Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1546054
human artists. This line between prompt-driven Generative AI outputs and profit needs to be severed. Generative AI models are being hotly contested in courtrooms across the country over the legality of their training. Failing to account for and disclose their training materials has left them vulnerable to accusations of theft. By all measures, that theft is voluminous. While unsettled, this fact alone should relegate their outputs ineligible for profitability as they are currently "fruit of the poisoned tree." Would there be any amount of "modifying" I could do to a stolen car that would then make it mine to sell? Many of the defenses around accusations of these companies' scraping of the internet and other methods of garnering training content, rests on the Fair Use Doctrine. There are four pillars of "fair use," all of which are weighed in the application of the doctrine as it pertains to copyright violation. (Section 107 of the Copyright Act): 1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. Nature of the copyrighted work 3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work Arguments against these companies' use of works as training materials could be made under several of the pillars. But let's look specifically at number three, which seems to be the most egregiously violated tenet. By and large, under the Fair Use Doctrine, the amount of a copyrighted work used is determinative of whether or not copyright infringement has occurred. The larger the piece of the work used, the less likely Fair Use applies. In the case of companies feeding their models training data, they ingested whole works—complete books, movies, songs, pieces of art, among other things. This 'copying' and usage of innumerable complete works severely tests their Fair Use argument.. dmittedly, the following points are more moral arguments than legal ones, but they should absolutely bear weight in this conversation, as it is the artistic efforts of many creatives that produce a product that is ultimately owned by a few. Much focus goes to the most visible artists—such as actors, directors, and singers—as well as the rights holders of the works. But the theft of talent and artistry goes significantly deeper. For every song ingested into these LLMs, ALL of the creative elements that went into the track have been surreptitiously appropriated. The law is very thin on allocation of rights when it comes to recorded music. Yet, the final tracks that impress upon our hearts, minds, and culture are the sum of the skills and creativity of—at a minimum—the producer, the engineer, the mixer, and, of course, the musicians. The tone of the guitar, the arrangement of the horns, the groove of the bass, the nuance of the drums, the timbre of the background vocalists are all now critical information inside of an LLM to be coalesced and synthesized into an output. All without permission. All without compensation. The theft in filmmaking goes even further. Every movie assimilated has stolen the artistry of the director of photography/cinematographer, production designer, property master, costume D\designer, picture editors, production mixer, sound editors, Foley artists, re-recording mixers, VFX artists, and many, many others. The law must retroactively recognize this theft. Decades- old 'work for hire' contracts could not foresee computers using an artist's work to replicate their talent for the profit of users who lack skill, or even interest, in those fields. The magnificence of the AI renaissance has blinded our society to its pernicious creep into the arts. Unregulated, prompt-driven Generative AI stands poised to initiate and accelerate a profound regression of human creativity, if not its cessation. While it is, rightly in some circumstances, hailed as a "democratizing" agent, it serves more broadly, in practice, as a means of redistributing stolen creativity and artistic talent en masse. It needs to be curtailed. This is a call to arms for humanity. We need the men and women of the United States Congress to be the resistance against the millions of corporate dollars that would undoubtedly fight this legislation, and to stand with the people and enact laws with these two logical, ethical, and moral provisions. I ask our legislators: Are you willing to fight to preserve the rights of human artists past, present, and future? Which one(s) of you will you be the champion of human creativity? An essay by David Barber, MPSE. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Motion Picture Sound Editors. A 26 M PS E . O R G