this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
56 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3138 readers
189 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Campaigners for the protection of the rights of creatives have criticised a UK government proposal to let artificial intelligence companies train their algorithms on their works under a new copyright exemption.

Book publishers said the proposal put out for consultation on Tuesday was “entirely untested and unevidenced” while Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer campaigning to protect artists’ and creatives’ rights, said she was “very disappointed”.

Under the proposals, tech companies will be allowed to freely use copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence models unless creative professionals and companies opt out of the process.

The changes are seeking to resolve a standoff between AI firms and creatives. Sir Paul McCartney has warned the technology “could just take over” without new laws while the government has warned “legal uncertainty is undermining investment in and adoption of AI technology.”

On Tuesday, News media organisations said that such a system would allow generative AI firms to “shirk their responsibilities”. Kidron said: “The government is consulting on giving away the creativity and livelihoods of the UK creative sector which is worth £126bn a year”.

Tech UK, which represents tech companies, welcomed the consultation, which proposes an exception to UK laws preventing the use of someone’s work without permission – that will allow companies such as Google and the ChatGPT developer OpenAI to train their models on copyrighted content.

However, it will also allow writers, artists and composers to “reserve their rights”, which involves declaring that they do not want their work to be used in an AI training process . The government said there needed to be greater transparency from AI developers about the material they use to train models, how they acquire it, and about the content subsequently generated and it said it could legislate around this.

Chris Bryant MP, the data protection minister, said the proposal was a “win win” for two sides that have been at loggerheads over a new copyright regime.

“This is about giving greater control in a difficult and complex set of circumstances to creators and rights holders, and we intend it to lead to more licensing of content, which is potentially a new revenue stream for creators,” he said.

Campaigners for creatives fear a mechanism to reserve, license and be paid for the use of their work in AI training, would probably only benefit the largest rights holders leaving small and medium-scale creators exposed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Infernal_pizza@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

It’s still getting worse just at a slightly slower rate now