How Allowing Copyright On AI-Generated Works Could Destroy Creative Industries
from the the-ai-troll-problem dept
Generative AI continues to be the hot topic in the digital world – and beyond. A previous blog post noted that this has led to people finally asking the important question whether copyright is fit for the digital world. As far as AI is concerned, there are two sides to the question. The first is whether generative AI systems can be trained on copyright materials without the need for licensing. That has naturally dominated discussions, because many see an opportunity to impose what is effectively a copyright tax on generative AI. The other question is whether the output of generative AI systems can be copyrighted. As another Walled Post explained, the current situation is unclear. In the US, purely AI-generated art cannot currently be copyrighted and forms part of the public domain, but it may be possible to copyright works that include significant human input.
Given the current interest in generative AI, it’s no surprise that there are lots of pundits out there pontificating on what it all means. I find Christopher S. Penn’s thoughts on the subject to be consistently insightful and worth reading, unlike those of many other commentators. Even better, his newsletter and blog are free. His most recent newsletter will be of particular interest to Walled Culture readers, and has a bold statement concerning AI and copyright:
We should unequivocally ensure machine-made content can never be protected under intellectual property laws, or else we’re going to destroy the entire creative economy.
His newsletter includes a short harmonized tune generated using AI. Penn points out that it is trivially easy to automate the process of varying that tune and its harmony using AI, in a way that scales to billions of harmonized tunes covering a large proportion of all possible songs:
If my billion songs are now copyrighted, then every musician who composes a song from today forward has to check that their composition isn’t in my catalog of a billion variations – and if it is (which, mathematically, it probably will be), they have to pay me.
Moreover, allowing copyright in this way would result in a computing arms race. Those with the deepest pockets could use more powerful hardware and software to produce more AI tunes faster than anyone else, allowing them to copyright them first:
That wipes out the music industry. That wipes out musical creativity, because suddenly there is no incentive to create and publish original music for commercial purposes, including making a living as a musician. You know you’ll just end up in a copyright lawsuit sooner or later with a company that had better technology than you.
That’s one good reason for not allowing music – or images, videos or text – generated by AI to be granted copyright. As Penn writes, doing so would just create a huge industry whose only purpose is generating a library of works that is used for suing human creators for alleged copyright infringement. The bullying and waste already caused by the similar patent troll industry shows why this is not something we would want. Here’s another reason why copyright for AI creations is a bad idea according to Penn:
If machine works remain non-copyrightable, there’s a strong disincentive for companies like Disney to use machine-made works. They won’t be able to enforce copyright on them, which makes those works less valuable than human-led works that they can fully protect. If machine works suddenly have the same copyright status as human-led works, then a corporation like Disney has much greater incentive to replace human creators as quickly as possible with machines, because the machines will be able to scale their created works to levels only limited by compute power.
This chimes with something that I have argued before: that generative AI could help to make human-generated art more valuable. The value of human creativity will be further enhanced if companies are unable to claim copyright in AI-generated works. It’s an important line of thinking, because it emphasizes that it is not in the interest of artists to allow copyright on AI-generated works, whatever Big Copyright might have them believe.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky. Originally published to Walled Culture.
Filed Under: ai, copyright, copyright trolls, generative ai, trolling
Comments on “How Allowing Copyright On AI-Generated Works Could Destroy Creative Industries”
I have never before been in favor of an increase in copyright protection
This is the first time I can recall that I think an increase in copyright protections actually makes sense – when it is specifically tailored to encourage human beings to create their own art, not automate the creation of art. AI art is pretty weird NOW but you’re a fool if you think it wont close the gap, fast.
Re:
It wouldn’t be an increase, just the status quo ante. Non-human generated art hasn’t been considered copyrightable in the US.
Re: Re:
Man, Disney’s been getting copyright expanded for so many years that I don’t even know what’s more or less anymore
Re: Re:
Two words: monkey selfie.
Time and again, Melancholy Elephants raise their heads. All it takes is sufficient creators, and a sufficiently long copyright period, for the entire “music space” to become saturated.
The fact that you might use AI merely means you have that many more (equivalent) creators, and exhaust the space that much sooner.
Note too, that as the “music space” becomes more and more saturated, it will be necessary to use computer agents to determine “if your new, original work” has been copyrighted already.
Re: Exactly!
Why people don’t extrapolate this into “nothing should be copyrightable” is beyond me. Copyright NEEDS to be abolished!
Re: Re:
Because we don’t have to choose between “everything should be copyrightable and each copyright should last until the end of time” and “nothing should be copyrightable ever”. There’s also plenty of variations of “some things can be copyrighted, and each one only lasts for a certain amount of time”.
There’s plenty of sane, logical reasons why limited copyright protections are a good thing when it comes to having a rich culture where the people that create that culture can afford to eat.
Re: Re: Re: Tell that to the old masters...
Somehow neither Mozart, Da Vinci, Homer (the one who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey, not the yellow idiot you see on TV), Michelangelo (not the turtle) and so on and so forth didn’t need copyright of any kind to live a fruitful, good life. They didn’t need any “incentive” to keep creating.
Face it, the only ones benefiting from copyright are large publishing companies, not the individual creators. I would point you to a website, but I know that it would get my comment removed. The website is of an organization called QuestionCopyright. I’ll let you find it and read yourself, you are smart enough to do it.
Also,
Copying is not theft.
Stealing a thing leaves one less left
Copying it makes one thing more;
That’s what copying’s for.
Copying is not theft.
If I copy yours you have it too
One for me and one for you
That’s what copies can do
If I steal your bicycle
You have to take the bus,
But if I just copy it
There’s one for each of us!
Making more of a thing,
That is what we call “copying”
Sharing ideas with everyone
That’s why copying is FUN!
Does copyright on material created by ‘AI’ encourage said AI to create more material?
Re:
Which is why it’s not (currently) copyrightable.
There’s no point in giving copyright to something made by a machine, as they are completely passive in the creation of the art. They can be used to get around the ethical dilemma of stealing art protected by copyright by serving as amoral scapegoats for the act of theft, but giving them copyright will destroy innovation
Re:
No, they can’t. You have to set up the AI to deliberately copy something to get it to commit copyright infringement, which puts the human that input those instructions on the hook for a lawsuit, and it sure as hell doesn’t excuse anyone going into the Louvre and taking The Rape of the Sabine Women off the wall (under the correct definition of the term ‘stealing art’). Stop being so disingenuous, maximalist supporter.
Re: Re:
A research institution which uses that computer could have multiple humans inputting the commands. Until the police can find beyond any reasonable doubt who pushed the button, then they won’t be able to punish any particular person for the theft. The idea of automation removing the mens rea for theft made AI seem like the copyright-beater that we needed, but things have taken a turn for the worse, as it seems AI could be used by the same corporations that abuse copyright to replace human workers.
I’m all for leaving copyright as an incentive for human creativity, not machine regurgitation.
“If my billion songs are now copyrighted, then every musician who composes a song from today forward has to check that their composition isn’t in my catalog of a billion variations – and if it is (which, mathematically, it probably will be), they have to pay me.”
This isn’t really how copyright works though – there needs to be actual copying to be an infringement, so there needs to be some connection between one author’s publication and the allegedly infringing work.
The quoted understanding is more like patent law, where you can infringe whether or not you know that the patent exists.
Re:
That’s really only if you get to the trial stage where a sued party actually tries to defend itself. Not every artist will have the money or a music industry law team lined up to defend them in court. Independent artists will be shut out merely on the threat of a lawsuit. And even that scenario is only if you actually get threatened with a lawsuit. A lot of platforms like YouTube will enforce copyright claims from influential parties without sufficient review, so you can get copyright strikes on platform accounts merely for the claim from someone with more privilege on the platform on your work. There’s a lot of documentation of this type of “copyright enforcement.”
Re: Re:
Fair point – there’s a lot of cost relative to gain in trying to defend against unsupportable claims at the low end of the system.
Re:
The judge in Gaye vs Thicke would very much beg to differ.
Re: Re: "The judge in Gaye vs Thicke would very much beg to differ."
Have you not seen the majority’s opinion in that case? there’s some misconception that they did it based on groove of feeling.
“Our decision does not grant license to copyright a musical style or ‘groove.’ Nor does it upset the balance Congress struck between the freedom of artistic expression, on the one hand, and copyright protection of the fruits of that expression, on the other hand. Rather, our decision hinges on settled procedural principles and the limited nature of our appellate review, dictated by the particular posture of this case and controlling copyright law. Far from heralding the end of musical creativity as we know it, our decision, even construed broadly, reads more accurately as a cautionary tale for future trial counsel wishing to maximize their odds of success.”
I said it before on articles covering AI-generated art, and I’ll say it again:
Artists, if you think that copyright enforcement gets a bad rap now, imagine what happens when they’re equipped and permitted to sue anyone and everyone over something that an AI generated that they claim looks close enough to something they own, without proof.
If you think that corporations were insurmountable opponents before, imagine what happens when they get to hold the copyright on something their AI generates, and then uses that to go after you and everything you (think you) own.
Copyright is not the savior you desperately want it to be. It’s a deal with the devil. It’s a monkey’s paw. For your sakes, you’d best pray that copyright on AI-generated works doesn’t become a thing.
music already copywritten
Wasn’t there a European company that made a song consisting of all combinations of 5 notes?
They’re going to push to get it, and they will get it because money always wins in the capitalist system, especially one where people value having shiny new toys more than the rights of people to say what happens to their creative works or to be able to make a living. Before the end of the decade, there will be a law created where corporations can own AI generated works as long as human produced works and everyone currently painting artists and writers as unreasonable for fighting against it wil be shocked and outraged, long after that outrage would actually do any good.
‘How did this happen?! We sided with the big corporations over humans for most of the decade and they stacked the deck against us! If only the people warning us would have warned us in a way we liked!’
I don't think this is correct
Copyright law allows for independent creation (unlike patent law). If I happen to write “Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows” having never read JK Rowling’s books nor have seen the movies (and I can prove it) , then I can publish my book.
Also while it’s not strictly on point see Sega vs Accolade.
Re:
That’s great in theory. But in practice, how are you going to prove that you never read “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”?
And more importantly, how much time and money will it take to defend yourself against a lawsuit from J.K. Rowling (even if you eventually win)?
Re: Re:
JK would need to show that you did (or are likely to have) read HP to suceed in an infringement claim. And would have a much easier job than the guy who has to try and claim ‘this person definitely listened to one of the billion short clips on my obscure website that has been visited by exactly zero (0) people.
I’m more sympathetic to the point MrWilson made above, that even without a successful copyright claim there’s still costs imposed from claims that couldn’t stand up in court, but aren’t worth defending against.
Re: Re: Re:
Independent creation could also mean hiring someone to do the work you couldn’t legally do, for having knowledge of the origin of an image and wanting to make something inspired by that copyrighted image. The knowledge would incriminate any original artist but by sending the works on to someone else, you could see your not-quite-original image or character come to life, because of independent creation, as well as the need for knowledge and intent to commit crime, right?
Even if copyright lasted forever, and no matter how difficult the penalties are for breaking the law, we can take comfort in the knowledge that many people have broken the law and will break the law to preserve our culture. It’s so much more ethical to pirate something when you’re not the beneficiary, but the whole world is
ChatGPT apparently caught a bug recently, they say its temperature was too high. It was spewing gibberish.