4 ms·

UK Gov Open Consultation: Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

23 points by nickcotter 2y ago

frereubu 2y ago
> Option 3: A data mining exception which allows right holders to reserve their rights, underpinned by supporting measures on transparency https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence#option-3-a-data-mining-exception-which-allows-right-holders-to-reserve-their-rights-underpinned-by-supporting-measures-on-transparency https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-ar... This seems to be the preferred model of the government. I hate the way "opt-out" has become the default. It feels like the result of the permissive "ask for forgiveness, not permission" model that's become the standard for digital stuff and I think it's fundamentally wrong, particularly here. It allows people to extract value from something someone else has made without their knowledge and without appropriate recompense.
- badsectoracula 2y ago
  AFAICT this is the same in the EU AI Act[0] which has been approved by the EU Council. See page ~95 (recital 105... i think these are called "recitals" as i've seen that term in another site with the same text but i wanted to confirm from EU's own site that the final text is the same), where it mentions: > General-purpose AI models, in particular large generative AI models, capable of generating text, images, and other content, present unique innovation opportunities but also challenges to artists, authors, and other creators and the way their creative content is created, distributed, used and consumed. The development and training of such models require access to vast amounts of text, images, videos, and other data. Text and data mining techniques may be used extensively in this context for the retrieval and analysis of such content, which may be protected by copyright and related rights. > Any use of copyright protected content requires the authorisation of the rightsholder concerned unless relevant copyright exceptions and limitations apply. > Directive (EU) 2019/790 introduced exceptions and limitations allowing reproductions and extractions of works or other subject matter, for the purpose of text and data mining, under certain conditions. Under these rules, rightsholders may choose to reserve their rights over their works or other subject matter to prevent text and data mining, unless this is done for the purposes of scientific research. Where the rights to opt out has been expressly reserved in an appropriate manner, providers of general-purpose AI models need to obtain an authorisation from rightsholders if they want to carry out text and data mining over such works. [0] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-24-2024-INIT/en/pdf https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-24-2024-INI...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jacobp100 2y ago
Honestly, I’d like the UK to go heavily in favour of data mining. I think a lot of copyright holders are just trying a money grab because AI is a rapidly growing industry
- artninja1988 2y ago
  Yes, I agree. I essentially conveyed the same message in my email comment to them. Feel free to do the same
- cycomanic 2y ago
  So the AI industry is not a money grab essentially training their models on all the work of other people while keeping their own "sauce" secret? If we allow AI companies to disregard copyright then they should be required to publish their models. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
- Silhouette 2y ago
  I think a good starting point is that economic incentives should support most the people who are contributing the most. If we allow training AI models to become a method for laundering the exploitation of others' creative work without informed consent or compensation - and let's not pretend that this isn't exactly what has been happening - then I think we will start to see the same problems we've already encountered with search engines that display the most important parts of the original content directly on their own pages but potentially at a much larger scale. The result is similar in each case. It becomes economically and/or emotionally unsatisfying to make the effort to create new and better works. If commercial organisations that just rehash all that hard work for their own benefit without giving anything back will be the ones who ultimately benefit the most from it then sooner or later they may find no-one wants to gather or share the data they'd like to train their next generation of models on any more. We'll just see more and more paywalls with contractual terms for access gating more and more of the information on the Internet. This kind of exploitation without compensation is exactly what copyright is supposed to prevent. It's how it forms an economic market for creative work that functions in a familiar way. It is astonishing to me that governments have become so caught up in the AI hype of the past couple of years that they are falling over themselves to undermine their entire creative industries for fear of missing out. I fear this will not end well when the AI bubble bursts and we aren't all welcoming our new AGI overlords in 2026 because it turned out that the maths was still essentially the same as it had been for a long time and there wasn't another quantum leap in the scale or quality of available training data waiting for the AI companies to exploit.
Woodi 2y ago
Hi there ! It's simple - personal data are better version of "copyright data" so both should be used only after agreement. Most likely with one time or perpetual payment(s) and contract renegotiation and cancelation rights. It's realy such simple. Thing like femous actor or actress wanting to sell rights to face. And "small plain people" faces are not worth paing ? Then no right to use it. And same with every single word, finger moving or public apparence. Edit: Read some Gibson.
beardyw 2y ago
People whose work will never be slurped up can't see the problem.

23 points by nickcotter 2y ago

> Option 3: A data mining exception which allows right holders to reserve their rights, underpinned by supporting measures on transparency https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence#option-3-a-data-mining-exception-which-allows-right-holders-to-reserve-their-rights-underpinned-by-supporting-measures-on-transparency https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-ar... This seems to be the preferred model of the government. I hate the way "opt-out" has become the default. It feels like the result of the permissive "ask for forgiveness, not permission" model that's become the standard for digital stuff and I think it's fundamentally wrong, particularly here. It allows people to extract value from something someone else has made without their knowledge and without appropriate recompense.

badsectoracula 2y ago
AFAICT this is the same in the EU AI Act[0] which has been approved by the EU Council. See page ~95 (recital 105... i think these are called "recitals" as i've seen that term in another site with the same text but i wanted to confirm from EU's own site that the final text is the same), where it mentions: > General-purpose AI models, in particular large generative AI models, capable of generating text, images, and other content, present unique innovation opportunities but also challenges to artists, authors, and other creators and the way their creative content is created, distributed, used and consumed. The development and training of such models require access to vast amounts of text, images, videos, and other data. Text and data mining techniques may be used extensively in this context for the retrieval and analysis of such content, which may be protected by copyright and related rights. > Any use of copyright protected content requires the authorisation of the rightsholder concerned unless relevant copyright exceptions and limitations apply. > Directive (EU) 2019/790 introduced exceptions and limitations allowing reproductions and extractions of works or other subject matter, for the purpose of text and data mining, under certain conditions. Under these rules, rightsholders may choose to reserve their rights over their works or other subject matter to prevent text and data mining, unless this is done for the purposes of scientific research. Where the rights to opt out has been expressly reserved in an appropriate manner, providers of general-purpose AI models need to obtain an authorisation from rightsholders if they want to carry out text and data mining over such works. [0] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-24-2024-INIT/en/pdf https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-24-2024-INI...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jacobp100 2y ago

Honestly, I’d like the UK to go heavily in favour of data mining. I think a lot of copyright holders are just trying a money grab because AI is a rapidly growing industry

artninja1988 2y ago
Yes, I agree. I essentially conveyed the same message in my email comment to them. Feel free to do the same
cycomanic 2y ago
So the AI industry is not a money grab essentially training their models on all the work of other people while keeping their own "sauce" secret? If we allow AI companies to disregard copyright then they should be required to publish their models. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Silhouette 2y ago
I think a good starting point is that economic incentives should support most the people who are contributing the most. If we allow training AI models to become a method for laundering the exploitation of others' creative work without informed consent or compensation - and let's not pretend that this isn't exactly what has been happening - then I think we will start to see the same problems we've already encountered with search engines that display the most important parts of the original content directly on their own pages but potentially at a much larger scale. The result is similar in each case. It becomes economically and/or emotionally unsatisfying to make the effort to create new and better works. If commercial organisations that just rehash all that hard work for their own benefit without giving anything back will be the ones who ultimately benefit the most from it then sooner or later they may find no-one wants to gather or share the data they'd like to train their next generation of models on any more. We'll just see more and more paywalls with contractual terms for access gating more and more of the information on the Internet. This kind of exploitation without compensation is exactly what copyright is supposed to prevent. It's how it forms an economic market for creative work that functions in a familiar way. It is astonishing to me that governments have become so caught up in the AI hype of the past couple of years that they are falling over themselves to undermine their entire creative industries for fear of missing out. I fear this will not end well when the AI bubble bursts and we aren't all welcoming our new AGI overlords in 2026 because it turned out that the maths was still essentially the same as it had been for a long time and there wasn't another quantum leap in the scale or quality of available training data waiting for the AI companies to exploit.

Woodi 2y ago

Hi there ! It's simple - personal data are better version of "copyright data" so both should be used only after agreement. Most likely with one time or perpetual payment(s) and contract renegotiation and cancelation rights. It's realy such simple. Thing like femous actor or actress wanting to sell rights to face. And "small plain people" faces are not worth paing ? Then no right to use it. And same with every single word, finger moving or public apparence. Edit: Read some Gibson.

beardyw 2y ago

People whose work will never be slurped up can't see the problem.