#FreeAllWords: International Text and Translation Fund of the European Writers‘ Council (EWC) gives a voice to authors from Belarus and Ukraine
AI Summit: Is copyright law up to the challenge?
The increasing use of generative AI technology raises a variety of issues related to copyright. On March 5, 2024, the Federal Ministry of Justice hosted an international conference to discuss the most pressing of these issues together with professionals from the AI industry and creative sectors as well as academic experts and law makers. The EWC’s Commissioner for Political Affairs, Ms. Nina George, was invited to discuss about the challenges for the book sector and the legal loopholes the TDM-exception (Art 4, 2019/790 CDSM Directive) poses to writers.
From the Conference Report by the Ministry of Justice: “The increasing popularity of generative AI technology raises a number of questions in relation to intellectual property law.
On 5 March 2024, the Federal Ministry of Justice hosted the Generative AI Summit, at which the most pressing of these questions were discussed with leading international representatives of the AI technology and creative sectors, as well as experts from science and legislation.
The conference took place all day hybrid at the Federal Ministry of Justice, Germany, and via livestream and was moderated by Dr Hendrik Wieduwilt.
In his welcoming address, Federal Minister of Justice Dr Marco Buschmann emphasised the potential of
AI and its importance for the distribution of wealth. AI can significantly accelerate human creative processes and make them more effective. For the interaction between man and machine, a practicable legal framework must be created. Frank Briegmann (Universal Music) kicked off the event with a video presenting various areas of application of AI in the music industry.
In a first keynote speech, Daren Tang, Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), called for AI to be seen not only as a as a crisis, but to reflect on the fundamentals of copyright law and to find a sensible balance of interests. WIPO wants to offer a global discussion forum for AI and intellectual property and supports its member states, for example by providing toolkits for political decision-makers or companies.
Dr Marianne Janik (Microsoft Germany) said in a video message that her company sees itself as a toolmaker in the field of AI. Dr. Mathias Döpfner (Axel Springer) emphasised that AI could make the profession of journalist more efficient, but at the same time a legal framework had to be created for AI. Philipp Justus (Google) mentioned in his keynote speech, that no new copyright law, but that partnership-based solutions should be found between different stakeholders.
Panel 1 was dedicated to the topic ‘Report from the field – opportunities of generative AI and
challenges for the creative industry”. The panellists were Dr Anke Schierholz (VG Bild-Kunst), Nina George (novelist, European Writers’ Council), Scott M. Martin (Paramount Pictures) and Tobias Haar (Aleph Alpha).
It became clear how differently the opportunities and risks opportunities and risks of generative AI are assessed. Mr Martin reported on the already extensive use of AI technologies in the film industry
and the negotiations between film studios and trade unions in the USA, particularly on the topics of consent requirements, remuneration and AI training.
Ms Nina George (EWC) stated, the exception based on the requirements of the European CDSM Directive ((EU) 2019/790) for text and data mining (TDM, Art 4) is not applicable to AI training.
With regard to the TDM exception, Dr Schierholz particularly recognised the lack of international standards for an effective opt-out as problematic and spoke in favour of licence-based solutions – for individual rights holders via collective management organisations (CMOs). Mr Tobias Haar (Alpeh Alpha), on the other hand, emphasised the importance of legal certainty for companies and that without the TDM exception (Art 4), there would be no generative AI industry in Europe.
In the following panel 2 “Scientific analysis – Is copyright law equipped for generative AI?” Prof. Dr Anne Lauber-Rönsberg (TU Dresden), Prof. Dr Katharina de la Durantaye (FU Berlin), Prof. Dr Björn Ommer (LMU Munich) and Prof. Martin Senftleben, Ph.(University of Amsterdam) discussed the regulations on training data in the AI Regulation and the effectiveness of European regulation on copyright in light of the fact that AI models are often trained outside the EU. Prof de la Durantaye explained that the EU AI Act presupposes the applicability of the TDM exception to the training of AI. The panel differed on the question of whether the AI Regulation calls into question the principle of territoriality. Prof Ommer emphasised – also going beyond copyright law – the risks of AI as a “black box” and the importance of transparency, which is technically feasible in any case. The issue of remuneration for rights holders was discussed in depth. Prof.
Senftleben thought, that the individual artists in particular should be taken into account and that a
remuneration system must be designed in such a way that money also flows back to them. The majority of professors were in favour of choosing output as the starting point for a remuneration system.
Prof Lauber-Rönsberg pointed out, however, that it would not necessarily to link this to a copyright-relevant act. She also emphasised that authors should continue to have the option of prohibiting the use of their works.
In the final panel 3, Renate Nikolay (European Commission), Shira Perlmutter (U.S. Copyright Office), Dr Ulrike Till (WIPO), Tiemo Wölken (MEP) and Dr Thorsten Lieb (Member of the German Bundestag) answered questions on the existing need for regulation and regulatory options at national, European and international level. From the Perlmutter’s report on the situation in the USA and Dr Till’s findings of the WIPO, it became clear that the topics of remuneration for authors, the legal classification of (G)AI training and the protectability of AI-generated products are controversially discussed worldwide. According to Dr Till, there is broad international agreement that a balance must be struck between the legitimate interests of the rightholders, the AI companies, civil society and the promotion of innovation. The best way to do this, however, was not answered uniformly.
Mrs Nikolay confirmed that the European Commission would review the CDSM Directive in the coming legislative period, but did not provide any details – except that the question of the extent to which AI output should be eligible for protection. MEP Mr Wölken expressed doubts as to whether the existing regulation on TDM was already the ideal way to achieve the desired balance between the various interests. However, the European Union was the right level for future regulation.
Dr Lieb emphasised that there were still many unanswered questions. Before further considerations on regulation, decisions by the courts on existing law and the effects of the AI the effects of the AI Regulation in practice.
In his closing remarks, Dr Christian Meyer-Seitz (BMJ) thanked all speakers for a successful conference, at which many important aspects were discussed with lively participation from the experts in the audience. The further examination of the complex issues in this area is important, for example to clarify how the “burden of action” would be distributed when opting out of the TDM exception and how much human involvement still needs to be in AI products for them to be considered protectable works. The Federal Ministry of Justice has asked the EU Commission to include copyright and AI in the
upcoming work programme.
Videorecording
SPEAKERS
Opening: Dr Marco Buschmann, Federal Minister of Justice, MP and Frank Briegmann, Universal Music Group
Keynotes: Daren Tang, WIPO; Dr Marianne Janik, Microsoft Germany; Dr Mathias Döpfner, Axel Springer; Philipp Justus, Google Germany.
Opportunities of generative AI and challenges faced by the creative industries: Scott M. Martin, Paramount Pictures; Dr Anke Schierholz, VG Bild-Kunst; Nina George, European Writers’ Council; Tobias Haar, Aleph Alpha.
Academic analysis – Is copyright law fit to address generative AI? : Prof. Björn Ommer, LMU Munich; Prof. Martin Senftleben, University of Amsterdam; Prof. Anne Lauber-Rönsberg, Dresden University of Technology; Prof. Katharina de la Durantaye, FU Berlin.
Outlook – Regulatory needs and options on a national, European and international level: Renate Nikolay, European Commission; Shira Perlmutter, US Copyright Office; Tiemo Wölken, MEP; Dr Thorsten Lieb, MP; Dr Ulrike Till, WIPO.
Summary of conference findings: Dr Christian Meyer-Seitz, Federal Ministry of Justice.