The main topic of the article is Kickstarter's struggle to formulate a policy regarding the use of generative AI on its platform. The key points are:
1. Generative AI tools used on Kickstarter have been trained on publicly available content without giving credit or compensation to the original creators.
2. Kickstarter is requiring projects using AI tools to disclose relevant details about how the AI content will be used and which parts are original.
3. New projects involving the development of AI tech must detail the sources of training data and implement safeguards for content creators.
4. Kickstarter's new policy will go into effect on August 29 and will be enforced through a new set of questions during project submissions.
5. Projects that do not properly disclose their use of AI may be suspended.
6. Kickstarter has been considering changes in policy around generative AI since December and has faced challenges in moderating AI works.
Generative AI is starting to impact the animation and visual effects industry, with companies like Base Media exploring its potentials, but concerns about job security and copyright infringement remain.
A federal judge has ruled that works created by artificial intelligence (A.I.) are not covered by copyrights, stating that copyright law is designed to incentivize human creativity, not non-human actors. This ruling has implications for the future role of A.I. in the music industry and the monetization of works created by A.I. tools.
Authors such as Zadie Smith, Stephen King, Rachel Cusk, and Elena Ferrante have discovered that their pirated works were used to train artificial intelligence tools by companies including Meta and Bloomberg, leading to concerns about copyright infringement and control of the technology.
The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers has proposed guidelines for the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) and data transparency in the entertainment industry, stating that AI-created material cannot be considered literary or intellectually protected, and ensuring that credit, rights, and compensation for AI-generated scripts are given to the original human writer or reworker.
Generative AI is enabling the creation of fake books that mimic the writing style of established authors, raising concerns regarding copyright infringement and right of publicity issues, and prompting calls for compensation and consent from authors whose works are used to train AI tools.
Hollywood studios are considering the use of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to assist in screenwriting, but concerns remain regarding copyright protection for works solely created by AI, as they currently are not copyrightable.
Artificial intelligence (AI) poses risks in the legal industry, including ethical dilemmas, reputational damage, and discrimination, according to legal technology experts. Instances of AI-generated content without proper human oversight could compromise the quality of legal representation and raise concerns about professional responsibility. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently settled a lawsuit involving discriminatory use of AI in the workplace, highlighting the potential for AI to discriminate. Maintaining trust and credibility is crucial in the reputation-reliant field of law, and disseminating AI-generated content without scrutiny may lead to reputational damage and legal consequences for lawyers or law firms. Other legal cases involving AI include allegations of copyright infringement.
Salesforce has released an AI Acceptable Use Policy that outlines the restrictions on the use of its generative AI products, including prohibiting their use for weapons development, adult content, profiling based on protected characteristics, medical or legal advice, and more. The policy emphasizes the need for responsible innovation and sets clear ethical guidelines for the use of AI.
AI technology, specifically generative AI, is being embraced by the creative side of film and TV production to augment the work of artists and improve the creative process, rather than replacing them. Examples include the use of procedural generation and style transfer in animation techniques and the acceleration of dialogue and collaboration between artists and directors. However, concerns remain about the potential for AI to replace artists and the need for informed decision-making to ensure that AI is used responsibly.
A Washington D.C. judge has ruled that AI-generated art should not be awarded copyright protections since no humans played a central role in its creation, establishing a precedent that art should require human authorship; YouTube has partnered with Universal Music Group to launch an AI music incubator to protect artists from unauthorized use of their content; Meta has introduced an automated translator that works for multiple languages, but concerns have been raised regarding the impact it may have on individuals who wish to learn multiple languages; major studios are hiring "AI specialists" amidst a writers' strike, potentially leading to a future of automated entertainment that may not meet audience expectations.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is seen as a tool that can inspire and collaborate with human creatives in the movie and TV industry, but concerns remain about copyright and ethical issues, according to Greg Harrison, chief creative officer at MOCEAN. Although AI has potential for visual brainstorming and automation of non-creative tasks, it should be used cautiously and in a way that values human creativity and culture.
Generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion, raises legal questions related to data use, copyrights, patents, and privacy, leading to lawsuits and uncertainties that could slow down technology adoption.
Generative AI tools are revolutionizing the creator economy by speeding up work, automating routine tasks, enabling efficient research, facilitating language translation, and teaching creators new skills.
The United States Copyright Office has issued a notice of inquiry seeking public comment on copyright and artificial intelligence (AI), specifically on issues related to the content AI produces and how it should be treated when it imitates or mimics human artists.
Artists Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, and Sarah Andersen are suing AI tools makers, including Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, for copyright infringement by using their artwork to generate new images without their consent, highlighting the threat to artists' livelihoods posed by artificial intelligence.
“A Recent Entrance to Paradise” is a pixelated artwork created by an artificial intelligence called DABUS in 2012. However, its inventor, Stephen Thaler, has been denied copyright for the work by a judge in the US. This decision has sparked a series of legal battles in different countries, as Thaler believes that DABUS, his AI system, is sentient and should be recognized as an inventor. These lawsuits raise important questions about intellectual property and the rights of AI systems. While Thaler's main supporter argues that machine inventions should be protected to encourage social good, Thaler himself sees these cases as a way to raise awareness about the existence of a new species. The debate revolves around whether AI systems can be considered creators and should be granted copyright and patent rights. Some argue that copyright requires human authorship, while others believe that intellectual property rights should be granted regardless of the involvement of a human inventor or author. The outcome of these legal battles could have significant implications for the future of AI-generated content and the definition of authorship.
Stephen King, a renowned author, defends generative AI by comparing it to the Luddites' resistance to industrial progress, despite the fact that the Luddites were actually protesting against the exploitation of workers through machinery, not progress itself. However, many creatives are concerned about AI's impact on their livelihoods, as it eradicates revenue streams and reduces opportunities for emerging artists, making it crucial to critically examine how the technology is being utilized.
UK publishers have called on the prime minister to protect authors' intellectual property rights in relation to artificial intelligence systems, as OpenAI argues that authors suing them for using their work to train AI systems have misconceived the scope of US copyright law.
"Generative" AI is being explored in various fields such as healthcare and art, but there are concerns regarding privacy and theft that need to be addressed.
The use of AI in the entertainment industry, such as body scans and generative AI systems, raises concerns about workers' rights, intellectual property, and the potential for broader use of AI in other industries, infringing on human connection and privacy.
Generative AI tools are causing concerns in the tech industry as they produce unreliable and low-quality content on the web, leading to issues of authorship, incorrect information, and potential information crisis.
AI is a topic of concern and fascination within the music industry, as musicians and composers grapple with the potential benefits and threats it poses to their work, with tools already available that enable the creation of professional-sounding original compositions, but with debates surrounding the authenticity and copyright of AI-generated music.
Generative AI's "poison pill" of derivatives poses a cloud of uncertainty over legal issues like IP ownership and copyright, as the lack of precedents and regulations for data derivatives become more prevalent with open source large language models (LLMs). This creates risks for enterprise technology leaders who must navigate the scope of claims and potential harms caused by LLMs.
Adobe has joined other companies in committing to safe AI development and has proposed a federal anti-impersonation law that would allow creators to seek damages from individuals using AI to impersonate them or their style for commercial purposes, which would make the impersonator, not the tool's vendor, the target of legal action.
Meta is being sued by authors who claim that their copyrighted works were used without consent to train the company's Llama AI language tool.
The generative AI boom has led to a "shadow war for data," as AI companies scrape information from the internet without permission, sparking a backlash among content creators and raising concerns about copyright and licensing in the AI world.
The use of AI in the film industry has sparked a labor dispute between actors' union SAG-AFTRA and studios, with concerns being raised about the potential for AI to digitally replicate actors' images without fair compensation, according to British actor Stephen Fry.
Generative AI is a form of artificial intelligence that can create various forms of content, such as images, text, music, and virtual worlds, by learning patterns and rules from existing data, and its emergence raises ethical questions regarding authenticity, intellectual property, and job displacement.
High-profile songwriters are meeting with Congressmen to advocate for legislation protecting musicians' copyrights in the face of the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in the music industry. The industry wants clear legislation that requires permission from copyright holders to use pre-existing songs to train AI for generating new music.
Several fiction writers are suing Open AI, alleging that the company's ChatGPT chatbot is illegally utilizing their copyrighted work to generate copycat texts.
The use of generative AI poses risks to businesses, including the potential exposure of sensitive information, the generation of false information, and the potential for biased or toxic responses from chatbots. Additionally, copyright concerns and the complexity of these systems further complicate the landscape.
The US Copyright Office has ruled for the third time that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, raising questions about whether AI-generated art is categorically excluded from copyright protection or if human creators should be listed as the image's creator. The office's position, which is based on existing copyright doctrine, has been criticized for being unscalable and a potential quagmire, as it fails to consider the creative choices made by AI systems similar to those made by human photographers.
