Photo Credit: Merlin Network
Merlin has officially added its voice to the choir of opposition surrounding a proposed AI training law in the UK.
The indie collective just recently took aim at the controversial measure, which would, in short, allow generative AI developers to (lawfully) train models on protected works without permission.
Under the suggested framework, it’d then be up to individual rightsholders to opt out of training. In other words, the arrangement would seemingly prove positive only for AI developers, to the detriment of a variety of industry players and the wider IP space.
Hence the music sector’s clear-cut pushback against the possible law, which, we previously covered, promptly elicited retorts from the majors and the Association of Independent Music (AIM) alike.
Now, Merlin, which isn’t a stranger to expressing AI-related concerns, is also addressing the potential training free-for-all.
All told, the indie giant estimated that its members could incur north of $200 million in annual damages – referring to would-be music revenue soaked up by artificial intelligence companies – as a result of AI audio.
“The Government’s proposal would enable AI developers—many of them massive global corporations—to extract value from independent artists without permission or compensation,” drove home Merlin CEO Jeremy Sirota.
“Independent music is not raw material for tech companies to exploit without consent. AI should be additive, not a tool for devaluing human artistry. These changes must be immediately reconsidered before irreparable damage is done,” the Merlin head concluded.
Instead of rolling back IP protections, Merlin proceeded, the government should compel AI developers to seek training permission beforehand and, as that ship has in many instances sailed, disclose all materials already ingested by their models.
On this front, it looks as though expanded copyright protections (or at least the prevention of a rights rollback) could be in the cards across the pond, we noted. And London-based Merlin concluded by applauding reports that the government “may revise its approach” on the training side.
More immediately, the major labels, AIM, and Merlin certainly aren’t alone in calling out the proposed law, several responses to which have reached DMN’s inbox.
On top of the silent album protesting no-holds-barred AI training, for instance, Independent Music Publishers’ E-Licensing (IMPEL) CEO Sarah Williams criticized the floated law as “a huge misstep.”
“Instead of changing the law to place an opt-out burden on the creators and the copyright industry,” Williams relayed in part, “the UK Government should show global leadership and innovate. We call upon them to direct their political will towards supporting technical and commercial initiatives that enforce transparency, enable good actors in the AI space to license responsibly, and most importantly, support the creators and the industries behind UK’s sought-after cultural output.”
Lastly, Independent Music Publishers International Forum (IMPF) President Annette Barrett voiced support for the overarching Make It Fair campaign, which has a number of backers in and well beyond the music world.
“The Labour Government’s proposed change to copyright law, which favours big tech and AI developers at the expense of artists, their rights, and their work, represents an existential threat to IP in the UK,” added Barrett.
“It is encouraging to see such unification on the issue and the huge impact the Make It Fair campaign has had in such a short time. We urge a different approach from the UK Government that will protect one of the country’s greatest exports,” concluded Barrett.
Content shared from www.digitalmusicnews.com.