Opt-out doesn’t work, least of all for writers who are focused on writing, not scanning the horizon for risks to their IP. The lack of attribution is also of great concern
I was campaigning on this issue in 2008, so I do know the shape of the problem :) This specific iteration actually seems to address the "scanning the horizon" issue, which is why I'm not leaning hard into it.
Why is the onus on the owner of something to 'opt out' of having their property stolen? I'd quite like to opt out of anyone stealing my car, do I need to complete some kind of form?
This is so bad. What a way for an incoming government to alienate artists in the UK. Essentially inserting an opt out clause rather than an opt in. What are they thinking? So bad it beggars belief.
The only way to stop this will be to insert crippling clauses into any bill that is presented, such as AI companies will need a complete audit trail of any element of the artists material used to ensure accountability, and that the company has the freedom to use that material.
When you move fast and break things, you act first and seek permission later. That's been the general model in the tech world for a while now. And if the opt-out is anything like Facebook's, then it'll be hidden away in some obscure smallprint that asks you to contact a rarely monitored email.
Interesting is that the government has again acknowledged that an exemption is required. In other words, whatever the resolution, there’s a strong implication that tech firms already have debts here.
I wonder what would happen if the rest of us started using the "better to ask forgiveness than permission" justification in relation to other kinds of property rights, then wanted to get the law changed to legitimise what we'd done?
Counter-proposal: if these companies want free access to our creative output to train their machines, they must not be allowed to charge anyone to use them. Seems only fair.
Probably not, since the tech firms would find a way around it anyway. It's too late anyway - they've already helped themselves. It's so frustrating seeing government falling for all the AI hype rather than pushing back against it.
This is one of the things that's worth talking about. If that were on the table (and clearly it's not) would anyone take it? Would it be legit for governments to exercise a kind of eminent domain?
Also, these companies should provide creators with free access to their entire codebase without restriction, including the permission to then sell it on to other people 😜
Another thing that's worth talking about - do governments really want to legitimise large scale unlawful behaviour followed by attempts to make changes to the law retroactively?
Looking at the first question, let's broaden it to IP generally and have a quick look at health data. Would we accept the state sharing our health data in exchange for resulting research being free to public use? All patents held in common or similar?
"Legal uncertainty is undermining investment in and adoption of AI technology." ...wait a minute...you're telling me the *law* is deterring people from doing illegal stuff?! Oh my god, what kind of society are we living in??
Also, I think if the opt-out model of not having your paycheck stolen is good enough for artists, it's good enough for politicians, too. They can go door to door delivering "don't steal my money" waivers to every constituent. Better yet, let's do it as a monthly anti-subscription model.
If the AI companies want to use everyone's creative material for free, it would be only fair of they made all their software, office space and staff time available, free of charge, for creatives agencies to use and re-purpose as they see fit.
I think it's an excellent headline. Headlines now function as engagement bait, designed to get articles shared and talked about online. It is disingenuous but if it wasn't it wouldn't get posted or talked about as much. Everyone in the creative space is going to post their take, read it or not.
Comments
Having said that: it’s not as if they’re paying attention to the law at the moment, so is this better or worse?
Pragmatically: possibly better. But the downstream effect? I don’t like it.