EFF to Courts: Don’t Rewrite Copyright Over AI Hype
The history of technology is rife with copyright panics. In the 1980s, major rightsholders ran to Congress and the courts, claiming that videotape recorders (VTR) were “to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone .” Then, the Supreme Court declined to embrace the hype, noting that the VTR was capable of all kinds of non-infringing uses,…
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has warned courts against hastily rewriting copyright laws in response to the growing hype around artificial intelligence (AI). The organization argues that courts should adopt a cautious approach, similar to the decision made in the case of videotape recorders (VTR) in the 1980s. In that instance, the Supreme Court declined to endorse the exaggerated concerns raised by major rightsholders, who claimed VTRs would be as dangerous as the "Boston strangler."
The EFF believes the same caution should be applied to AI, noting that historical examples of new technologies, such as the player piano and the gramophone, did not lead to the destruction of music composition or the replacement of portrait artists' work. Instead, these technologies spurred a resurgence of portraiture and led to unexpected developments, such as the rise of photojournalism.
Copyright law, the EFF contends, is intended to foster new markets, ideas, and creators—not to restrict them. The organization warns that courts should not expand copyright protections based on speculation and hyperbole, as rightsholders are now urging. They argue that the "market dilution" theory, which suggests that generative AI tools might encourage the proliferation of competing works and thus be deemed unfair use, is misguided.
Applying this theory would undermine the purpose of copyright, which is to promote the creation of expressive works for the public's benefit. The EFF claims that accepting this theory would punish infringement, not competition, and would grant publishers unchecked veto power over any expression that might compete with a work they own.
The organization also points out that AI models are unlikely to produce infringing works due to the vast amount of data used in their training. Furthermore, AI tools are not necessarily displacing human creativity, as evidenced by numerous examples of artists and researchers using AI to augment and enhance their work. The EFF urges courts to refrain from determining in advance what tools foster or inhibit "human creativity," as the effects of AI are likely to be far-reaching and potentially disruptive, but distorting copyright law is not the appropriate response.
Written by urgent.news from EFF Deeplinks's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
