Paul McCartney: Don't let AI rip off artists; BBC, January 25, 2025

Laura Kuenssberg, BBC; Paul McCartney: Don't let AI rip off artists

"Sir Paul McCartney has told the BBC proposed changes to copyright law could allow "rip off" technology that might make it impossible for musicians and artists to make a living.

The government is considering an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to use creators' content on the internet to help develop their models, unless the rights holders opt out.

In a rare interview for Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Sir Paul said "when we were kids in Liverpool, we found a job that we loved, but it also paid the bills", warning the proposals could remove the incentive for writers and artists and result in a "loss of creativity". 

The government said it aimed to deliver legal certainty through a copyright regime that provided creators with "real control" and transparency."

SDNY Order Renews Possibility of Digital Millenium Copyright Act as Legal Recourse for News Organizations in the Age of AI; The National Law Review, December 23, 2024

Dan Jasnow of ArentFox Schiff LLP  -  AI Law Blog, The National Law Review; SDNY Order Renews Possibility of Digital Millenium Copyright Act as Legal Recourse for News Organizations in the Age of AI 

"Key Takeaway: The Intercept’s Case Against OpenAI Will Clarify the Future of DMCA Protection Against AI Developers

Until now, other DMCA claims against AI developers have largely failed — most of these cases have not proceeded past the motion-to-dismiss stage — but the order allowing The Intercept’s claim to proceed renews the possibility that the DMCA may be a viable claim against AI developers. For rights holders, 1202(b) provides distinct causes of action against AI developers with different evidentiary requirements than traditional copyright infringement claims. For developers, 1202(b) is another legal risk to be managed, particularly in the wake of the order in The Intercept case."

The AI Boom May Be Too Good to Be True; Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2024

Josh Harlan, Wall Street Journal; The AI Boom May Be Too Good to Be True

 "Investors rushing to capitalize on artificial intelligence have focused on the technology—the capabilities of new models, the potential of generative tools, and the scale of processing power to sustain it all. What too many ignore is the evolving legal structure surrounding the technology, which will ultimately shape the economics of AI. The core question is: Who controls the value that AI produces? The answer depends on whether AI companies must compensate rights holders for using their data to train AI models and whether AI creations can themselves enjoy copyright or patent protections.

The current landscape of AI law is rife with uncertainty...How these cases are decided will determine whether AI developers can harvest publicly available data or must license the content used to train their models."

What's Next in AI: How do we regulate AI, and protect against worst outcomes?; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 13, 2024

 EVAN ROBINSON-JOHNSON , Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; What's Next in AI: How do we regulate AI, and protect against worst outcomes?

"Gov. Josh Shapiro will give more of an update on that project and others at a Monday event in Pittsburgh.

While most folks will likely ask him how Pennsylvania can build and use the tools of the future, a growing cadre in Pittsburgh is asking a broader policy question about how to protect against AI’s worst tendencies...

There are no federal laws that regulate the development and use of AI. Even at the state level, policies are sparse. California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a major AI safety bill last month that would have forced greater commitments from the nation’s top AI developers, most of which are based in the Golden State...

Google CEO Sundar Pichai made a similar argument during a visit to Pittsburgh last month. He encouraged students from local high schools to build AI systems that will make the world a better place, then told a packed audience at Carnegie Mellon University that AI is “too important a technology not to regulate.”

Mr. Pichai said he’s hoping for an “innovation-oriented approach” that mostly leverages existing regulations rather than reinventing the wheel."

Controversial California AI regulation bill finds unlikely ally in Elon Musk; The Mercury News, August 28, 2024

 RYAN MACASERO , The Mercury News; Controversial California AI regulation bill finds unlikely ally in Elon Musk

"With a make-or-break deadline just days away, a polarizing bill to regulate the fast-growing artificial intelligence industry from progressive state Sen. Scott Wiener has gained support from an unlikely source.

Elon Musk, the Donald Trump-supporting, often regulation-averse Tesla CEO and X owner, this week said he thinks “California should probably pass” the proposal, which would regulatethe development and deployment of advanced AI models, specifically large-scale AI products costing at least $100 million to build.

The surprising endorsement from a man who also owns an AI company comes as other political heavyweights typically much more aligned with Wiener’s views, including San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, join major tech companies in urging Sacramento to put on the brakes." 

The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024: Balancing Innovation and IP Rights; The National Law Review, May 13, 2024

 Danner Kline of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, The National Law Review; The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024: Balancing Innovation and IP Rights

"As generative AI systems become increasingly sophisticated and widespread, concerns around the use of copyrighted works in their training data continue to intensify. The proposed Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024 attempts to address this unease by introducing new transparency requirements for AI developers.

The Bill’s Purpose and Requirements

The primary goal of the bill is to ensure that copyright owners have visibility into whether their intellectual property is being used to train generative AI models. If enacted, the law would require companies to submit notices to the U.S. Copyright Office detailing the copyrighted works used in their AI training datasets. These notices would need to be filed within 30 days before or after the public release of a generative AI system.

The Copyright Office would then maintain a public database of these notices, allowing creators to search and see if their works have been included. The hope is that this transparency will help copyright holders make more informed decisions about licensing their IP and seeking compensation where appropriate."

EU votes for AI copyright disclosure in ‘first of a kind’ act; World Intellectual Property Review; June 15, 2023

Muireann Bolger World Intellectual Property Review; EU votes for AI copyright disclosure in ‘first of a kind’ act

"Transparency rules over copyrighted content used in training data increase risks for foundational AI developers| Landmark AI Act thought to be the first of its kind in the world"

AI Trained on Copyrighted Works: When Is It Fair Use?; Lexology, January 16, 2023

Diana Bikbaeva - Diana Bikbaeva, Lexology; AI Trained on Copyrighted Works: When Is It Fair Use?

"We recently published an article that got much traction about whether machine learning on copyrighted materials is fair use. We now offer a deep analysis with new ideas and suggestions on legal risk mitigation and principles for more ethical AI systems.

AI is still a relatively new, although rapidly evolving technology, and some of its legal implications (especially in copyright law) remain a gray area, creating uncertainty on its use and development.

AI and machine learning technology are not one-size-fits-all and have diverse structures and algorithms specific to the tasks they are programmed to solve. So, any discussion of the legal implications of machine learning and resulting artificial intelligence needs to avoid sweeping conclusions on the technology in general and should consider the underlying technology and its treatment of copyrighted materials on a case-by-case basis."