We’re excited to announce that the 4th Annual Artist Rights Symposium will be held on November 20, this time in Washington DC. We have some big surprises in store that will be announced soon with new partners and speaker lineups.
The topics we plan on covering will be ticketing, song metadata and black box issues, creator rights of publicity and transparency for artificial intelligence.
Watch this space!
| Senators Cantwell, Blackburn, and Heinrich introduce the Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act), Giving Artists New Tools to Protect Against Deepfakes |
| “Deepfakes pose an existential threat to our culture and society, making it hard to believe what we see and hear and leaving individual creators vulnerable as tech companies use our art without consent while AI-generated content leads to confusion about what is real. Requiring transparency is a meaningful step that will help protect us all – ensuring that nonconsensual, harmful content can be removed quickly and providing a clear origin when our life’s work has been used.” – Dr. Moiya McTier, Human Artistry Campaign Senior Advisor |
| With widespread creative community support from organizations including the Artist Rights Alliance, SAG-AFTRA, the Recording Academy, RIAA, NMPA, NSAI, and more, the bill would set new federal transparency guidelines for marking, authenticating and detecting AI-generated content, protect journalists, actors and artists against AI-driven theft, and hold violators accountable for abuses. Creates Transparency Standards: Requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop guidelines and standards for content provenance information, watermarking and synthetic content detection. These standards will promote transparency to identify if content has been generated or manipulated by AI, as well as where AI content originated. The bill also directs NIST to develop cybersecurity measures to prevent tampering with provenance and watermarking on AI content. Puts Journalists, Artists and Musicians in Control of Their Content: Requires providers of AI tools used to generate creative or journalistic content to allow owners of that content to attach provenance information to it and prohibits its removal. The bill prohibits the unauthorized use of content with provenance information to train AI models or generate AI content. These measures give content owners—journalists, newspapers, artists, songwriters, and others—the ability to protect their work and set the terms of use for their content, including compensation. Gives Individuals a Right to Sue Violators: Authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general to enforce the bill’s requirements. It also gives newspapers, broadcasters, artists, and other content owners the right to bring suit in court against platforms or others who use their content without permission. Prohibits Tampering with or Disabling AI Provenance Information: Currently, there is no law that prohibits removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information. The bill prohibits anyone, including internet platforms, search engines and social media companies, from interfering with content provenance information in these ways. |
David will be a panelist on a day-long workshop at Stanford Graduate School of Business on competition and antitrust issues in artificial intelligence. The workshop is co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and SGBS. You can live stream on YouTube.
David’s panel goes off at 3:35 pm PT, and you’ll see some old friends are also on the panel and we’re looking forward to hearing from the new friends.
David wrote a new paper for the workshop link is here, but here’s a teaser for you:
If inclusion in AI data sets becomes a lucrative new use for copyrighted music, potentially displacing other existing income streams, requiring these training uses to be licensed is critical to keep in the place the same positive incentives that encourage creation and recording of new music today. If a major future use becomes un-protected and un-monetizable, music creation itself would become destabilized and decay.
Strong copyright on the data side will also set in motion real competition for access to valuable works for datasets – putting market forces to work to set prices and terms for licensing these works that reward creators and steer rights and access to the developers and innovators who value them the most. Essentially, it puts real innovators and risk taking start-ups on equal footing with tech giants for access to valuable materials to use in creating new AI products – and while Microsoft and its ilk may assume that means the biggest firm will always win, basic economics tells us rights should end up with the bidder who has the best idea and highest value use.
Reality is that this could happen to anyone, but like other online pirates they come for the famous people first to free ride on their brand.
Looks like both sides listened and respected each other so no strike necessary. And yet there are groundbreaking first-time AI protections for musicians and vocalists. Amazing what can happen when you actually respect the workers, looking at you YouTube. And guess what? The workers get to vote on the deal. Imagine if songwriters could do the same.
PRESS RELEASE
SAG-AFTRA and leading record labels reached a tentative multiyear agreement on a successor contract to the SAG-AFTRA National Code of Fair Practice for Sound Recordings.
Covering the period starting Jan. 1, 2021, and ending Dec. 31, 2026, the agreement includes Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Disney Music Group.
The SAG-AFTRA Executive Committee unanimously approved the tentative agreement on Wednesday, April 10. It will now be sent to members for ratification.
SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director & Chief Negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said, “SAG-AFTRA and the music industry’s largest record labels have reached a groundbreaking agreement establishing, for the first time, collective bargaining guardrails assuring singers and recording artists ethical and responsible treatment in the use of artificial intelligence in the music industry. It is a testament to our mutual unwavering commitment to work together to safeguard the rights, dignity and creative freedom of our members.
“This agreement ensures that our members are protected. SAG-AFTRA stands firm in the belief that while technology can enhance the creative process, the essence of music must always be rooted in genuine human expression and experience. We look forward to working alongside our industry partners to foster an environment where innovation serves to elevate, not diminish, the unique value of each artist’s contribution to our rich cultural tapestry.”
The Record Label Negotiating Committee said, “We are pleased to reach this agreement with SAG-AFTRA and continue our strong partnership as we enter this exciting and fast-moving new era for music and artists. Together, we’ll chart a successful course forward, embracing new opportunities and facing our common challenges, strengthened by our shared values and commitment to human artistry.”
The artificial intelligence guardrails take effect immediately upon ratification. The terms “artist,” “singer,” and “royalty artist,” under this agreement only include humans. In this agreement, clear and conspicuous consent, along with minimum compensation requirements and specific details of intended use, are required prior to the release of a sound recording that uses a digital replication of an artist’s voice.
Additional highlights among the contract gains include increased minimums, health and retirement improvements, and an increase in the percentage of streaming revenue to be covered by contributions, among other gains.
Sometimes you just have to laugh. We posed this question to Microsoft’s Copilot AI: Compare and contrast Eric Schmidt and what’s largely called “the Good Samaritan.” This is from the Book of Luke, Verse 10:25, the Parable of the Good Samaritan…well, with few changes:
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life and reach the singularity where I become one with machines created by Man?” (OK, it doesn’t really say all that last part but you get the idea.)
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” [Does “neighbor” really include people outside of Atherton, Woodside or Los Gatos?]
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robots. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him and his EV half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road on his Lime Scooter, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side, as did a Dream Alchemist and a Weekend Happiness Concierge. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robots?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
So we thought that it would be interesting to see what Copilot came up with on this question: Compare and contrast Eric Schmidt (the Google demi-God) and the Good Samaritan. Samaria (as in Judea and Samaria) are still there today. So here’s what Copilot said:
Eric Schmidt and the Good Samaritan are two figures from vastly different realms, one from the modern world of technology and business, and the other from a biblical parable. However, they share some commonalities in their actions and philosophies that make for an interesting comparison.
Eric Schmidt, born in 1955, is an American businessman and former software engineer6. He served as the CEO of Google from 2001 to 2011 and the company’s executive chairman from 2011 to 20156. He also served as the executive chairman of parent company Alphabet Inc. from 2015 to 2017, and Technical Advisor at Alphabet from 2017 to 20206. Beyond his professional achievements, Schmidt is known for his philanthropic efforts. He co-founded the Schmidt Family Foundation and the Schmidt Ocean Institute7, and his venture, Schmidt Futures, provided compensation for two science-office employees in the Office of Science and Technology Policy6. [Really? You mean the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House?]
The Good Samaritan, on the other hand, is a figure from a parable told by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke1. The story tells of a man who was attacked by robbers and left half-dead on the road. A priest and a Levite passed by the man without helping him. But a Samaritan, upon seeing the man, took pity on him. He bandaged the man’s wounds, took him to the Nobu Hotel Palo Alto and paid for his care1.
In comparing these two figures, we can start with their compassion and willingness to help others. The Good Samaritan, despite having no obligation or personal gain, chose to help a stranger in need1. Similarly, Eric Schmidt, despite his wealth and success, has chosen to give back to society through various philanthropic efforts67.
Another point of comparison is their impact on their respective communities. The Good Samaritan’s actions had a profound impact on the injured man’s life1. Similarly, Schmidt’s contributions to Google and Alphabet have had a significant impact on the tech industry and the world at large6. His philanthropic efforts have also likely had a positive impact on the lives of many individuals67.
However, there are also differences between these two figures. The Good Samaritan’s actions were immediate and direct, helping a person in immediate physical need1. In contrast, Schmidt’s contributions, both in business and philanthropy, are more indirect and long-term, impacting larger systems and structures67. [The Samaritan was, after all, a middle class bourgeoisie, a lowly Third Estater lacking Schmidt’s influence and philanthropic urges.]
In conclusion, while Eric Schmidt and the Good Samaritan come from different times and contexts, they both exemplify the values of compassion, generosity, and making a positive impact on their communities. Their stories remind us that, regardless of our circumstances, we all have the capacity to help others and make a difference in the world.
Source(s)
3. Luke 10:25-37 NIV – The Parable of the Good Samaritan – On – Bible Gateway
4. The Good Samaritan – Bible Story and Meaning – Bible Study Tools
5. Parable of the Good Samaritan – Wikipedia
6. Understanding the Good Samaritan Parable – Biblical Archaeology Society
7. Luke 10:25-37 ESV – The Parable of the Good Samaritan – Bible Gateway
8. Bloomberg Billionaires Index – Eric Schmidt
9. Eric Schmidt | Biography & Facts | Britannica
10. Dr. Eric Schmidt – Congress.gov
Oh, yeah. Do you think Copilot would have been as generous if we had substituted Sir Lucian Grainge for Eric Schmidt? Was Copilot having a purposeful hallucination?
[This is a must-read, deeply researched, long form article about how Big Tech–mostly OpenAI, Google and Microsoft–are abrogating consumers trust and their promises to creators in a mad, greedy, frothing rush to some unknown payoff with AI. The Dot Bomb boom is dwarfed by the AI gold rush, but this article is a road map to just how bad it really is and how debased these people really are. Thanks to the destruction of the newsroom, only a handful of news outlets can deliver work of this quality, but thankfully the New York Times is still standing. How long is another story.]
OpenAI, Google and Meta ignored corporate policies, altered their own rules and discussed skirting copyright law as they sought online information to train their newest artificial intelligence systems….
OpenAI researchers created a speech recognition tool called Whisper. It could transcribe the audio from YouTube videos, yielding new conversational text that would make an A.I. system smarter.
Some OpenAI employees discussed how such a move might go against YouTube’s rules, three people with knowledge of the conversations said. YouTube, which is owned by Google, prohibits use of its videos for applications that are “independent” of the video platform.
Ultimately, an OpenAI team transcribed more than one million hours of YouTube videos, the people said….
Like OpenAI, Google transcribed YouTube videos to harvest text for its A.I. models, five people with knowledge of the company’s practices said. That potentially violated the copyrights to the videos, which belong to their creators.
Last year, Google also broadened its terms of service. One motivation for the change, according to members of the company’s privacy team and an internal message viewed by The Times, was to allow Google to be able to tap publicly available Google Docs, restaurant reviews on Google Maps and other online material for more of its A.I. products.
The companies’ actions illustrate how online information — news stories, fictional works, message board posts, Wikipedia articles, computer programs, photos, podcasts and movie clips — has increasingly become the lifeblood of the booming A.I. industry.
By Chris Castle
In case you think that infringement of copyrights in AI training happens only to rock stars, photographers, record companies or movie studios, let me give you a personal anecdote that might cause you to reconsider. I asked Bing’s Copilot AI tool to list the deal points in a record producer agreement, and this is what I got back:
Certainly! When negotiating a producer agreement, several key points should be considered. Here are some common negotiation points from the artist’s perspective:
Remember that each negotiation is unique, and it’s essential to tailor the agreement to your specific needs and circumstances. Legal advice is recommended to ensure compliance with local laws and industry standards1 3 4.
Source(s)
1. An Artist’s Guide to Negotiating Record Producer Agreements – Medium
2. Negotiating a Music Producer Agreement: 7 Key Issues
3. 5 Things to Look for in a Music Producer Agreement – Lawyer Drummer
4. How to Negotiate: Steps, Phrases & Tips to Win the Deal – Selling Signals
Notice that Copilot lists “Source(s)” and that source #1 is an article from the Medium website.
My article.
I’ve written a number of articles about negotiating producer agreements and I can categorically say I haven’t given permission or been asked to give permission for any of those articles to be scraped and used to train AI. So how did it come to be in Copilot’s training materials?
My guess is that Medium (and probably a lot of other sites) were crawled by Bing’s spider and that copies of Medium pages were stored in Bing’s (or Microsoft’s) data centers. When Microsoft launched its Copilot AI tool, one could imagine that the temptation would have been strong to use those copies as part of the training tools for Copilot. In fact, the Verge reports that “companies around the web are using your site and its data to build massive sets of training data, in order to build models and products that may not acknowledge your existence at all.” Can you say Section 230 or DMCA? Maybe there will be a question at the April 11 House Energy & Commerce hearing on Section 230.
So Google-style “innovation” has a self-destructive flavor consistent with their oikophobic capitalism. Greater Silicon Valley’s view of culture in general and copyright in particular is as sources of wealth extracted by destruction–you know, creative destruction, permissionless innovation, etc. (It’s no wonder Google was inexorably attracted to defense contracting despite all the “don’t be evil” hoorah. After all, what creates massive wealth faster than convincing governments to pay big money to blow things up that must be replaced by ever more big money to blow even more things up.)
Are you surprised then that two of the biggest operators in the AI space are the search engine operators Google and Microsoft? This is another example of how Big Tech helps itself to your data and work product without you even knowing it’s happening. So now what? I now know I’m being ripped off, and I’m wondering if Medium is in on it.
The Verge tells us:
The ability to download, store, organize, and query the modern internet gives any company or developer something like the world’s accumulated knowledge to work with. In the last year or so, the rise of AI products like ChatGPT, and the large language models underlying them, have made high-quality training data one of the internet’s most valuable commodities. That has caused internet providers of all sorts to reconsider the value of the data on their servers, and rethink who gets access to what.
Ya think?
Get smart about the NO AI Fraud Act with this MTP Mini Brief on the NO AI Fraud Act.
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.