Photographers must have the right to stop AI...

THE IFJ and EFJ statement on "Artificial Intelligence" states:

"Licensing remains the proper way to grant access to authors' works. Collective management is particularly beneficial when there is a need to use large numbers of materials from numerous rightsholders, as is the case when using works to train AI systems. Mechanisms exist to extend collective licensing remuneration to authors who are not, yes, members of collecting societies."

I can only read this as a proposal to collectively license our pictures for use in AI systems. Please somebody tell me I’m wrong. That’s the last thing we should be doing. We should be fighting blatant copyright infringement.

It goes on:

"Human authors must get recompense when our work is used to train 'AI' and machine-learning systems."

Photographers must have the right to stop machine learning systems using our pictures to create AI fakes!

Andrew Wiard

To clarify...

"Licensing" is a process. Often, it will conclude with the photographer or other author not granting a licence.

Past experience suggests that some photographers may prefer that there is collective licensing in place that allows them to receive payments through a collecting society such as DACS. That could include payment in respect of photographs that have already been "scraped". This could work much as do the payments made now for copies of their pictures made by, for example, university libraries.

Lawyers - not least UK government lawyers - have until now been clear that no licensing scheme is lawful in the UK if it does not include provision for authors, including photographers, to opt out of it.

Other photographers, clearly, will prefer to stop all such use of their work. They must have the right to do that.

I have heard rumours that someone may propose "compulsory licensing" of material used to train machine-learning systems. "Compulsory licensing" is something quite different to "licensing" - as different as "have a tax bill" is to "be on the bill at the theatre".

Such a proposal would, as the above indicates, be a radical departure. It would involve a body such as the Copyright Tribunal setting fees. I would strongly oppose it, not least on the grounds of the hideous expense of taking cases to the Copyright Tribunal. I would urge - and expect - the IFJ and EFJ to do the same.

© Mike Holderness