Rewriting Copyright Law for Generative AI Would Hurt Everyone
In courts across the country, publishers and creators are suing large AI companies for training generative AI models on copyrighted works. It’s easy to see these cases as a David-and-Goliath showdown between authors and publishers fighting for a cut of Big Tech company profits. But this fight is actually much larger. It affects billions of people who aren’t represented in the case at all,…
In the legal battles surrounding generative AI and copyright, publishers and creators are taking on large AI companies. However, this fight extends far beyond the authors and publishers. Millions of people, including researchers, artists, activists, journalists, individuals with disabilities, and internet users, are impacted as well. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has stepped in to defend the public's rights in these cases.
The brief filed by EFF in the case of In re OpenAI discusses how a narrowed fair use could negatively affect various aspects of society. If fair use rights are restricted, it would hinder public benefitting work, such as medical research and investigative journalism. It would also limit access to privacy protection tools.
While creators and workers deserve support and accountability for AI's impact on their industries, granting copyright holders more control over the web would not achieve these goals. If the plaintiffs win, courts would have to rewrite copyright law in a way that harms everyone, except the powerful media and tech companies.
Restricting fair use would go beyond the impact on generative AI and affect everyone. Historically, the purpose of copyright is to stimulate creativity and innovation for the greater public good. However, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are advocating for limiting everyone's fair use rights, which would counteract the fundamental purpose of copyright.
The concerns about AI models being infringement machines have not materialized, and courts have already recognized fair use in training generative AI models. Limiting fair use would impede transformative uses that benefit the public, such as research and reporting. Journalists and researchers often use similar data acquisition techniques as AI companies, but lack the resources to do so.
Requiring permission for every copied work would create legal uncertainty in everyday internet activities and limit the creation of new works inspired by existing ones. Additionally, general-purpose AI models are used for various beneficial purposes, including medical, scientific, and accessibility research. Mandatory licensing would provide significant advantages to the largest companies and hinder small competitors and academic research.
Written by urgent.news from EFF Deeplinks's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
