piano rolls and ensure musicians were paid royalties.

More than a century later, musicians—along with other creatives—are yet again fearful an emerging technology could disrupt their industries: artificial intelligence."

AI’s Billion-Dollar Copyright Battle Starts With a Font Designer; Bloomberg Law, December 18, 2023

 Isaiah Poritz, Bloomberg Law; AI’s Billion-Dollar Copyright Battle Starts With a Font Designer

"The makers of Copilot, which include OpenAI Inc., Microsoft Corp., GitHub Inc., and other top AI companies, are now facing nearly a dozen lawsuits from authors, artists, and programmers. They claim the industry has vacuumed up their creative work—without consent or compensation—to train AI chatbots and image generators that are already beginning to replace them.

At the core of these novel cases sits Butterick, a typographer and lawyer hailed by some for leading the fight to holding AI accountable, and slammed by others as a Luddite and an obstacle to transformative technological advances."

US judge finds flaws in artists' lawsuit against AI companies; Reuters, July 19, 2023

 Blake Brittain, Reuters; US judge finds flaws in artists' lawsuit against AI companies

"U.S. District Judge William Orrick said during a hearing in San Francisco on Wednesday that he was inclined to dismiss most of a lawsuit brought by a group of artists against generative artificial intelligence companies, though he would allow them to file a new complaint.

Orrick said that the artists should more clearly state and differentiate their claims against Stability AI, Midjourney and DeviantArt, and that they should be able to "provide more facts" about the alleged copyright infringement because they have access to Stability's relevant source code."

AI learned from their work. Now they want compensation.; The Washington Post, July 16, 2023

 Gerrit De Vynck, The Washington Post; AI learned from their work. Now they want compensation.

"Artists say the livelihoods of millions of creative workers are at stake, especially because AI tools are already being used to replace some human-made work. Mass scraping of art, writing and movies from the web for AI training is a practice creators say they never considered or consented to.

But in public appearances and in responses to lawsuits, the AI companies have argued that the use of copyrighted works to train AI falls under fair use — a concept in copyright law that creates an exception if the material is changed in a “transformative” way."

Thousands of authors urge AI companies to stop using work without permission; Morning Edition, NPR, July 17, 2023

Chloe Veltman, Morning Edition NPR; Thousands of authors urge AI companies to stop using work without permission

"Thousands of writers including Nora Roberts, Viet Thanh Nguyen, Michael Chabon and Margaret Atwood have signed a letter asking artificial intelligence companies like OpenAI and Meta to stop using their work without permission or compensation."