Opposition to the EU’s Code of Practice: A Call from Writers, Translators, and Journalists
The recent third draft of the EU’s Code of Practice under the AI Act has ignited significant concern among writers, translators, and journalists within the European text sector. The European Writers Council (EWC), along with other federations, has expressed their strong opposition to the draft, citing its potential to undermine legal rights and the integrity of the creative industries.
The Importance of Authorial Rights
The federations CEATL, EFJ, and EWC represent over 550,000 individual authors from 159 associations. They argue that the current draft fails to adequately address the rights of authors as the original rightsholders. The simplification and industry-friendly approach of the Code of Practice could lead to a situation where EU law is undermined and the minimum requirements of the AI Act are not fulfilled.
Failure to Address Feedback
Critics of the Code highlight that it continues to ignore substantial feedback from authors, even as they actively participated in the consultation process. The requirements for transparency and copyright enforcement measures outlined in the AI Act are not only insufficient but potentially damaging to the entire cultural landscape.
The Role of AI and Large Language Models
It is crucial to note that existing large language models, which power various AI applications, rely heavily on the high-quality work produced by professional authors, journalists, and translators. Without such contributions, the development of generative AI technologies would be severely hampered. Yet, the current draft could facilitate the misuse of AI technologies to replace human authorship, raising ethical concerns about intellectual property and creative rights.
Imbalance Favoring the AI Industry
The draft has been criticized for creating a great imbalance in favor of the AI industry. The intention of the EU AI Act was to regulate this imbalance, allowing for technology development without compromising the rights of authors and creators. However, the Code of Practice appears to grant free ride tickets to tech companies, enabling them to exploit individual works without proper compensation or acknowledgment of authorship.
Key Issues in the Draft
Several critical issues have been identified in the third draft:
- The draft’s ambiguous language regarding piracy sites allows for potential exploitation of works taken from illegal sources.
- It weakens obligations related to copyright policies, reducing them to mere summaries that authors may not be able to enforce effectively.
- There is a reliance on robots.txt protocols that may not adequately protect authors’ rights.
- The draft favors privileges for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) without ensuring that these entities adhere to the same legal standards as individual authors.
- Absence of record-keeping requirements for content sets undermines the ability of authors to claim rights over their works.
The Need for Collaboration
The drafting process for the Code of Practice has been criticized for its lack of collaboration with rightsholders. Authors and federations had hoped for a genuine partnership in shaping the regulations that would impact their rights. However, the current draft is seen as a serious deviation from this collaborative intent, failing to address the concerns of the authors it is meant to protect.
Conclusion: A Call for Action
Unless substantial revisions are made to the Code of Practice, it risks complicating the enforcement of authors’ rights and rendering them vulnerable to legal ambiguities. The federations representing European authors have called for a reevaluation of the draft to ensure it aligns with the original objectives of the AI Act—protecting the rights of creators while fostering innovation in technology.
In summary, the third draft of the EU’s Code of Practice must undergo significant improvements to reflect the legitimate interests of authors and uphold the integrity of EU law.
