I recently spoke at the We Make Future, having the chance to set a great discussion on a legal tech stage during a panel provocatively titled ‘AI Generative and Content Creation: The End of Copyright.’
Well, it wasn’t a provocative title.
Unfortunately, it was just enlightening what is happening. And this before the recent Microsoft AI CEO declaration.
As you probably know, in a recent statement, Microsoft’s AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman claimed a “social contract” has long rendered web content a fair game for AI training. This contention, while resonating with the historical openness of the web, is more a strategic justification of corporate interests than an established legal principle. The internet, since its inception, has indeed been a vast reservoir of information, freely copied and repurposed.
However, the idea of a “social contract” is a constructed narrative, aiming to normalize practices that benefit corporations rather than protect creators.
The true issue lies in the lack of social proof regarding the ethical use of generative AI.
Because of its ease of use, generative AI is being used by people and businesses without carefully considering the ethical ramifications. This lack of established standards and social consensus over appropriate usage results in. The widespread use of AI models in several industries has given executives the confidence to talk about possible copyright violations with a startling lack of caution.
It is ludicrous to think that AI training models would be completely shielded from copyright scrutiny in regions with strict IP rules, like the West. Despite legal issues, these models are unlikely to be banned or removed because they benefit from copyrighted goods.
Fair use traditionally encompasses study, research, and the dissemination of information—contexts far removed from natural corporate profit motives.
Companies like OpenAI and Microsoft, which monetize AI products, push a narrative that treats all online content as “freeware.” They use this notion to undermine alternative approaches to content sharing rather than provide a solid legal basis for their practices.
In 2010, I founded Subcava Sonora, the first Italian music label using licenses other than copyright (Creative Commons). This approach did not mean that our music was “free to use”; one key stipulation was the prohibition against creating derivative works without consent (ND license). Another stipulation was that the content could not be used for commercial purposes (NC license). Creative Commons licenses were open but still imposed boundaries.
So, it is truly surprising that now a CEO of a Microsoft division uses the term “freeware,” typically used for software rather than content, in this context. This misapplication overlooks the nuanced differences and boundaries that licenses like Creative Commons establish, leading to a misleading justification for the exploitation of online content without proper consent or respect for original creators’ rights.
This dynamic underscores the influence of large tech companies, which face minimal legal repercussions unless challenged by equally powerful entities or expensive class actions. For instance, Meta and TikTok often sidestep substantial legal consequences unless confronted by significant legal battles.
Smaller creators and users are left vulnerable, with limited recourse against these behemoths.
The entrenched use of generative AI and the absence of a real regulatory consensus mean these technologies are here to stay.
Despite the blurred legalities, their integration into society is too deep for outright bans.
The challenge, therefore, is effectively enforcing copyright laws against these powerful entities. Those who navigate these grey areas adeptly will dominate the market. Consequently, there is a need for broader protections beyond traditional copyright laws to address issues like unfair competition and the monopolistic tendencies of big tech firms. These companies can even challenge established rights, such as those in the Berne Convention of 1886, signaling a transformation in copyright paradigms that few fully comprehend.
The assertion of a “social contract” is a corporate maneuver to consolidate power, not a reflection of legal reality.
In order to protect creators and uphold fair competition, we urgently need to engage in debate and innovate our regulatory measures in light of the waning relevance of traditional copyright standards.
