The panel was organized by GESAC, Authors Society (CMOS) , for 90 % music but the ADAGP is a member too, in addition to being a member of EVA.
Representatives, from left to right on the picture below: FSE, film authors, screenwriters CEPIC visual sector, authors and producers IFPI, major music producers FEO-FEE, book publishers.
In short, with each sector having its specificities …
- Authors tend to see threats
- Producers tend to see opportunities
Nevertheless AI will not go away, therefore better prevent any negative developments ahead and check legislation (this is what lobbyists do)
- Copyright or Authors Rights concepts are fit for purpose. Hence no need for new legal rights (neighboring or else) ;
- Any legislative amendment should be done within the existing EU legal framework, including the Copyright directive and AI Act. Hence no re-opening of legislation.
Art.4.3 of the EU copyright directive was negotiated by the European Publishers Federation. They are pursuing the work of clarifying the concept and making it possible through standard protocols. They oppose any attempt of interpretation that says that «Text and Data Mining » and « AI » are not the same thing (this would mean that rights holders would not be allowed to benefit of the opt-out provision of Art.4.3).
Lodovico of IFPI insist that any clarification of opt-out conditions should take into account the practice so far.
Sylvie for CEPIC mentioned the case of the German photographer who received an invoice for damages when he asked his images to be retrieved from the LAION database. He filed a copyright lawsuit in Hamburg. Both parties base their claim on the same legislation, namely the German implementation of Art.3 and 4 of the EU copyright directive. Since the photographer claims to have made use of his opt-out right in a Directive compliant way (recital 18, machine-readable including terms & conditions of websites), the Robert Knechte v. LAION case will be the first test of the opt-out provisions of the Directive.
Regarding the AI Act the panelists agreed that although it was good that generative AI had been mentioned (a « first step »), the AI Act was not the perfect fit and more should be done than transparency requirements from users. Regarding copyright ability of AI generated works, human input should be taken into consideration. Me think that the panelists and the floor have little to 0 knowledge on how AI actually works. Before going on to legal concepts, homework in this front should be done.
GDPR There was an agreement that GDPR principles will be useful tools to protect the rights of copyright holders.
This is everybody across the board and on all sides agree on the transparence principle. Since everyone agrees, me think that a very close look at transparency obligations and for whom need to be closely looked at.
Conclusion: Cooperation and Union from Rightsholders is needed. The exchange was fruitful. The participants wish to continue the reflection together.