Last week, the same topic dominated many UK newspapers. Make It Fair is a campaign to raise awareness about the proposals on copyright and AI and their effect upon creative industries.
This effect is not just limited to publishers or other creative professions; it extends to citizens as well. As a result, the debate about whether AI is a threat to creativity or not has resurfaced with greater intensity.
The slogan of the campaign is: “The government is siding with big tech over British creativity.” It is a poignant and direct attack on the government due to the proposals discussed in the last few months. However, it is not a brand-new occurrence, as the EU has also discussed similar topics. The European Union AI Act involves different regulations to maintain a certain control over AI.
What Is “Make It Fair”?
According to press releases, “Make It Fair” is a campaign that raises awareness about how content is “given away for free to AI firms as the government proposes weakening copyright law.” The association claims the importance of the creative industry in the British economy, which generates £120 billion a year. The News Media Association put forward their concerns on their website.
Launched on the 25th of February, the campaign calls on the government to devote more attention to this imminent threat. The lack of payment, transparency, and proper restrictions on what the AI models use to train are the main problems surrounding the proposals. The campaign also encourages “the British public to write to their MPs.” This action would invoke the aid of sources that can take concrete action.
The CEO of News Media Association, Owen Meredith, noted that: “For a healthy democratic society, copyright is fundamental to publishers’ ability to invest in trusted quality journalism.”
In these proposals, the government would give the work of creatives to AI companies for free. For this reason, the “Make It Fair” campaign resonates with many people.
What is happening in the UK?
Firstly, it is important to understand what AI is. “AI” stands for Artificial Intelligence, and it is defined as “technology that enables computers and machines to reason, learn and act in a way that would normally require human intelligence.” Because it is still in progress, myriad AI companies, such as Open AI, are focused on developing new programs. The UK government, along with countless others, has debated regulations over the past few years.
The main issue is that AI companies want to use as much content as possible to train AI models. This could lead to wider access to more copyrighted work without adequate compensation. The CEO of The Publishers Association, Dan Conway, revealed that:
“We urgently need transparency regulations to lift the lid on AI usage to ensure that the huge opportunities that AI can bring are realised in a way that incentivises growth across the whole economy and is safe and ethical for those who use it.“
Additionally, the UK Government stated that:
“This consultation sets out our plan to deliver a copyright and AI framework that rewards human creativity, incentivizes innovation and provides the legal certainty required for long-term growth in both sectors.”
This is from the ministerial foreword of the copyright and AI consultation, confirming the significance of the matter in various spheres. Navigating AI entails finding a balance between the AI sector and the creative industries, which the government has described as “vital” to the British economy.
In the UK, the government assembled proposals about AI and copyright, and the consultation closed on the 25th of February. The topic has since seen a resurgence of interest from creative industries, as it influences every single copyrighted work.
Effects on Publishing Houses
The central matter of the proposals revolves around AI’s ability to access data for free. To address this, the proposals in both the UK and the EU have an opt-out option.
Skepticism about the so-called option has engendered great distress among creative industries, because once the content is on the web, it can be difficult to follow its every single movement and distribution.
By accessing copyrighted content, AI training models can gain that material without paying the owner. In these situations, publishers will not earn anything, and they may not even be aware of their work being used. The Atlantic has covered such concerns.
However, on the publishers’ side, there have been more efforts to control the use of AI. The Publishers’ Licensing Service (PLS) is a series of guidelines that publishers would need to follow if they choose to use AI. For instance, it could be productive to apply AI to “reduce admin tasks,” as Anette Fuhrmeister, rights manager at The History Press, told me.
The threats posed by the proposals and laws transcend publishers. Even the writers themselves realize their danger. A petition entitled “Statement on AI training” has accumulated more than forty thousand signatures, including include writers such as Sir Kazuo Ishiguro, author of Never Let Me Go, and Malorie Blackman, author of “Noughts and Crosses. The petition states that:
“The unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind these works, and must not be permitted.“
This not only affects powerhouse companies such as Penguin Random House, Macmillan, HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster, but also smaller companies. It is true that Penguin Random House and other publishers have more followers. But it is also true that they voice concerns permeating every creative industry. Posting their views on social media such as LinkedIn increases the chance of reaching other people who have been impacted.
Tom Weldon, the CEO of Penguin Random House UK, asserted:
“This Government has a unique opportunity to set the conditions to protect, support and grow the creative and tech sectors in tandem with copyright protection as the fundamental underpinning.”
Copyright and AI: Is It a Threat to Creativity?
The influence of AI on the arts in general is a highly relevant topic among experts. Governments have not yet made many decisions about regulations for AI training models. However, it is important to remember that nothing can replace human beings creativity wise, because even the most performative AI models do not possess the humanity we do.
The rights manager of The History Press agrees; she thinks that “there will always be creative minds and storytellers among us” despite the current uncertainty surrounding AI.
The copyright proposals have exacerbated wider issues with copyrighted work. Creativity itself is at stake, because content can be taken for AI trainings without being properly attributed or acknowledged.
On the other hand, the threat of AI can be minimized if more control is instituted. That is what the campaign “Make It Fair” is attempting to achieve by raising awareness among the British public.
AI is indeed evolving fast, and changes are inevitable within every sector. It can generate stories, create prompts, and do so much more, but it is also up to us, the users, to be aware of its limits. There are numerous ways to use AI, but it should not be the primary source of creative works.
Liked what you read? Check these stories next:
