Pasquale, F., & Sun, H. (2024).
SSRN Electronic Journal.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to augment and democratize creativity. However, it is undermining the knowledge ecosystem that now sustains it. Generative AI may unfairly compete with creatives, displacing them in the market. Most AI firms are not compensating creative workers for composing the songs, drawing the images, and writing both the fiction and non-fiction books that their models need in order to function. AI thus threatens not only to undermine the livelihoods of authors, artists, and other creatives, but also to destabilize the very knowledge ecosystem it relies on.
Alarmed by these developments, many copyright owners have objected to the use of their works by AI providers. To recognize and empower their demands to stop non-consensual use of their works, we propose a streamlined opt-out mechanism that would require AI providers to remove objectors’ works from their databases once copyright infringement has been documented. Those who do not object still deserve compensation for the use of their work by AI providers. We thus also propose a levy on AI providers, to be distributed to the copyright owners whose work they use without a license. This scheme is designed to ensure creatives receive a fair share of the economic bounty arising out of their contributions to AI. Together these mechanisms of consent and compensation would result in a new grand bargain between copyright owners and AI firms, designed to ensure both thrive in the long-term.
Here are some thoughts.
This essay discusses the copyright challenges presented by generative artificial intelligence (AI). It argues that AI's ability to create content and replicate existing works threatens the livelihoods of authors and other creatives, destabilizing the knowledge ecosystem that AI relies on. The authors propose a legislative solution involving an opt-out mechanism that would allow copyright owners to remove their works from AI training databases and a levy on AI providers to compensate copyright owners whose work is used without a license.
The essay emphasizes the urgency of addressing the issue, asserting that the free use of copyrighted works by AI providers devalues human creativity and could undermine AI's future development by removing incentives for creating the training data it needs. It highlights the disruption of the knowledge ecosystem caused by the opacity and scale of AI systems, which erodes authors' control over their works. The authors point out that AI firms are unlikely to offer compensation for the use of copyrighted works.
Ultimately, the essay advocates for a new agreement between copyright owners and AI firms, facilitated by the proposed mechanisms of consent and compensation. This would ensure the long-term viability of both AI and the human creative input it depends on. The authors believe that their proposed framework offers a promising legislative solution to the copyright problems created by new technological uses of works.
