I have a problem with my stuff being stolen – a common rallying cry emerges on the AI

Nothing had prepared William Passano for a new technology introduced in 1960 that threatened to disrupt his medical publishing business: the Xerox 914 copier. en masse articles from his company’s copyrighted medical journals. Passano eventually sued in a case that went to the Supreme Court, which ultimately took a cautious approach to regulating the emerging technology by ruling in 1975 that it was fair use for libraries to photocopy originals. The justices left Congress to address new intellectual property issues raised in the case, leading to key revisions in copyright law a year later.

Fast forward half a century and the emergence of generative AI has the similar potential to upend the entertainment industry. While the writers they spoke to The Hollywood Reporter We weren’t initially fazed by the emergence of ChatGPT in January, with some pointing out that the tool is unable to write funny jokes or produce usable results without substantial creative input, the tenor of the conversation has changed and it has become a sticking point in negotiations among the writers strike. Creators and talents see the possibility for technology to devalue their work or even replace them completely in the absence of intervention by regulators or the courts: royalty-free music generators can compose a soundtrack or a beat of a movie, AI can write scripts, and actors can be deepfaked into movie scenes.

But at the same time, Hollywood is embracing the technology, from using it to age actors to collaborating with industry companies to create AI-composed music. This is happening as the industry pushes for regulations. Says Michael Nash, chief digital officer of Universal Music Group DAY that AI programs train machine learning models by providing them with copyrighted works without permission or payment to UMG artists allows us to have a very important seat at the table around the evolution and use of these models, particularly for regarding the development of new licensing opportunities. He emphasizes that adopting AI is putting these tools in the hands of artists to see how far their vision can take this technology.

In a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet examining the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright, major Hollywood players moved for guardrails to protect their work. The rapid introduction of generative AI systems is seen as an existential threat to the livelihood and continuity of our creative professions unless immediate steps are taken on the interpretive legal and economic fronts to address these emerging issues, Ashley Irwin said. president of the Society of Composers and Lyricists (SCL), at the hearing of 17 May. It is essential to prioritize policies and regulations to safeguard the intellectual property and copyright of creators and preserve the diverse and dynamic US cultural landscape.

The SCL, which counts creators of soundtracks and songs for film, TV and theater as members, says AI companies should get creators’ consent for using their work to train and compensate AI programs. at fair market rates for subsequent creation of any new work created as well as providing proper credit, Irwin said. He stressed that any regulatory framework should not grant copyright protection to AI-generated works as this could flood the market with them, diluting the value of the original pieces.

At the hearing, Dan Navarro, a songwriter who also serves on the national board of SAG-AFTRA, likened the status quo to the Wild West and the early days of sampling, when proper attribution or payment wasn’t given for reuse. of a recording. in another song Now, it’s routine, he said, noting that he opposes compulsory licenses that give AI companies free rein to use his work. MC Hammer’s Can’t Touch This gives Rick James credit for Super Freak and his estate is compensated. He urged lawmakers to adopt a similar framework of consent, credit and redress.

The widespread use of services that transform the voice of an unknown artist into a global pop star has made the music industry one of the front lines in the battle against the rampant and possibly illegal use of generative AI. In April, Heart on my Sleeve, a track that used AI acceptable versions of Drake and the Weeknd’s voices, took the internet by storm. It was removed from streaming services after UMG, which represents the artists, stepped in by reclaiming their intellectual property rights. The record label has ordered streamers to cut off access to its music catalog for developers who use their songs to train artificial intelligence programs, according to Nash.

UMG has sent out requests to take down AI-generated songs, but is battling an entire online community dedicated to making, sharing, and teaching others how to make AI-powered music. On Discord, members of a server called AI Hub in April released an album called UTOP-AI, a play on an upcoming project by Travis Scott featuring the rapper’s AI-generated voices alongside Drake, Playboy Carti and Baby Keem. It garnered nearly 200,000 views on YouTube and Soundcloud in just three hours before being flagged for copyright infringement by Warner Music Group.

For the most part, artists are looking for a regulatory framework that guides the creation of AI-generated content. They don’t want their work building the foundation of the tools that threaten to replace them, at least not without consent or payment. The legality of using copyrighted works to train AI programs is up in the air. There are several lawsuits assessing whether the method falls under the fair use defense, which allows the use of protected works without permission as long as they are transformative, making its way through the courts.

In November, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed against Microsoft, Github and OpenAI, arguing that the billions of lines of computer code that their AI technology analyzes to generate its own code constitutes piracy. Similarly, Getty Images is suing Stability AI for copyright infringement, accusing the company of illegally processing millions of images to train Stable Diffusion. The company pointed out that Stability AI refuses to pay for any of its photos, unlike other tech companies that license its digital assets for AI-related purposes. that OpenAI relied on collecting massive amounts of copyrighted works without consent, without credit, and without compensation.

A finding of copyright infringement in a lawsuit would severely dampen the economic prospects for exploitation of purely AI-generated works in Hollywood and put greater control of the technology back into the hands of creators (the copyright office has stated that purely AI-generated works ‘AIs are not eligible for protection). While he is confident in the courts upholding artists’ rights in these cases, Nash says: ‘Obviously we will be very vocal in our desire to see that interpretation of copyright law in jurisdictions around the world and lobby to address issues relating to legal proposals the changes.

Another weapon of choice to combat AI content stealing celebrity guises is the right to publicity and privacy laws. In April, a former cast member of the Big Brother reality show sued deepfake app developer NeoCortext in a proposed class action lawsuit over the company’s app that allows users to paste their faces onto celebrity photos and videos . While the current copyright regime doesn’t address the legality of using copyrighted works to train AI programs, some states like California and New York have laws that prohibit the commercial exploitation of someone’s likeness without permission. Major copyright concerns are our bedrock, but in addition there are other legal protections, Nash says, referring to right-to-publicity laws. These are protections that we’ve brought to the attention of platforms when we’ve asked for content removal, so there’s been some recognition, but we think there needs to be wider recognition. Here’s where some additional legislative support might come in handy.

Still, the artists want Congress to step in despite the courts resolving similarly contentious copyright issues raised in the past by the invention of the camera, copier, and video recorder. The SCL proposed adding a new section to the Copyright Act that would clarify that the fair use defense against infringement applies only to man-made works, minimizing traditional avenues for exploiting AI-generated works.

Amidst this legal uncertainty, companies in the entertainment industry are looking to capitalize on AI tools before they miss out on an opportunity to leverage the technology. In May, UMG announced a partnership with AI company Endel to enable artists and labels to create soundscapes for everyday activities like sleeping, relaxing and focusing using the power of AI. Several labels and music industry professionals have also reportedly contacted a student hacker named ak24, a member of the AI ​​Hub Discord server that released UTOP-IA, about partnership opportunities on an AI music creation app. invented by him called Musicfy, which allows users to clone the voices of famous artists.

As for the movie, Miramax is teaming up with AI firm Metaphysic, known for popularizing a deepfake TikTok account spoofing Tom Cruise, to age Robert Zemeckis actors Here. It is part of a larger strategic partnership with CAA to develop generative AI tools and services for talent. Metaphysics CEO Tom Graham says growing investment and service adoption by generative AI startups popping up across a broad spectrum of entertainment applications is just the beginning as the industry moves away from job functions repetitive and easily automatable.

As AI becomes increasingly adopted in all corners of Hollywood, artists and talent are emphasizing that they are not one-sidedly against the technology. Most of them just want adequate credit and compensation. I have no problem with the technology, Irwin said. I have a problem with my stuff being stolen.

#problem #stuff #stolen #common #rallying #cry #emerges
Image Source : www.hollywoodreporter.com

Leave a Comment