Informed 09


Rather than sign deals, numerous publishers are taking tech firms to court. Te New York Times is suing both Microsoſt and OpenAI, which also faces action from Mumsnet and the Centre for Investigative Reporting. In a test case for the UK courts, Gety Images accuses StabilityAI of having “unlawfully copied and processed” millions of its copyrighted images using its Stable Diffusion text-to-image model. Tat case is not due to be heard until summer 2025.


In the meantime, as the tech sector and creative sector face off against each other, there is a worry that content continues to be scraped for free. In a report in May, the House of Commons’ Science, Innovation and Technology Select Commitee warned that “the status quo allows developers to potentially benefit from the unlimited, free use of copyrighted material, whilst negotiations are stalled”. Te Labour government is seeking to


resolve the impasse with a consultation overseen by both the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, reflecting its wish to embrace AI development as an economic driver while not damaging the creative sector, which is worth £124 billion-a-year and supports 2.4 million jobs. Te process requires “thoughtful engagement”, said a government spokesperson. “We continue to work closely with a range of stakeholders including holding recent roundtables with AI developers and representatives of the creative industries.” Te TDM exception already exists


to allow various uses of copyrighted or protected material, including a news reporting exception which permits journalists to write up or broadcast parliamentary debates without permission. Satirical outlets, such as the BBC’s Have I Got News For You, can cite the ‘caricature or pastiche exception’ to lampoon third party content. Universities can mine content


from academic publications to which they subscribe but only for the purposes of non-commercial research. Braille conversion is another accepted use of copyrighted material. Te Creators’ Rights Alliance, a broad


network of dozens of organisations, including the NUJ, has come together to resist a far-reaching exemption. Teir fear is that the government will try to compromise by implementing an “opt-out” protocol which would oblige rights-holders to exempt their material from AI use.


“Tat is so complex and time- consuming,” says Bea Bennet, NUJ senior campaigns and communications officer. “Google have all the resources but our members would have to put aside a great deal of time to be able to come close to doing that.” Isabelle Doran, CEO of the Association of Photographers, says: “It’s not something that an ordinary person who is just trying to make a living will understand – not every creative is a techie at the same time.” As the European Union has found to its cost, an opt-out scheme is almost impossible to police. “Tere is no technical solution by which you can test compliance and whether the LLMs have actually obeyed your opt-out,” says Guthrie. “In essence you would end up with a TDM for any purpose, as proposed by the last government.” For journalism, AI opt-outs could


have the additional disastrous effect of removing publishers or freelance content creators from online search. “It is the same crawlers,” notes Guthrie. “So there is almost a double whammy for news media providers.” Hope came in October in the form of an op-ed writen by Sir Keir Starmer, for Journalism Maters week. “We recognise the basic principle that publishers should have control over and seek payment for their work, including when thinking about the role of AI,” he wrote. But rights-holders worry over the views of science minister


Lord Vallance and Mat Clifford, who heads the UK’s AI action plan. Writing in the Telegraph, tech journalist Andrew Orlowski reported that Vallance has been an adviser to Alphabet’s Isomorphic Labs, a London- based AI firm, while Clifford holds around 40 tech investments, including several in AI. Te threat to content producers is


real and the consequences potentially irreversible. Caroline Dinenage, chair of the Commons Select Commitee on Media, Culture and Sport, has writen to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy to condemn the “flawed notion” of the TDM exception. Tech firms must be “transparent” about the data they are using and “get around the table” with rights holders to sign commercial deals. “I’m increasingly worried this Government is sleepwalking into a policy with disastrous implications for our cultural and creative industries,” she later tweeted. Rights holders are frustrated that a


tech giant like Microsoſt seemingly has a lesser regard for the copyright of online content than it has for its own products, such as Word or Xbox. “Tere is a real hypocrisy there – they obey IP rules when it suits them,” says Guthrie. Doran argues that the tech sector could


easily devise a method to identify the content it uses in training AI models and to pay fairly for it. She says the government can benefit from standing up to the tech firms and showing the world it values creativity. “We could be a safe haven,” she says. “Copyright has been around for a very long time and has never hindered innovation.” A resilient and thriving creative sector


will atract AI developers, Meredith believes. “For AI development to happen you don’t need to undermine other people’s property rights,” he says. “Te creative industries have been a powerhouse and you don’t need to throw that away in order to find growth in AI development. Tey are not mutually exclusive.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12