The use of copyrighted works to train generative AI models, such as Meta's LLaMA, is raising concerns about copyright infringement and transparency, with potential legal consequences and a looming "day of reckoning" for the datasets used.
A federal judge ruled that AI-generated art is not eligible for copyright protection in the US due to the absence of human authorship.
President Joe Biden relies on his science adviser Arati Prabhakar to guide the US approach to safeguarding AI technology, with cooperation from tech giants like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Meta. Prabhakar discusses the need for understanding the implications and consequences of AI, the challenge of making AI models explainable, concerns about biases and privacy, and the importance of voluntary commitments from tech companies along with government actions.
Three artists, including concept artist Karla Ortiz, are suing AI art generators Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt for using their work to train generative AI systems without their consent, in a case that could test the boundaries of copyright law and impact the way AI systems are built. The artists argue that feeding copyrighted works into AI systems constitutes intellectual property theft, while AI companies claim fair use protection. The outcome could determine the legality of training large language models on copyrighted material.
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.
AI-generated inventions need to be allowed patent protection to encourage innovation and maximize social benefits, as current laws hinder progress in biomedicine; jurisdictions around the world have differing approaches to patenting AI-generated inventions, and the US falls behind in this area, highlighting the need for legislative action.
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.
The U.S. is falling behind in regulating artificial intelligence (AI), while Europe has passed the world's first comprehensive AI law; President Joe Biden recently met with industry leaders to discuss the need for AI regulation and companies pledged to develop safeguards for AI-generated content and prioritize user privacy.
Major media organizations are calling for new laws to protect their content from being used by AI tools without permission, expressing concerns over unauthorized scraping and the potential for AI to produce false or biased information.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to deliver significant productivity gains, but its current adoption may further consolidate the dominance of Big Tech companies, raising concerns among antitrust authorities.
The deployment of generation AI (gen AI) capabilities in enterprises comes with compliance risks and potential legal liabilities, particularly related to data privacy laws and copyright infringement, prompting companies to take a cautious approach and deploy gen AI in low-risk areas. Strategies such as prioritizing lower-risk use cases, implementing data governance measures, utilizing layers of control, considering open-source software, addressing data residency requirements, seeking indemnification from vendors, and giving board-level attention to AI are being employed to mitigate risks and navigate regulatory uncertainty.
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.
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.
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools can put human rights at risk, as highlighted by researchers from Amnesty International on the Me, Myself, and AI podcast, who discuss scenarios in which AI is used to track activists and make automated decisions that can lead to discrimination and inequality, emphasizing the need for human intervention and changes in public policy to address these issues.
The US Copyright Office has initiated a public comment period to explore the intersection of AI technology and copyright laws, including issues related to copyrighted materials used to train AI models, copyright protection for AI-generated content, liability for infringement, and the impact of AI mimicking human voices or styles. Comments can be submitted until November 15.
The UK government has been urged to introduce new legislation to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in order to keep up with the European Union (EU) and the United States, as the EU advances with the AI Act and US policymakers publish frameworks for AI regulations. The government's current regulatory approach risks lagging behind the fast pace of AI development, according to a report by the science, innovation, and technology committee. The report highlights 12 governance challenges, including bias in AI systems and the production of deepfake material, that need to be addressed in order to guide the upcoming global AI safety summit at Bletchley Park.
“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.
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.
A survey of 213 computer science professors suggests that a new federal agency should be created in the United States to govern artificial intelligence (AI), while the majority of respondents believe that AI will be capable of performing less than 20% of tasks currently done by humans.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in academia is raising concerns about cheating and copyright issues, but also offers potential benefits in personalized learning and critical analysis, according to educators. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has released global guidance on the use of AI in education, urging countries to address data protection and copyright laws and ensure teachers have the necessary AI skills. While some students find AI helpful for basic tasks, they note its limitations in distinguishing fact from fiction and its reliance on internet scraping for information.
Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) plans to introduce legislation prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by the federal government for law enforcement purposes, in response to the Internal Revenue Service's recently announced AI-driven tax enforcement initiative.
Senators Richard Blumenthal and Josh Hawley are holding a hearing to discuss legislation on regulating artificial intelligence (AI), with a focus on protecting against potential dangers posed by AI and improving transparency and public trust in AI companies. The bipartisan legislation framework includes creating an independent oversight body, clarifying legal liability for AI harms, and requiring companies to disclose when users are interacting with AI models or systems. The hearing comes ahead of a major AI Insight Forum, where top tech executives will provide insights to all 100 senators.
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 AI industry should learn from the regulatory challenges faced by the crypto industry and take a proactive approach in building relationships with lawmakers, highlighting the benefits of AI technology, and winning public support through campaigns in key congressional districts and states.
Eight new technology companies, including Adobe, IBM, Nvidia, Palantir, and Salesforce, have made voluntary commitments on artificial intelligence (AI) to drive safe and secure development while working towards comprehensive regulation, according to a senior Biden administration official. The commitments include outside testing of AI systems, cybersecurity measures, information sharing, research on societal risks, and addressing society's challenges. The White House is partnering with the private sector to harness the benefits of AI while managing the risks.
A bipartisan group of senators is expected to introduce legislation to create a government agency to regulate AI and require AI models to obtain a license before deployment, a move that some leading technology companies have supported; however, critics argue that licensing regimes and a new AI regulator could hinder innovation and concentrate power among existing players, similar to the undesirable economic consequences seen in Europe.
The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation discussed the federal government's use of artificial intelligence (AI) and emphasized the need for responsible governance, oversight, and accountability to mitigate risks and protect civil liberties and privacy rights.
Governments worldwide are grappling with the challenge of regulating artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, as countries like Australia, Britain, China, the European Union, France, G7 nations, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Nations, and the United States take steps to establish regulations and guidelines for AI usage.
Amazon will require publishers who use AI-generated content to disclose their use of the technology, small businesses are set to benefit from AI and cloud technologies, and President Biden warns the UN about the potential risks of AI governance, according to the latest AI technology advancements reported by Fox News.
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.
The Authors Guild, representing prominent fiction authors, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement and the unauthorized use of their works to train AI models like ChatGPT, which generates summaries and analyses of their novels, interfering with their economic prospects. This case could determine the legality of using copyrighted material to train AI systems.
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.
