The magazine Billboard Bulletin published three articles on the topic of AI technology. “Music Creators Want Consent in the AI Age, But Developers Find Safe Havens Abroad” by Kristin Robinson is about the struggle between musical artists and the companies who are training AI algorithms with their music. These AI algorithms are being trained with copyrighted material without asking for the consent of the copyright holder. Music creators are trying to protect their property through government regulation and copyright law while the companies who own the AI algorithms see seeking out “safe haven” countries that have lax copyright laws or government exemptions to continue training their technology. These “safe haven” countries believe that AI technology will bring them great economic success and therefore provide copyright exemptions to the companies who own AI technology. Some AI companies are offering an opt out function to creators if they don’t want their work to be used in training the algorithm. I am a musician, so I personally don’t like the idea of music being made by a soulless thing like AI. I like the fact that some of the companies that use AI algorithms are taking the step to offer an opt out option. The problem is that not all of them will. AI technology needs to be regulated so it can’t take advantage of other people’s work without their consent.
Bill Donahue’s article “AI-Generated Works Aren’t Protected By Copyrights, Federal Judge Rules,” talks about a court case that ruled that creative works created by AI are not protected under U.S. copyright law. The reasoning for the ruling was that only human made works can be protected by copyright. The judge wrote in her opinion that only human creation can encourage other humans to create which is the purpose of copyright. Stephen Thaler, the man who filed the lawsuit because he attempted to register an AI generated image for copyright, argued back that AI created work could inspire other people to want to innovate just as much as human created work could. I am also an artist, so AI algorithms scraping the internet affects me personally because I have published artwork online. I don’t want my hard work to be used to train a technology that gives me no credit. I personally don’t think AI work should be able to be copyrighted, but I also don’t agree that copyright should be based on whether or not a human created the work. AI work shouldn’t be copyrighted because it is a combination of other people’s work; work that is usually taken without consent.
“Protecting Songwriters in the Age of AI,” is a guest column written by Paul Williams the chairman of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP). Paul Williams writes that ASCAP has developed six principles for AI that they wanted Congress to follow. The principles are putting human creators first, transparency of whether a work contains AI generated content, getting the consent of creators to use their work, compensating creators fairly for their work, crediting music creators if their work is used, and creating global consistency by making an even playing field that values intellectual property. Williams also argues that music creators are already heavily regulated and leaving AI technology unregulated will lead entertainment companies to pay them less when they can just use AI to make songs. Music creators are concerned that AI technology will threaten their livelihood. I think these six principles are a good guideline on how AI technology should be regulated. I don’t completely hate AI technology; I just think without regulation it will be used to abuse the people that made the very content it was trained on.
