ethics


Thou shalt not bear false witness


Taking payment for generative AI use of news images legitimises fake news and fraud, says Andrew Wiard


G


enerative AI (GAI) produces fake stories and inauthentic


photorealistic pictures. So what part should we


journalists play in enabling or endorsing the training of generative AI? In Denmark, the government is proposing to fight AI deepfakes by giving its citizens control of their own image. This is an example of timely, bold, clear and decisive action. It is the latest of many attempts to


control image rights but with a crucial difference. Giving Denmark’s citizens’ control over their own image means they can demand deepfakes are removed from online platforms. In Denmark, a deepfake is defined as a


very realistic digital representation of a person, including their appearance and voice. According to Denmark’s culture minister, Jakob Engel-Schmidt: “We are now sending an unequivocal signal to all citizens that you have the right to your own body, your own voice and your own facial features.” As a photographer, any talk of image rights sets alarm bells ringing, but Denmark is not France, and we are not talking privacy law. In France, individuals can block publication of themselves where identifiable in real photographs (subject to certain exceptions). Denmark’s intention is to prevent AI


fakes, not straight photography or videography. Journalists can still record and publish the truth. Truth – that’s the whole point. In the UK, the furthest


we have gone, in the Online Safety Act 2023, is to prohibit the sharing


of intimate images, including intimate deepfakes. Their creation could soon be banned too. But that falls far short of Denmark’s plans. However, both attempts fall far short of what journalists need in that we must safeguard the authenticity of images distributed as news. Deepfakes threaten the credibility of our profession. What is really required is a total ban on all photorealistic AI deepfakes in news and reporting, but that is just never going to happen. So what can we in the NUJ now do


and where do we now stand? A lot will depend on the recent NUJ AI licensing survey, which sought freelance views to inform whatever the NUJ now does through SCOOP. You may not have heard of SCOOP. It


is a new joint venture between the NUJ and three collecting societies and agencies – ALCS, DACS and PICSEL. It was launched last December with the principal aim of ensuring freelance


“


journalists and photojournalists get paid for the online secondary use of their work. It also promises new funding for training and development schemes. Its website states: “SCOOP provides the mechanism to develop mutually beneficial collective agreements between the representatives of freelance journalists and those companies securing commercial returns from the online secondary use of their works.” The focus of SCOOP and the NUJ is understandably on the money. But what about the ethics of endorsing potential fake news? It’s also important to distinguish here between past infringement and future licensing. Compensation for past infringement, by whatever means, is one thing. The real problem is what we do now. Secondary publication need not


Secondary publication need not involve AI. But, where it does, we need to be wary. We are in the business of fact, not fiction


involve AI. But, where it does, we need to be wary. We are in the business of fact, not fiction. GAI is programmed to produce the kind of seemingly realistic deepfakes that are about to be banned in Denmark. As a photographer, I cannot collude in the destruction of public trust in what we do. Taking payment would be


legitimising GAI fraud. Licensing news photographs for GAI use would be just plain wrong and put me in clear breach of the NUJ code of conduct – thou shalt not disseminate falsehood. In the words of the code, a journalist “strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair”. There must be ways of differentiating


between licences so as not to place photographers in such an invidious position. Will Scoop distinguish between the differing secondary uses? I found the NUJ survey surprisingly open-ended and, well, neutral. Maybe surveys have to be. But we NUJ members do not. I’m reminded of Tony Benn, whose speeches I heard so many times that I remember the key theme: all politicians are either signposts or weathervanes. There’s no doubt which he was. We too have a choice here. We too can take a stand. Are we just seeking to find which way the wind blows? Following whichever way it turns? Surely we should be pointing clearly down the straight and narrow path.


theJournalist | 07


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28