{"id":293921,"date":"2025-11-15T21:17:08","date_gmt":"2025-11-15T21:17:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/293921\/"},"modified":"2025-11-15T21:17:08","modified_gmt":"2025-11-15T21:17:08","slug":"big-content-is-taking-on-ai-but-its-far-from-the-david-v-goliath-tale-theyd-have-you-believe-alexander-avila","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/293921\/","title":{"rendered":"Big content is taking on AI \u2013 but it\u2019s far from the David v Goliath tale they\u2019d have you believe | Alexander Avila"},"content":{"rendered":"

The world\u2019s biggest music company is now in the AI business. Last year, Universal Music Group (UMG), alongside labels including Warner Records and Sony Music Entertainment sued two AI music startups<\/a> for allegedly using their recordings to train text-to-music models without permission.<\/p>\n

But last month, UMG announced a deal<\/a> with one of the defendants, Udio, to create an AI music platform. Their joint press release<\/a> offered assurances that the label will commit to \u201cdo what\u2019s right by [UMG\u2019s] artists\u201d. However, one advocacy group, the Music Artists Coalition, responded with the statement<\/a>: \u201cWe\u2019ve seen this before \u2013 everyone talks about \u2018partnership\u2019, but artists end up on the sidelines with scraps.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lawsuit is one of dozens across US courts. As artists, publishers and studios argue that the use of their material in AI training is copyright infringement, judges are struggling to reconcile copyright law with a technology that undermines the very concept of authorship. For many, this is as much a legal question as it is one of justice. In Andersen v Stability AI<\/a>, one of the first class-action lawsuits over an AI image generator, artists allege that the use of their artwork to train AI models without credit, compensation or consent \u201cviolat[es] the rights of millions of artists\u201d.<\/p>\n

That creative workers bear the brunt of the AI boom is not in question \u2013 generative AI is already displacing creative labour. In January 2024, more than a third of illustrators<\/a> who responded to a Society of Authors survey said they had lost income due to AI, and one study projects a 21% revenue loss<\/a> for audiovisual creators by 2028.<\/p>\n

In response, a new wave of activism has united entertainment executives and artists to take on the tech industry with social media campaigns<\/a>, crowdfunded lobbying<\/a>, and lawsuits. The Human Artistry Campaign<\/a>, an industry-artist coalition founded on the principle that \u201cAI can never replace human expression and artistry\u201d, rallies creatives and executives to jointly endorse legislation protecting artists from AI and big tech. But some artists, creators and civil liberties groups warn of another danger: big content.<\/p>\n

What might the consequences be of well-intentioned working creatives taking the side of large media conglomerates that have long exploited their labour<\/a> and aggressively expanded<\/a> copyright against public interest<\/a>? While some artists insist that an \u201cenemy of my enemy\u201d approach strategically justifies joining big content\u2019s side, this won\u2019t work if big content and big tech seem to be going from \u201cenemies-to-lovers\u201d.<\/p>\n

Dave Hansen, copyright lawyer and executive director of the non-profit Authors Alliance, argues that copyright lawsuits won\u2019t protect artists against AI<\/a>. Instead, they\u2019ll lead to exclusive licensing deals between large media and tech companies while \u201ceverybody else gets sort of left out in the cold\u201d. History supports the cynics. When the tech and entertainment industries negotiated licensing during the rise of streaming, labels<\/a> and studios<\/a> pocketed the profits and left musicians, writers and actors behind. Will AI licensing deals be any different? When the AI company Runway and Lionsgate struck a licensing deal<\/a>, the CEO of United Talent Agency, Jeremy Zimmer, said: \u201cIf I\u2019m an artist and I\u2019ve made a Lionsgate movie, now suddenly that Lionsgate movie is going to be used to help build out an LLM for an AI company, am I going to be compensated for that?\u201d In some multimillion dollar deals between publishers and AI companies, authors were given neither compensation<\/a> nor the choice to opt-out<\/a> of datasets.<\/p>\n

Even if US courts rule that tech companies must pay for AI training data, working artists are unlikely to benefit. Creating a licensing regime under the current imbalance of power could embolden media companies to pressure artists into signing away their training rights as a condition of employment. Voice actors have already been asked<\/a> to sign such contracts. Nor would mandatory licensing rein in big tech. Companies such as Google and OpenAI can afford to pay the cost of licensing this data; smaller, open-source AI developers cannot. Ironically, the quest to take down big tech through copyright is further consolidating power in its hands.<\/p>\n

Too many of the solutions proposed in the name of \u201cprotecting artists\u201d would not only fail to do so, but potentially hurt artists and the public at large. In the US, the proposed NO FAKES Act, supported by major entertainment coalitions, would create a federal \u201cdigital replication right\u201d to regulate deepfakes: nonconsensual AI replicas of a person\u2019s voice or likeness. However, civil liberties groups, including the Center for Democracy and Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union, have criticised the bill\u2019s vague language<\/a>, weak protections for free speech and potential for abuse. The NO FAKES Act would allow individuals \u2013 including children \u2013 to license and transfer their digital replica rights for up to 10 years (five for children). It\u2019s easy to imagine studio executives salivating over the prospect of pressuring young artists into signing away control of their own faces and voices.<\/p>\n

Why do these solutions fall so short? Because many of these copyright lawsuits, licensing solutions and digital replica rights are Trojan horses, inside of which sits big content. The Copyright Alliance<\/a>, an influential non-profit advocating for the interests of the \u201ccopyright community\u201d, argues for strong copyright solutions to generative AI. While it claims to \u201cadvocate for individual creators\u201d, its board of directors is stacked with industry executives from media giants such as Paramount, NBC Universal, Disney and Warner Bros.<\/p>\n

skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n

Sign up to Matters of Opinion<\/p>\n

Guardian columnists and writers on what they\u2019ve been debating, thinking about, reading, and more<\/p>\n

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com<\/a> to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy<\/a>. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy<\/a> and Terms of Service<\/a> apply.<\/p>\n

But why all the fanfare of coalition-building when the entertainment industry could just quietly pocket billions in deals with tech companies? Because big content needs artists. Its media empires need artists\u2019 labour to profit, its lobbying needs artist support to seem legitimate and its new AI business partners need artists\u2019 art.<\/p>\n

This fact points to a strategy that entertainment executives fear far more than AI, one that would empower artists to challenge the status quo across big content and big tech: organised labour. Unionised creative workers, such as those in the Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild\u2013American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, have secured meaningful<\/a> protections<\/a> against AI through strikes and collective bargaining. Copyright is a tool too antiquated, too static and too indelicate to bear the task of deciding the future of an already precarious creative labour force. If big content truly cared about protecting artists from AI, it would stop trying to sell their voices as training data and start listening to them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The world\u2019s biggest music company is now in the AI business. Last year, Universal Music Group (UMG), alongside…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":293922,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[182,181,507,74],"class_list":{"0":"post-293921","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-artificial-intelligence","8":"tag-ai","9":"tag-artificial-intelligence","10":"tag-artificialintelligence","11":"tag-technology"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293921","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=293921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293921\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/293922"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=293921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=293921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=293921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}