A look at companies' responses, including from Meta, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, and Apple, to potential US Copyright Office rules for AI and copyrighted content
Meta, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, and Apple gain a formal channel to argue how prospective copyright rules should treat AI systems and copyrighted material.
The Copyright Office receives input from companies that build or distribute major AI products, making their operational claims part of the rulemaking debate.
Second-order effects
Cloud and creative-software providers may need to align product safeguards, customer terms, and training-data practices with whatever expectations emerge from the process.
Copyright owners and AI vendors face a clearer incentive to press competing positions over licensing, training uses, and responsibility for potentially infringing outputs.
Third-order effects
If administrative guidance becomes more specific, copyright compliance could become a product and procurement differentiator rather than solely a litigation risk.
The episode is an early sign that AI-content policy may be set through a mix of agency processes, private contracting, and court decisions; the eventual balance remains unsettled.
The trend: Generative-AI providers are shifting from ad hoc copyright-risk assurances toward engagement with the policy frameworks that could govern training data and commercial deployment.
They stole other people's work, likenesses, creations and labor. And now they have stolen SO MUCH of it....it would just be too expensive to pay for. So they should just get to keep it for free???? That seems to be the basis of the argument here. Or am I missing something? T…
This smells like a negotiation tactic. It is 10,000,000,000% possible to calculate some form of royalty payments for work used in training data, and in such a way that would not cost the quoted price. …
They got away with using free training data because no one was paying attention. Now that data has value. In addition to creators, socmed apps like Reddit are going to want their cut. This is why GitHub was such a good purchase for Microsoft.
Yeah, this could be a huge deal depending on A) how the courts rule on existing copyright laws (is training infringement?) B) how legislators create, amend and revise laws based on these new techs. The folks who will make out best, of course, will be lawyers with a never-ending…
Big Tech is very upset folks. In just released comments to the US Copyright Office, Meta, Google, OpenAI, Microsoft and more argued that figuring out how to pay for the massive amount of copyrighted content taken for free to train their generative AI tools is just “impossible.” …
I didn't include it in the story above, but Vince Gilligan, who created “Breaking Bad” and “Better Call Saul” submitted a comment to the office that touched on a number of issues at play with generative AI, including how creators should have paths to payment and the ability to ge…
Meta: Copyright holders won't make much money any ways. Google: Its like reading a book when training AI. Anthropic: Current law is fine, don't change it. Apple: Let's copyright the AI generated code. Adobe: They make the honey, we make the money.
@verge Can't wait to see them make those arguments in front of a judge. A bunch of AI competitors already went through the same process with legally obtained data. They'll likely force the other AI chatbots/services to purge their data banks and start from scratch.
AI companies' Defenses to Misappropriation Greatest Hits. It's got it all— copying is fair use unauthorized use is necessary for Innovation AI learns just like humans AI extracts only non-protectable ideas, not expression Creators wouldn't get much $ anyway & this is the 🧑🏽🍳's 💋…
@verge Imagine being a A.I. technology company which sole purpose is to pirate other people/company data, then get upset when you're hit with copyright infringement.
AI companies have stooped so low. Clearly Google knows AI training using machine learning of today is nothing like a human reading a book. Apple is breaking others copyrights but trying to copyright the work from such models? The hypocrisy
Some time ago, some people suggested that Anthropic was different from other actors in the AI space. Alas, if that were ever true, it is no longer. They have fallen in line with industry talking points seeking to defend exploitation of cultural workers. More than a pity... [image…
What a depressing read. All these companies who like to talk about “AI for good” then argue that unauthorized use of creative works to build their products is morally fine & wholly justifiable. There's no happy ending down this path—AI rooted in theft won't produce “AI for good.”
“The biggest companies in AI aren't interested in paying to use copyrighted material as training data, and here are their reasons why.” https://www.theverge.com/...
Hey @ClementDelangue. I was reading this piece in @verge & came across this quote from @huggingface arguing that the nonconsensual use of creative works to train AI is legally—& presumably morally—acceptable. What happened since last month when you told me you were working on it?…
If I build a product & am looking to profit & disrupt industries & my product requires someone elses copyrighted work, it's up to me to reach out & negotiate a licencing deal. Data owners are in the right, tech companies know it. Their business is built on taking what they want.
What's really funny to me, is that these arguments are the same silly arguments I've been seeing on twitter for the past 14 months. There's not any more sophistication here, just bigger brands saying it.
training machine learning on copyrighted material isn't the problem it's when companies want to train on copyrighted material in order to *replace* copyrighted material then it becomes the world's most complicated right-click-thesaurus scheme in history
corporations insisted for decades that copying a DVD, downloading an MP3 without permission, taking screenshots of Netflix, or playing a movie at a bar without a “public performance license” were all valid reasons to sue random people but NOW information wants to be free 🙄
All these excuses to exploit us, as they take our work, train their models with it, profit from it, compete in our markets (with our own work) and tell us we're not getting a cent out of the billions/trillions they'll make from the non-consensual use of our work. Disgusting.