“The creative sector is at a turning point”, says Anthi Akritidou, Head of Legal and EU Affairs in IFRRO, the international association representing authors and publishers of text and image-based works.
The rapid advancement of AI technologies is challenging the regulatory framework of EU that has traditionally protected and strengthened the creative sector. Creative works are used as training material for generative AI models without the consent of or remuneration for authors and other rightsholders.
“The tech industry needs access to a large amount of data, and the creative sector needs the protection of copyright and remuneration for the use of their works. These two needs need to find common ground”, summarizes Antonios Baris, IFRRO’s Legal, Policy, and Technology Counsellor.
Tech industry is seen as the driver for EU’s competitiveness, and thus, decision makers don’t want to hinder the possibilities of AI providers for accessing training data. Akritidou reminds, however, that the creative sector is the source and fuel to produce quality content, when competing with other continents.
“If EU wants to strike a fair balance, the creative sector has to be supported”, Akritidou says.
The core of copyright is questioned
The technology sector and scientific community have suggested that the restriction on text and data mining should also cover the use of works in the development of AI. Such a broad interpretation aims to use creative works in AI training without permission or compensation.
This would mean that the very core of the copyright system radically changes: the basis is that authors have the right to decide how works are used. Restrictions to this are exceptions.
“We always say that copyright is an opt-in system. It should remain like this”, Akritidou highlights.
EU Commission is watering down the objectives of the AI Act
The creative sector in Europe has condemned the way EU is implementing the AI Act. In July, the European Commission published an Implementation Package, which includes the GPAI Code of Practice, the GPAI guidelines, and the template of the detailed summary of the training content.
“The AI Act implementation package falls well short of protecting and supporting the cultural and creative sector and industries. In fact, it contradicts the very objectives of the AI Act itself and undermines what the co-legislators had originally agreed”, says Akritidou.
European rightsholder organisations remind in a joint statement that the creative sector accounts for almost 7% of the EU’s GDP and provides 17 million jobs. Nevertheless, the sector’s concerns have been overlooked in favor of the interests of major AI providers.
Since August 2, the AI Act’s provisions for GPAI model providers have already started to apply. Akritidou sees that there are still possibilities to change course.
“The cultural and creative sector and industries will continue to remind the European institutions and society of the need to reconsider the current measures and to properly enforce the AI Act, rather than diluting its provisions.”
Technological development and copyright don’t have to be in conflict
Akritidou and Baris list three basic principles for ethical AI that IFRRO and other European copyright organisations, including Kopiosto, are advocating for: transparency, consent and fair remuneration.
Even though it seems that the benefits of the technology sector and creative sector are clashing, finding a balance is possible. Several copyright organisations around Europe and beyond are currently developing licensing solutions.
Providers of AI need to utilize a vast number of works, which makes it difficult to obtain direct licenses from creators. For rightsholders, enforcing their rights and negotiating licenses with multinational giants is practically impossible. Collective licensing offered by copyright organizations is a solution to this dilemma.
“AI training is not the future, it is the present. Licensing is the way forward to ensure authors, publishers and rightsholders that their interests are met”, Akritidou notes.