The release of a new album, Is this what we want?containing quiet contributions from musicians, including Kate Bush, Damon Albarn and Annie Lennox, attracts attention to Suggested changes to the UK Law on Copyright in relation to AI.
Protest album, organized by AI musician and entrepreneur Ed Tonutn-RexIt is made up of 12 paths that include more than 47 minutes of silence recorded in an empty study and other spaces of more than 1,000 collaborators. The headlines of the combined paths say: “The British government must not legalize the theft of music to benefit from AI companies.”
The album, along with a previous statement released a few months ago 50,000 creatives and artistsIt is harmonized with the proposed changes in the UK that will allow companies to train models of fair use, as well as copyrighted content, unless copyright owners do not specially give up permission.
The UK Government held a public consultation on changes in the rule on February 25 Public criticism drawn From figures, including Andrew Lloyd Webber, Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney.
Companies such as Chatgpt Maker Openai, Google, Microsoft and Apple, all require huge amounts of data to train their large language data models. Information can include everything from digital newspaper archives to digitized books to social media accounts.
At stake in the UK is now whether AI models can be trained not only in publicly available data and academic research, but also in copyrighted music and text (such as verses). According to changes being proposed, companies and copyrighted individuals for songs or other items should give up to prevent companies from training AI with their works.
Read more: Beatles' new video: How does AI help and prevents the music industry
Alina TrapovaA British legal scientist and lecturer who is closely monitoring the debate says the proposed changes “go beyond the music”, but the music industry is well organized in that it has attracted the attention of the issue.
The decisive feature of the proposal, Trapova said: “It can result in leaving rightists without any control of their work. This is because the exclusion mechanisms that exist nowadays can be and bypass. ” Artists may not be aware that they must give up. Trapova said that an exclusion mechanism was proposed, which would require the holders of the rights to explicitly grant permission.
“Regardless of the government ahead, there must be a standardized process that will ideally match what other major jurisdictions on that front do,” she said, adding that the EU had passed. Similar measures As part of last year's AI act, but is in the process of refining the way cases are being handled to improve transparency and rights reservations.
“There is an ongoing debate on the efficiency and burden of shutdown models,” said Chris Mamna, a partner at the Womble Bond Dickinson specialized in technology and AI law. “On the issue of privacy and consumer data protection, the United States is widely described as tracking the shutdown model, while Europe, with GDPR, follows an option model.”
For this set of change specifically, “the fear of musicians and other content creators is that AI models trained for their work will be able to generate free or cheap new work Their activities for creating content, “Mamna said.
“There may still be some protective boards imposed by the AI platforms, for example, with the ban on instructions that require a” specific living artist ” -style guidelines. But you can easily imagine designing Ai -Guidelines to bypass that type of specific guards, “he added.