EU Accused of Leaving ‘Devastating’ Copyright Loophole in AI Act
The European Union (EU) is facing criticism for allegedly creating a significant legal gap in its Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, which could leave writers, musicians, and creatives unprotected. This concern has been raised by a prominent architect of EU copyright law, who asserts that legislation is urgently needed to safeguard intellectual property rights in the era of generative AI.
Concerns from Cultural Organizations
This week, 15 cultural organizations sent a letter to the European Commission, warning that the draft regulations to implement the AI Act are “taking several steps backwards” regarding copyright. One writer described the situation as a “devastating” loophole that could have serious repercussions for creative industries.
The Legal Gap Explained
Axel Voss, a German center-right member of the European Parliament and a key figure in crafting the EU’s 2019 copyright directive, emphasized that the existing copyright law was not designed to address issues arising from generative AI models. These models can produce text, images, or music based on simple prompts, creating a legal vacuum regarding copyright enforcement.
Voss expressed his frustration, stating, “What I do not understand is that we are supporting big tech instead of protecting European creative ideas and content.” He highlighted that a legal gap has emerged following the conclusion of the AI Act, and the absence of strong copyright protections is “irresponsible.”
The Impact of Generative AI
The AI Act, which took effect last year, was already under discussion when ChatGPT, an AI chatbot capable of generating a wide range of written content, gained rapid popularity in late 2022. This surge in generative AI has prompted a slew of lawsuits regarding alleged copyright infringements.
Voss noted that despite efforts to establish strong copyright protections during the late stages of negotiating the AI Act, he was unable to secure a majority among EU lawmakers. He expressed a desire for new legislation to fill this gap, but warned that such efforts could take years.
Critiques of the TDM Exemption
The AI Act mandates that tech companies comply with 2019 copyright law, which includes an exemption for text and data mining (TDM). Voss criticized this exemption, asserting that it was intended for limited private use and not for large corporations to exploit vast amounts of intellectual property.
Legal experts have echoed these concerns. A significant academic study conducted by scholars Tim Dornis and Sebastian Stober concluded that training generative AI models on published materials constitutes “copyright infringement” rather than a legitimate case of TDM.
Responses from the Creative Community
The TDM exemption has sparked outrage among creative professionals. Nina George, a bestselling German author, lamented that such provisions serve business interests at the expense of authors’ rights. She stated, “These AI exceptions for commercial use mean that business interest will be served for the first time.”
George, who holds a leadership position in the European Writers Council, noted that authors lack the means to determine if their works have been used to train generative AI systems. She described the situation as a scandal, particularly due to the lack of enforcement mechanisms within the AI Act regarding copyright.
Aafke Romeijn, a Dutch electropop artist, emphasized that there is no viable way for creatives to opt out of having their work utilized in AI applications. As of August 2, tech firms will be required to provide summaries of data used in AI models, but the specifics remain under discussion.
Call for Transparent Regulations
In a letter to the Commission, the 15 cultural organizations criticized the draft summary proposals for lacking transparency regarding data usage. They warned that the impact of AI poses a systemic risk to the rights of authors and performers.
The European Council of Literary Translators’ Associations expressed deep concern over copyright and AI, asserting that literary works must be created and translated by humans to maintain their artistic integrity. They advocated for the right of authors to control the use of their works in generative AI and for fair compensation if they choose to consent.
Calls for Action
In December, similar concerns were raised in a letter to the European Commission Vice-President, Henna Virkkunen. However, nearly 11 weeks later, there has been no response from the Commission, prompting frustration among signatories.
Brando Benifei, an Italian Social Democrat involved in negotiating the AI Act, defended the legislation, claiming it has the potential to rebalance power between developers and rights holders. However, he acknowledged that there has been ongoing pressure from tech companies to dilute copyright protections.
Conclusion
The EU Commission has stated that it is closely monitoring the challenges posed by AI technology to the creative industry, committing to a balanced approach that fosters innovation while protecting human creativity. Nonetheless, the ongoing dialogue about the adequacy of copyright protections in the age of AI remains critical, as many creatives find themselves navigating increasingly complex legal landscapes.
