TRAIN Act Targets Transparency in Generative AI Training Practices
Representatives Madeleine Dean (D-PA) and Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) have introduced a bipartisan bill known as the Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act in the US House of Representatives. This legislative initiative aims to establish a framework that assists musicians, artists, writers, and other creators in determining whether their copyrighted works have been used without permission to train generative artificial intelligence (AI) models. Furthermore, it enables them to seek compensation for such unauthorized usage.
A similar bipartisan effort has seen the TRAIN Act reintroduced in the US Senate, highlighting its cross-party appeal and the critical need for oversight in the rapidly evolving field of AI.
Proposed Legal Mechanism
The proposed legislation outlines a new legal mechanism that empowers copyright owners to utilize federal court subpoena power to gain insights into the materials employed in training generative AI models. Notably, the bill aims to formalize the first federal statutory definition of “generative AI models”. According to the bill, a generative AI model is defined as an AI system that “emulates the structure and characteristics of input data in order to generate derived synthetic content,” which encompasses various forms such as images, video, audio, text, and other digital content.
Subpoena Process for Copyright Owners
Under the new framework, owners of copyrighted works can seek a subpoena compelling a generative AI developer to produce copies or records that identify the copyrighted works utilized in training their models. To initiate this process, the copyright owner must submit a request to a US district court clerk, which includes:
- A proposed subpoena
- A sworn affidavit confirming the owner’s good faith belief that their copyrighted works were used
- Assurances that the requested copies or records will be used solely to protect the owner’s rights
Once issued and served according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the generative AI developer must “expeditiously disclose” the requested information to the copyright owner or their authorized representative.
Enforcement Provisions
The TRAIN Act includes two critical enforcement provisions:
- If a developer does not comply with a subpoena, the court may assume that the developer indeed utilized the copyrighted works in training their model.
- If a copyright owner requests a subpoena in bad faith, the recipient has the right to seek sanctions under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Impact of the TRAIN Act
If enacted, the TRAIN Act could significantly enhance transparency obligations for generative AI developers, providing copyright owners with a robust tool to investigate potential unauthorized uses of their works. This legislation reflects growing concerns about the ethical implications of AI technology and the need for accountability in its deployment.
In conclusion, the TRAIN Act represents a pivotal step towards ensuring that creators retain control over their intellectual property in the face of advancing technological capabilities, ultimately fostering a more responsible approach to generative AI development.
