Over 400 celebrities sign letter opposing AI training on copyrighted works without permission

midian182

Posts: 10,706   +142
Staff member
What just happened? Hundreds of stars and Hollywood executives have signed an open letter urging the Trump administration to deny proposals from AI companies that would allow their systems to be trained on copyrighted work without obtaining permission.

Over 400 actors, musicians, filmmakers, writers, and more signed the letter sent to the White House, including Ben Stiller, Mark Ruffalo, Cate Blanchett, Paul McCartney, and Ron Howard, reports The Wrap.

The letter, which is not avialable publicly, is a response to submissions to the Office of Science and Technology Policy from OpenAI and Google proposing that the companies be allowed to train their AI models on copyrighted works without obtaining permission from (or compensating) rights holders.

OpenAI said that relaxing copyright laws would promote "the freedom to learn" and help "protect" America's national security. Both Sam Altman's company and Google said the change would help "strengthen America's lead" against China's communist government in the field of AI development.

The stars' letter argues that there is no reason to eliminate copyright protections to help AI models improve.

"We firmly believe that America's global AI leadership must not come at the expense of our essential creative industries," the letter states.

"AI companies are asking to undermine this economic and cultural strength by weakening copyright protections for the films, television series, artworks, writing, music and voices used to train AI models at the core of multibillion-dollar corporate valuations."

The letter adds that Google and OpenAI want a special government exemption so they can "freely exploit America's creative and knowledge industries, despite their substantial revenues and available funds."

"America didn't become a global cultural powerhouse by accident," the letter continues. "Our success stems directly from our fundamental respect for IP and copyright that rewards creative risk-taking by talented and hardworking Americans from every state and territory."

The open letter also notes that America's entertainment industry supports 2.3 million citizens and contributes $229 billion in wages annually, while also providing the "foundation for American democratic influence and soft power abroad." All that would be threatened if Google and OpenAI get their way.

Some of the other famous names who signed the letter include Adam Scott, Guillermo del Toro, Natasha Lyonne, Cynthia Erivo, Cate Blanchett, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Cord Jefferson, Bette Midler, Cate Blanchett, Ava Duvernay, Paul Simon, Ángel Manuel Soto, Taika Waititi, Ayo Edebiri, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Lily Gladstone, Sam Mendes, Brit Marling, Janelle Monáe, Bryn Mooser, Rian Johnson, Paul Giamatti, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Alfonso Cuarón, Judd Apatow, Kim Gordon, Chris Rock, Juliette Lewis, and Michaela Coel.

It's not just in the US where celebrities are protesting against this issue. The UK has put forward proposals that would allow AI companies to train their models on any material to which they have lawful access. Any creators or companies that don't want their work used this way would have to opt out, an option that has been called unfair and unworkable.

The UK situation led to more than 1,000 musicians, including Kate Bush, Tori Amos, and the Eurythmics' Annie Lennox, releasing a silent album in protest. The album, called Is This What We Want?, features recordings of empty studios and performance spaces. Other protests in the UK included several daily newspapers featuring the slogan "Make It Fair" on their front pages.

Permalink to story:

 
I have an idea for most of us that don't have any sympathy for celebrities: Let's say we can't avoid the AI giants winning a favorable ruling (Under the current POTUS this is very likely to happen btw)

I would say the ruling should be that while models can train on copyrighted material but they have to openly acknowledge this for everyone to see and the people overall have the right to fully reconstruct the original input material by giving a specific command to the resulting model: If they train their model with Shrek then anybody should be able to input 'Give me the original Shrek' and get back all of the script, the images, the videos used to trained effectively turning the models into just searchable storage too.

Like if we're going to abolish copyright, I'd be ok with that if we actually fully abolish copyright for everybody and not just tech billionaires and not just let someone qualify for an exception but others being jailed for them. Fair's fair: either nobody is allowed to profit form copyrighted material or I don't wanna hear about youtube claims or Swedish nerds going to prison for copyright: vacate those sentences immediately and proceed with your destruction of several industries for all we care.
 
After the US election it's very clear that nobody cares anymore what celebrities think.
For that matter, at this point celebrities vocally supporting or opposing something is probably going to sway more people in the exact opposite direction than bring onto their side.

I also must mock that UK album "Is this what we want" for itself being blatant copyright infringement of John Cage's famous 4'33" composition.

Personally, I think copyright is way too long. I think it should be set at 20 years, same as patents. Long enough to make complex works profitable, but short enough that a person can't just rest on their laurels after one successful work.
 
For that matter, at this point celebrities vocally supporting or opposing something is probably going to sway more people in the exact opposite direction than bring onto their side.

I also must mock that UK album "Is this what we want" for itself being blatant copyright infringement of John Cage's famous 4'33" composition.

Personally, I think copyright is way too long. I think it should be set at 20 years, same as patents. Long enough to make complex works profitable, but short enough that a person can't just rest on their laurels after one successful work.

-Yeah as soon as I saw celebrities in the title I kinda knew how the comment section was going to go.

Even if they're right and the copyright system that has brought so much wealth is upended, the last thing they need to do is send letters to the tsar.
 
Celebrities are public figures. Even under the most strict AI rules we could possibly end up with, AI will still be training on publicly available data.

You could sue an AI company if they impersonate you without some kind of agreement, but not just for training.
 
Last I checked if you buy a copyrighted work book, movie, TV show ect your allowed to view it or read it and even share it with a friend as long as your not doing a public viewing for profit your fine under copy right law, so how is this illegal anyway, tell the overpaid under talented hacks to shut up and if they want to actually matter get a real job
 
People have been replaced by automation all the time...didn't hear the hollyWEIRDO bunch worrying about that, but NOW that AI, CGI, robotics might replace THEM, they are worried. LOL
 
The intersection of AI & copyright feels like an important & complicated subject that could have vast implications for how much, or how little, the lives of everyday people in future generations are improved.

While I can't begin to think through all the angles here yet, I am comfortable saying the starting point / focus should not be on the needs of a single profession or industry. I don't think studios should be able to take anyone's appearance, voice, mannerisms, and use it for free as they will; but that's a pretty niche and specific case compared to how AI could or should digest all the world's published knowledge and make it available to anyone in need of it. Policy should start with enabling the latter.
 
If you didn't write the movie, song, or play, and you're a singer, actor, or writer, do you have copyright protection? I'm on the fence about this. Maybe some opinions here.

I can see how singers and writers would have copyright protection, but as long as the song or material was original. Actors, not so much.

After all, it's just acting. And when they signed up for the gig, didn't they agree to be part of the movie or play? Times change, technology advances, and if you're one of the rich ones, it still applies.

Open to thoughts.
 
After, the bashing, and lying (for the past 10 years or so) about this great President now you want a favor? I, hope he turns you down flat!!
 
I also must mock that UK album "Is this what we want" for itself being blatant copyright infringement of John Cage's famous 4'33" composition.

I wonder at your inclination for mentioning such, as I imagine the stark majority of those here have no idea of it and will have no inclination to look, let alone that they would eat the flesh off their bones if subjected to a few moments of silence. Give them a glitch sound and they'll do your bidding for-ever.
 
I'm absolutely baffled, as an European, by the nerve of these guys.
For YEARS, here in EU, I had no money to buy either movies, music nor software.
The price of a license was, in my former communist country, higher than the wage of my parents, combined.
Software is now more accessible and I pay for (most) of what I own.
After decades of brainwashing and "pay for what you use" the tech oligarchs in the US, which are resembling more and more to the ones in our "dear" neighbor Russia, are telling us that actually piracy is Ok?!
Ah, wait, no, it's not: you see, it's more complicated. If I, a mere mortal human and a nobody, train my brain without AI by using an illegally downloaded piece of information, it's punishable by law. I could go to prison or pay a hefty fine, right?!
Ok. But if I, a billionaire sponsored entity, pay an AI to steal the hard work of people via that AI in order to maximize profits and cut the aforementioned hard people later in the profit, it's not just Ok, it's recommended and how things should be done, right?
1984 it is, indeed..
 
Back
OSZAR »