Scott Jones’ Post

I've said it many times before - only two things will slow down the development and use of AI: government regulations or legal challenges from copyright owners. Some companies, like Adobe and Apple, are using or planning to use licensed content for generative AI. Other AI companies, who are "scraping the web" for content in the name of fair use, are going to face significant legal challenges. This will be the biggest AI battle in 2024, as highlighted by this article. https://lnkd.in/eBCDvkWf

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) led discussions to create a voluntary code of practice on copyright and Generative AI ("Gen AI") but failed to reach an agreement. The working group could not reach consensus on the use of copyright-protected works to train Gen AI models. This outcome disappointed both the creative and technology industries, as they sought clarity on protecting works and developing future technologies. The creative industry expressed concerns about the large-scale use of works to train Gen AI models, while AI developers emphasized the need for access to diverse datasets. The UK Government plans to lead further engagement with right holders and AI sectors to find an effective approach for partnership. This announcement coincides with a consultation series initiated by the UK Information Commissioner's Office on how UK Data Protection Laws should apply to the development and use of Gen AI.

News Update U.S. Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Create AI Transparency On April 9, U.S. Representative Adam Schiff of California introduced a bill titled the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024. The main purpose of the proposed legislation is to require entities that create or significantly alter training datasets used for building generative AI systems to submit a notice to the Register of Copyrights, providing details about any copyrighted works included in those datasets. #ai #genai #news https://lnkd.in/dY6ZKNEV

If you would ask me in 10 years from now "What was THE hot topic among IP and IT lawyers in 2024?" the answer will be simple: generative AI or GenAI! Indeed, the use of generative AI raises many interesting questions, especially in the field of copyright. In this second blogpost of our 'AI & IP' series, together with my colleagues Alexis Fierens and Emma Stockman we are happy to demystify the first and most basic question: are AI-generated works eligible for copyright protection? Why would you ask ChatGPT if you can also read our contribution?

CCC understands how important it is to enable the development of ethical, reliable, and trustworthy AI systems to further business and research goals. At the same time, there are meaningful risks associated with some AI applications. AI systems trained on poor quality materials can generate bad science, promote misinformation, and lead to harmful results. AI-related advancements will be strengthened by relying on responsibly sourced copyrighted works. Catherine Zaller Rowland and Babis Marmanis will give a great talk on March 20 to Pistoia Alliance colleagues on this important topic.   

https://bit.ly/49ZdhQK Patronus AI recently unveiled a tool named Catcher, designed to identify copyright infringement within the outputs of leading artificial intelligence (AI) models. #copyrightinfringement #intellectualproperty #iplaw

Quoting Oliver King-Smith "The discussion around copyright is not a new one. For years the US congress extended it, to the point where you wonder what is the purpose. And why does a corporation get longer copyright claims than an individual? A discussion about what the goals of copyright are, is probably overdue." Thank you Debby K for including our latest blog post on your platform, Teckedin.com - Offering the shortest path to staying up on business technology. #verticalai #greenai #responsibleai #ethicalai #copyright #IPlaws #dataprivacy #privategpt #gpt3 #gpt4

Nicholas Thompson When Google provides "answers" that are an assemblage of dozens of articles and work product, should Google pay all of the original authors? 2. When someone reads a book that is given to them by someone else, should the author be paid twice? 3. Just because some copyright is "old", does that mean the original authors or their heirs should not receive compensation? 4. Your question turns on "derivative". There is nothing original under the sun. 5. What if the work is found to be 49% "derivative" and 51% new, should the original author get 49% of the payment?

“One of the frontiers of innovation in AI should be in techniques and business models to enable the kind of flourishing ecosystem of content creation that has characterized the web and the online distribution of music and video. AI companies that figure this out will create a virtuous flywheel that rewards content creation rather than turning the industry into an extractive dead end.” Some good thoughts in the below O’Reilly piece that lays out the reasoning behind their business model innovation. But internet sourcing is a naïve premise as it flips the principle of informed consent and fatally ignores massive power asymmetries of bad actors and amateurs: In the real world, any popular content by definition ends up online via third parties without the rightsholder’s permission, regardless if they are even online, aware or in a position to police it. It is put there by actors with no incentive to apply any opt-out mechanisms, and as the Internet is ultimately anonymous, no disincentives. “Information wants to be free.” And any popular creative activity generates enough non-opted amateur content that models built only on it will hit replacement quality, effectively killing any incentive to learn the skill; market incentives first, effort incentives second. Opt-out registries are necessary but not sufficient. Fundamental legal principles must be upheld. #degenerativeai not built on consent inevitably kills it substrate.