On the basis of following Blogpost please respond to the question of what do you I about the EU AI act: Facebook
 
Twitter
 
Linkedin
 
Instagram
TechnoLlama


TOGGLE NAVIGATION
The EU AI Act and copyright
Published by Andres Guadamuz on March 14, 2024
The European Parliament has approved the AI Act (final text here), setting in motion its publication in the official journal in the next few months. While full implementation will take place between 2025 and 2026, we will start seeing its effects sooner rather than later as AI companies and other stakeholders start to put in place implementation strategies. The AI Act sets out a comprehensive regime that regulates some forms of artificial intelligence, although some people argue that it has been watered down and filled with exceptions that will make it mostly useless. But what about copyright?

The first thing worthy of note is that the AI Act was not initially intended to deal with copyright issues, this was supposed to be a regulation designed to classify various artificial intelligence technologies into several risk categories, going from unacceptable risk, to minimal or no risk systems. However, the rise of generative AI during 2022, and particularly the deployment of LLMs such as ChatGPT, moved drafters into at least trying to address it. As it was included at a relatively late stage of the negotiations, the resulting provisions can be considered to be relatively weak, and certainly do not meet the calls for more stringent changes to copyright law.

Generative AI is not fully defined as such in the act, but it is specified that models capable of generating content such as text and images falls under the category of a General Purpose AI models (GPAI). These are defined in Art 3 (44b) as “an AI model, including when trained with a large amount of data using self-supervision at scale, that displays significant generality and is capable to competently perform a wide range of distinct tasks regardless of the way the model is placed on the market and that can be integrated into a variety of downstream systems or applications.” So far so broad, but what is important is that these do not fall into the prohibited or high-risk category, but some GPAIs may offer systemic risks, this is assessed through appropriate technical analysis and methodologies, but there’s also a presumption of systemic risk if the model’s floating point operations (FLOPs) is greater than 10^25. That is a lot of computing power.

The main provision for GPAI models regarding copyright can be found in Art 52c, under the obligations for providers of GPAI models. This imposes a transparency obligation that include the following:

Draw up and keep up-to-date technical documentation about the model’s training. This should include its purpose, the computational power it consumes, and, crucially for copyright purposes, details about the data used in training.
Draw up and keep up-to-date technical documentation for providers adopting the model. This documentation should enable providers to comprehend the model’s limitations while respecting trade secrets and other intellectual property rights. It can encompass a range of technical data, including the model’s interaction with hardware and software not included in the model itself.
“put in place a policy to respect Union copyright law in particular to identify and respect, including through state of the art technologies, the reservations of rights expressed pursuant to Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790”.
“draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary about the content used for training of the general-purpose AI model, according to a template provided by the AI Office”.
c) and d) are of particular interest for copyright purposes.Paragraph (c) is derived from Article 4 of the DSM Directive, which establishes an exception to copyright for Text and Data Mining (TDM) for non-scientific or non-research purposes, distinct from the scientific or research purposes covered under Article 3 of the same directive. This exception is conditional on respecting any opt-outs specified by copyright holders. This development is particularly noteworthy as it significantly clarifies the scope of Article 4. Firstly, the requirement to establish policies that respect copyright essentially serves as a reminder to abide by existing laws. More crucially, however, providers are mandated to implement technologies enabling them to honor copyright holders’ opt-outs. This is due to Article 4 introducing a framework for utilising technological tools to manage opt-outs and rights reservations, which is favorable news for technology providers. Additionally, it now appears unequivocally clear that the exception for Technical Protection Measures (TPM) includes AI training, as specified in the AI Act. The need for its implication in a legal framework specifically addressing AI training suggests that, despite previous arguments to the contrary, TPM indeed covers AI training.

Paragraph d) is also interesting as GPAI models will have to provide a detailed summary of the content used to train them. The reaches of this summary will be subject of templates given by the new AI Office, but recital 60k contains an explanation of its reaches:

“In order to increase transparency on the data that is used in the pre-training and training of general purpose AI models, including text and data protected by copyright law, it is adequate that providers of such models draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training the general purpose model. While taking into due account the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information, this summary should be generally comprehensive in its scope instead of technically detailed to facilitate parties with legitimate interests, including copyright holders, to exercise and enforce their rights under Union law, for example by listing the main data collections or sets that went into training the model, such as large private or public databases or data archives, and by providing a narrative explanation about other data sources used. It is appropriate for the AI Office to provide a template for the summary, which should be simple, effective, and allow the provider to provide the required summary in narrative form.” [Highlight mine].

This provision is poised to spark controversy but stands as the most potent copyright-related clause in the Act. Copyright holders are likely to welcome this development, whereas GPAI providers might harbor concerns. A recurring theme in ongoing copyright infringement cases has been the use of training content disclosure by plaintiffs. However, I believe this might not necessarily be a drawback; transparency could prove beneficial, particularly in light of the stipulations in paragraph (c).

Furthermore, an essential aspect of the GPAI transparency requirement is the exception for open source models. These are defined as models made available to the public under a license that permits free access, use, modification, and distribution, and requires public disclosure of the model’s parameters, including weights, architectural details, and usage information. However, this exemption does not apply to GPAIs posing systemic risks. Consequently, there is an incentive to release models as open source, but merely labeling a model as “open source” is insufficient; it must be distributed under an actual FOSS license. This raises a question for open source enthusiasts: does “FOSS license” refer to any of the numerous self-styled FOSS licenses, or is it more narrowly defined, perhaps aligning with licenses approved by the OSI?

Another exception is for models that have been trained for non-professional or scientific research purposes, this in accordance to Art 2 (5a), and also it’s explained in recital 60g. This is in line with existing copyright provisions in Art 3 DSM, but it may open the potential for commercial providers relying on models trained by research institutions. The wording of recital 60g however suggests that a change in the purpose of a model would eliminate this exception, but the wording is a bit vague, perhaps on purpose.

Finally, while not directly related to copyright, Art 52 contains a requirement for some AI generated content to be labelled as generated by a computer, but this requirement is for content that is considered a deep fake, that is “AI generated or manipulated image, audio or video content that resembles existing persons, objects, places or other entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful”. There is however, an exception for parody or humour. The importance for this provision for copyright is that it creates a way of identifying content that has been AI generated, which could have an effect for its copyrightability in jurisdictions that may impose restrictions on AI authorship due to humanity requirements.

Concluding

While the AI Act already has many critics, I think that it’s a step in the right direction, and it is likely to launch a compliance exercise around Europe the likes of which we haven’t seen since the GDPR. While the transparency obligations are relatively mild, they provide copyright holders with further tools to uncover potential infringement, and at the same times it also gives GPAI providers with a bit more certainty that they will not be sued out of existence if they comply with the rules. The EU is trying to balance the rights of copyright holders and the interests of AI developers. We’ll see how the balancing act works.

I did enjoy reading the AI Act though, I didn’t even need to ask ChatGPT to summarise it for me. I also really like the acronym GPAI, it reminds me of “yipee-kay-yay”, it always comes down to Europe v US, doesn’t it?

Share this:
Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Like this:
Categories: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Tags: Artificial IntelligenceCopyrightRegulation
  
0 Comments
Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search
Search for:Search …
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address
Email Address
SUBSCRIBE

Join 5,366 other subscribers.
Top Posts
The EU AI Act and copyright
Palworld, Pokémon, and copyright infringement
High Court rules that Getty v Stability AI case can proceed
The curious case of Technoviking
VCRs, tape recorders, and AI
Catergories
Catergories
Select Category
March 2024
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
 	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31
« Feb    
RSS
RSS – Posts
Related Posts

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
VCRs, tape recorders, and AI
The AI copyright infringement cases are increasing rapidly, not only in the US but also in the UK and China. The number of cases is so high that it’s impossible to keep track of allRead more…


ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Do you own your voice? The challenges of voice cloning
A couple of weeks ago I was discussing in class how some comedians cloned George Carlin‘s voice, and the subsequent lawsuit by his estate. I won’t go into any details, Aaron Moss has written theRead more…


ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
The New York Times lawsuit: the case and its wider implications
The New York Times has joined the AI Wars by suing OpenAI and Microsoft (complaint here). The case was filed while I was on my yearly holiday, so I am late to the party. QuiteRead more…

Licence
Creative Commons License
TechnoLlama by Andres Guadamuz is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Meta
LOG IN
ENTRIES FEED
COMMENTS FEED
WORDPRESS.ORG
ABOUT BOOK GALLERY PUBLICATIONSHestia | Developed by ThemeIsle