Who owns the offline arts, like textile art or truck art? Imagine an AI system trains on a particular picture taken by a random photographer. The photographer might own the picture because he captured it, but does he also own the ‘art’ that he photographed? Irrespective of the answer, more importantly, can he claim royalties from the proposed AI-copyright body when AI systems use “his picture” for training their Large Language Models (LLMs)? This remains a legal grey area, especially when the captured cultural or traditional artwork may not legally belong to the photographer.
Exploring this idea, one of the speakers at the discussion organised by Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC) at IIIT Hyderabad said, “First, how will you identify who’s free to work with you? Like, we’re talking about how royalties will be calculated, or it may come down to, like, Rs 2 per person or something. But you’re forgetting that creative work in India is [also] made by societies that do not have online representation.”
The speaker was referring to the royalties that original creators can claim from the Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT), a body proposed to license data and distribute royalties as compensation for data used by developers for AI-related purposes, such as training their Large Language Models (LLMs) by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade’s (DPIIT) working paper.
On 31st January, IIIT Hyderabad organised this discussion under the Chatham House Rules. This news report will include only the information shared during the discussion, without identifying the speakers or attendees.
How would they identify the ‘original’ creator?
While there is already an issue of particular attribution in the traditional arts, to illustrate how the proposed body and process could leave a significant portion of society, the speaker drew parallels with popular artists who earn a living through royalties, such as Arjit Singh, who recently quit playback singing. The speaker argued that royalty systems currently favour well-known artists, noting, “If you are that famous, if you are in that position of power, the system works for you.”
“Think about all the textiles that are created – the famous textiles in Bhojpur, in Kutch, in Telangana – all your Geographical Indications (GIs). Information and designs from those communities are available online. But do they have access, or even the knowledge, of knowing what a CMO [Collective Management Organisation] is? Where is the CMO’s office? How do you fill that form? How does this local creator go there and ask for their share of earnings?” asked the speaker.
For context, under the proposed CRCAT process, collective management organisations (CMOs) would be responsible for distributing royalties to the original rights holders whose works AI data trainers list as having been used for AI training.
“The creator –…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
