Asking AI services: Please read the article “AI’s assault on our intellectual property must be stopped” and tell me whether you agree - yes or no - and if not, what the alternatives are...

Asking AI services: Please read the article “AI’s assault on our intellectual property must be stopped” and tell me whether you agree - yes or no - and if not, what the alternatives are for rights owners and creators in the UK. If you agree, explain what the UK government should do next and what AI developers should be doing to accommodate that.

ChatGPT-4o:
Do I agree with the article? Yes.

The article highlights significant concerns about the unauthorized use of intellectual property (IP) in training AI models. This issue undermines creators' rights and risks depleting the high-quality creative content that drives the UK's globally recognized creative economy. An opt-in system for AI training data, as opposed to the current opt-out approach, is crucial for safeguarding fairness, legality, and economic growth in the creative industries.

What the UK Government Should Do:

1. Legislate an Opt-In Model: Introduce robust copyright laws that mandate AI companies to obtain explicit consent before using creative works for training. This mirrors how licensing agreements are handled in other industries.

2. Enforce Copyright Laws: Ensure that existing copyright protections extend to AI applications, penalizing companies that scrape data without permission.

3. Support Creators: Provide resources and platforms to help creators monitor and enforce their rights, including a centralized database for licensing creative works to AI developers.

4. Promote Transparency: Require AI developers to disclose the sources of their training data, ensuring accountability.

What AI Developers Should Do:

1. Adopt Ethical Practices: AI companies should prioritize ethical sourcing of training data by seeking permissions and offering fair compensation to rights holders.

2. Implement Filtering Mechanisms: Develop tools to ensure that copyrighted material is not used in outputs unless specifically licensed.

3. Partner with Content Creators: Collaborate with creators to build tailored datasets for AI training, creating mutual benefits without violating rights.

4. Support Licensing Frameworks: Invest in or adopt licensing platforms that streamline agreements with content creators.

Alternatives for Rights Owners and Creators in the UK:

If government action lags, creators can explore these measures:

1. Collective Bargaining: Join organizations like the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) to negotiate licensing terms collectively with AI companies.

2. Leverage Technology: Use digital watermarking and other tools to track and identify unauthorized use of creative content.

3. Litigation: Pursue legal action against companies that violate copyright laws to set precedents.

4. Awareness Campaigns: Raise public awareness about the issue to pressure governments and AI companies into action.

The UK's creative industries have too much at stake to let these challenges go unaddressed. Proactive measures are essential to ensure creators remain at the heart of innovation while benefiting fairly from AI advancements.


Grok’s answer:
No

The issue of AI's interaction with intellectual property (IP) is complex, and while there are valid concerns raised in Kate Mosse's article, the blanket assertion that AI's use of copyrighted material without consent is an assault on IP does not fully capture the nuances of the situation. Here are some considerations and alternatives for rights owners and creators in the UK:

Alternatives for Rights Owners and Creators:

1. Licensing and Compensation Agreements:

   • Creators could negotiate licensing agreements with AI companies for the use of their works in training datasets. This could involve compensation models where creators receive royalties or flat fees for the use of their content.

2. Opt-In Systems with Incentives:

   • Instead of an opt-out system, an opt-in model could be implemented where creators are given incentives (like financial benefits or visibility) to share their work with AI systems. This could ensure that only content from willing creators is used, promoting a more cooperative environment.

3. Transparency and Traceability:

   • AI developers could be required to maintain transparent logs of which works are used in training datasets, allowing creators to track usage. Blockchain or similar technologies could be employed to keep a verifiable record of content usage.

4. Fair Use Doctrine Clarification:

   • The UK could look into clarifying or expanding the concept of fair use or fair dealing within copyright law to explicitly address AI training. This might include provisions that allow for certain uses of copyrighted material without permission under specific conditions that do not harm the market of the original work.

5. Collective Bargaining and Advocacy:

   • Creators could form collectives or use existing bodies like the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society to negotiate terms with AI companies on a larger scale, providing a stronger voice and potentially better terms for individual creators.

Steps for the UK Government:

• Legislative Action:

  • Develop legislation or amend existing laws to clearly define how AI can interact with copyrighted materials. This could include setting up frameworks for licensing, compensation, and fair use in AI contexts.

• Regulatory Oversight:

  • Establish a regulatory body or extend the mandate of existing bodies like the Intellectual Property Office to monitor AI usage of IP, ensuring companies adhere to new laws or guidelines.

• Consultation and Collaboration:

  • Facilitate ongoing dialogues between tech companies, creators, and legal experts to evolve policy in line with technological advancements and societal needs.

What AI Developers Should Do:

• Respect and Adhere to Legal Frameworks:

  • Once new laws or guidelines are established, AI developers should ensure strict compliance, perhaps even going beyond the minimum requirements to foster goodwill.

• Develop Ethical AI Practices:

  • Implement practices where AI models are trained on datasets that respect copyright, possibly using synthetic data or data where consent has been explicitly given.

• Transparency in Data Use:

  • Provide clear information on how data is used, by whom, and for what purpose, enhancing trust and allowing creators to make informed decisions about their IP.

• Collaborative Initiatives:

  • Engage with creative industries to co-develop solutions that benefit both AI development and the protection of intellectual property rights.

In conclusion, while the concerns highlighted by Mosse are significant, the solution lies in a balanced approach that respects copyright while also acknowledging the potential of AI to innovate and enhance creativity. This requires nuanced policy-making, technological innovation in respecting IP, and a collaborative effort between all stakeholders involved.


Perplexity’s answer:
Yes, I agree with the article's stance that AI's use of intellectual property without consent or compensation must be addressed.

Why I Agree

The article raises valid concerns about AI companies using copyrighted works without permission or payment, which undermines creators' rights and the UK's creative industries. Kate Mosse's personal experience of having her novels scraped by Meta's AI model without consent or compensation illustrates the problem.

What the UK Government Should Do Next

1. Strengthen Copyright Laws: The government should reinforce existing copyright laws to explicitly cover AI training, ensuring they remain robust in the digital age.

2. Implement Opt-In Model: Instead of the proposed opt-out system, an opt-in model should be adopted, requiring AI companies to obtain permission before using copyrighted works.

3. Establish Fair Compensation: Create a framework for fair compensation to creators whose works are used in AI training.

4. Increase Transparency: Require AI companies to disclose which works they use in their training data.

5. Support Creative Industries: Continue to support the UK's thriving creative sector, which contributes significantly to the economy.

What AI Developers Should Do

1. Respect Copyright: Actively seek permission from rights holders before using their works in AI training.

2. Develop Ethical AI: Create AI models that respect intellectual property rights and creative works.

3. Collaborate with Creators: Work with authors, artists, and other creators to find mutually beneficial ways to incorporate their works into AI development.

4. Implement Tracking Systems: Develop systems to track and attribute the use of copyrighted materials in AI outputs.

5. Fair Compensation Models: Establish fair compensation models for creators whose works contribute to AI development.

By taking these steps, the UK government and AI developers can help ensure that the growth of AI technology does not come at the expense of creators' rights and the vibrant creative industries that contribute significantly to the UK economy.

Claude’s answer:
Yes, I agree with Kate Mosse's position, and here's what should happen next:

UK Government actions needed:

1. Reject the proposed "opt-out" framework for AI training data

2. Implement Baroness Kidron's amendments to the data bill to strengthen copyright enforcement

3. Create clear licensing frameworks for AI companies to properly compensate creators

4. Maintain the UK's existing copyright protections rather than weakening them

AI developers should:

1. Establish transparent systems for tracking what content they use for training

2. Develop fair compensation models for rights holders

3. Create "opt-in" mechanisms where creators can choose to license their work

4. Implement technical safeguards to prevent verbatim reproduction of copyrighted content

5. Work with publishers and authors' organizations to establish industry standards

The key issue is preserving the UK's £108bn creative industry while enabling AI innovation. Both can coexist, but it requires proper frameworks for licensing and compensation rather than unauthorized use of copyrighted works.

The current situation of companies like Meta scraping content without permission or compensation undermines creators' ability to earn a living from their work, which would ultimately harm both the creative industries and AI companies who rely on high-quality training data.