Tag: generative AI

Music Making Gen AI: A Deeper Dive into Fair Use

fair use

In February 2023, I argued that using copyrighted works for the purpose of training generative artificial intelligence (GAI) products is not fair use. My view in that post was, and remains, that because the purpose of copyright law is to promote authorship, and authorship is human as a matter of doctrine, then a purpose which replaces authorship is facially antithetical to copyright’s constitutional foundation. So, because a finding of fair use, should, as a matter of law, further copyright’s purpose, the GAI developer’s defense under that exception is invalid.

That said, I assume the courts will not rule on this threshold, constitutional question at summary judgment and will instead conduct fair use analyses in the first cases that proceed to at least bench trial. After one or two outcomes, if favorable to plaintiffs, we will likely see a lot of settlements because so many of the AI cases alleging mass infringement for the purpose of machine learning (ML) present the same legal questions.

Turning to the recent lawsuits filed by record labels UMG, et al. against GAI developers Udio and Suno, both complaints anticipate the fair use responses to come and, to an extent, imply the doctrinal view articulated above. Because the two complaints are nearly identical in substance, I’ll stick to Udio because the suit is filed in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), and the Second Circuit is where nearly all—if not all—of the relevant fair use case law has been active or decided. Odds are, the court in the First Circuit, which has a comparatively thin copyright record, will follow the Second Circuit’s lead in resolving Suno.

As discussed in my first post about these cases, the defendants seem unable to present a plausible claim of non-infringement and even signaled that they have planned to argue fair use in the lawsuits they knew were coming. All the action will be focused on factor one, part one (whether the use is “transformative”) and on factor four (potential harm to the market for the works used).

To dispense with factors two and three, the nature of the work(s) used and amount of the work(s) used respectively, these clearly tilt in favor of the plaintiffs. The sound recordings used for ML are highly expressive in nature (factor two); and by all evidence and inferences presented, it seems clear that defendant copied whole works—and many of them—into the AI model (factor three). One way the use of whole works could swing back to favor the defendant would be finding that the purpose of the use under factor one is, indeed, transformative.

To get there, I believe the court would have to find transformativeness under its precedent in Google Books, but in addition to the court itself describing that decision as the outer boundary of fair use, the Supreme Court in Warhol may have at least sharpened, if not narrowed, that boundary. As a factual matter, a GAI like Udio is nothing like Google Books. The latter feeds whole books into a system for the purpose of creating a research tool, while the former feeds whole sound recordings into a system for the purpose of producing other sound recordings—several of which have been presented in evidence as substantially similar to famous sound recordings.

Considering Udio Under Fair Use

As mentioned, the focus will be on factors one and four, which is not uncommon, but these cases highlight the interplay between the two factors. Factor one asks the purpose of the use, including whether that purpose is commercial; and factor four asks whether the use threatens the market value for the work(s) used. Thus, if a court finds under factor one that a use serves a “substitutional” purpose, this suggests that the use will unavoidably cause harm to the market value of the works used under factor four. This is what the labels argue, but a product like Udio does imply new territory for a fair use consideration.

Factor one asks two interrelated questions—whether the purpose of the use is transformative, and whether that purpose is commercial in nature. Commercial use tilts away from fair use but is not determinative, and transformativeness tilts toward fair use, but is also not determinative. In fact, the Supreme Court decision in Warhol, reversed a trend whereby transformativeness too often carried the entire fair use analysis. For instance, Udio’s failure to license the works used for ML is itself a potential market harm under factor four. Thus, even if Udio’s purpose were held to be transformative, its commercial purpose would split factor one, and the rest of the fair use factors would likely still favor the plaintiffs.

But, as the complaint states, “[Udio is] far from transformative, as there is no functional purpose for Udio’s AI model to ingest the Copyrighted Recordings other than to spit out new, competing music files,” states the labels’ complaint. This is properly framed in context to what “transformative” means in copyright law. Transformativeness is not about technological novelty or even innovation that promises to “make the world better” and so on. Notwithstanding the hyperbole in many such claims by various developers, the transformative question in fair use focuses on distinction of purpose from the works used.

As the quote above indicates, Udio ingests (i.e., copies) sound recordings for the purpose of making other sound recordings. And the purpose of both sets of sound recordings is, generally and presumably, listening pleasure for consumers. Even if none of the music produced by Udio were substantially similar to any of the music that went in, the labels contend that the overall purpose is holistically substitutional for all the recordings used to create the product. Udio used the music of human artists to “make” music without human artists, which is a purpose far beyond the Google Books boundary of providing a research tool to humans, including some who will be authors of works.

In response, Udio can argue that the purpose of its product is to produce a plethora of “new” music, which may indeed threaten to replace artists, but which is no more a substitute for the works used than a Beyonce song is a substitute for a Taylor Swift song. This is a tricky moment for copyright, which protects authors’ rights by protecting the use of their property. For instance, if no song ever comes out of Udio that sounds like a copy of an existing song, or if Udio can show that the majority of songs output are “new,” it could argue that its purpose is not substitutional under factor one.

Additionally, if Udio could show that its purpose is substantially providing a tool for would-be music creators, its claim to being “transformative” would be stronger under Google Books. But based on the reported function and market objectives of both Udio and Suno—i.e., mass-market products enabling any consumer to “make music” with a few basic prompts—the “tool” claim, if it were made, seems unpersuasive.

Let me interject that tech developers and copyright antagonists often conflate the economic concept of “creative destruction” with transformativeness, arguing that “copyright stifles progress.” While I personally question whether Udio et al. necessarily represent progress as a cultural matter, even if Joe Schumpeter himself would agree that technological replacement of human music makers is “creative destruction,” that prospect anticipates the nullification of copyright law as a relic of impliedly obsolete human authorship. As such, it would seem preposterous for a court to find that an affirmative defense to infringement should be applied in a manner that would cause copyright law itself to implode.

None of this is to say, as indeed the complaint makes clear, that peaceful coexistence between human authors and GAI cannot come to pass. Where GAI may be used by the human creator to make an expressive work of her own mental conception, the AI product has a much stronger claim to promoting the progress of authorship. But in the case of these music making products, that does not appear to be the intent—either by design or business model. And so, to reprise the doctrinal assertion I advocate, the Google Books opinion itself states:

Courts thus developed the doctrine, eventually named fair use, which permits unauthorized copying in some circumstances, so as to further “copyright’s very purpose, ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’” [Emphasis added]

On that basis, the Second Circuit should find that a use of protected works which is holistically substitutional for human authorship does not further the purpose of copyright and is, therefore, barred from presenting a valid fair use defense.

Image source by:

Things We Don’t Need: Generative AI

When I was planning to start The Illusion of More, I contemplated a category of posts under the heading We Don’t Need This. Although abandoned, I thought it might be an editorial framework for articles about innovations that really aren’t innovative, and the low-tech invention that originally inspired the idea was the kiddie-car/shopping-cart hybrid. In case you haven’t had the pleasure, this vehicle enables a small child to “drive” a plastic car attached to the basket one pushes through the supermarket. As the parent of a small child (at the time IOM was launched), I found this innovation was a terrible idea—one that demanded use the moment the child laid eyes upon it, but which mostly offered poor maneuverability through the aisles and unnecessary geometric struggle at check-out.

There is, of course, nothing connecting the kiddie-car/shopping-cart to generative AI except, in my view, the fact that we don’t need either one. Or at least, we don’t need most of what generative AI appears to be doing, and this is perhaps the most maddening aspect of the most prominent generative AI tools making the headlines—that they serve no purpose and, if we’re getting all IP about it, promote no progress. I’ve said it, and I’ll keep saying it:  we do not need computers to make artistic works.

This month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a report describing its early findings about AI’s potential harms which may be addressable under the agency’s purview. Charged with enforcing prohibitions against unfair, non-competitive business practices and protecting consumers, the FTC hosted a roundtable discussion with members of the creative community to hear their concerns about both the development and public deployment of generative AIs. As the report states:

Various competition and consumer protection concerns may arise when AI is deployed in the creative professions. Conduct–such as training an AI tool on protected expression without the creator’s consent or selling output generated from such an AI tool, including by mimicking the creator’s writing style, vocal or instrumental performance, or likeness—may constitute an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive practice.

In response to the report—specifically to the passage quoted above—three well-known copyright critics, Pamela Samuelson, Matthew Sag, and Christopher Sprigman (SS&S) criticized the FTC “both for its opacity and for the ways in which it may be interpreted (or misinterpreted) to chill innovation and restrict competition in the markets for AI technologies.” Before responding to that allegation, I must indulge in a little gallows humor and mention that the economic and global-security leader of the free world is in danger of shredding its Constitution, going full-tilt authoritarian, and spiraling into a deathroll of ignorance and cruelty. And yet, we’re going to talk about “chilling innovation” in generative AI as if it’s a matter of urgency. The world is in crisis, and billions have been invested to see who can do the best job getting a computer to write a poem or make a picture? Talk about whimpers instead of bangs.

There are two reasons that sentiment is not raw Ludditism. The first is that it does not dismiss all AI development in the creative industry as useless; and the second is that the “copyright stifles innovation” bullet point is a generalization that should never be uttered again—especially in light of its direct role in fostering the above-mentioned prospect of democracy’s collapse. We’ve heard all this before—specifically from SS&S and their colleagues in academia and the “digital rights” organizations. We’ve been told that copyright stifles the free and open internet, access to information, and the speech right.

But in addition to the fact that the premise itself was false, the grand social media experiment in the “democratization of everything” must be recognized as an abysmal failure, and its cheerleaders should muster the humility to stifle their tiresome and dangerous refrains in context to AI. Social media companies and their friends in academia—and here, I must include President Obama’s Google-friendly administration—share considerable blame for the heedless, tech-enabled populism that has fostered so many social hazards, including a literal seditionist now leading one of America’s two political parties.

Notably, the FTC report does not mention copyright very much, and in fact, many of the creative professionals who participated in the discussions acknowledged that because they are not copyright owners (e.g., voice actors and screenwriters for hire were among the representatives), they do not have rights currently protecting them against generative AI resulting in the kind of unfair outcomes, which the FTC is charged with mitigating. It would take too long a post to respond to all the critiques presented by SS&S, but I wanted to focus on this statement:

We are concerned especially about the suggestion in the FTC’s Comments that AI training might be a Section 5 violation where it “diminishes the value of [a creator’s] existing or future works.” A hallmark of competition is that it diminishes the returns that producers are likely to garner relative to a less competitive marketplace. This is just as likely to be true in markets for creative goods, such as novels and paintings, as it is in markets for ordinary tangible goods like automobiles and groceries. AI agents that produce outputs that are not substantially similar to any work on which the AI agent was trained, and are thus not infringing on any particular copyright owner’s rights, are lawful competition for the works on which they are trained.  Surely the FTC does not plan to have Section 5 displace the judgments of copyright law on what is and what is not lawful competition?

To summarize, that paragraph declares that it does not matter if generative AI displaces human authors, that in fact, it is a threshold we should be eager to cross. Notwithstanding the fact that two of the high-profile lawsuits present compelling evidence of substantially similar outputs,[1] the more concerning implication of that paragraph is that SS&S endorse the inevitability that generative AI will devalue human creators and/or eliminate them altogether. Moreover, calling this eventuality a form of “competition” reveals an unsettling perspective consistent with every anti-copyright paper I have ever read—namely, that the production of creative works is no different than the production of any other product or service.

I’ve said many times that copyright critics don’t understand artists, and here, the inapt word competition demonstrates why this axiom endures. For instance, publishers are in competition with one another to an extent, but authors are not—at least not in the sense that the concept applies in other industries—least of all Big Tech. No novelist, for instance, wants to hold the undivided and exclusive attention of all readers the way Meta wants eyeballs never to stray for long from its platforms. Artists thrive in a diverse market of other artists, consumers benefit as a result, and copyright is an engine of that diversity, not a barrier to it. Artists may feel competitive or jealous at times, or even behave in a competitive manner (because they’re human), but the reality is that they need one another to exist at a scale that is not comparable to other “businesses.” True to form, copyright critics like to cite the interdependence of authors to highlight copyright’s limitations but then ignore the same principle in support of tech giants swallowing all creative enterprise whole.

The primary concern expressed by SS&S appears to be that the FTC alleges that AI training with copyrighted works is an act of infringement. Unsurprisingly, this same trio submitted comments to the Copyright Office arguing that AI training with protected works is fair use, but as that very question is already presented in several court cases, I assume SS&S are primarily concerned with optics here. The trio states, “The FTC has no authority to determine what is and what is not copyright infringement, or what is or is not fair use. Under governing law, that is a judicial function.”

Exactly. And the question is now before the courts. So, what’s the problem? That the FTC should not even raise the issue? According to tweets by Samuelson and Sprigman, they argue that the FTC’s report is one-sided, that it is too creator-focused and does not account for the testimony or opinions of the technology companies developing AI. But while I certainly agree that multistakeholder hearings etc. are the proper approach to developing new policy, it is impossible to tolerate a complaint about lack of balance coming from the anti-copyright crowd at all, and from these individuals in particular. For instance, readers may not remember the American Law Institute Restatement of Copyright, initiated by Samuelson and led by Sprigman, but critics of the project—some of the most prominent names in copyright scholarship—specifically cite the opacity of the restatement process and deafness of its managers to the concerns and recommendations of their colleagues.

More broadly, it must be said that if, indeed, the FTC lately gave more attention to the creators than they did to the tech companies, then this was a long overdue anomaly. Between at least the mid-late 1990s and 2016, the tech companies were treated with kid gloves, handed the keys to Washington, and feted like the economic and democratic engines they claimed to be. Since 2016, sentiment began to swing in the other direction, as many Americans began to see how disinformation plus data manipulation can become a wrecking ball for a whole society.

If Big Tech lost the previously undeserved benefit of the doubt, good. AI has the potential to exacerbate many of the same Web 2.0 harms at unprecedented speed and scale, and if the FTC, the USCO, the courts, or Congress look askance at the developers, then it is a mistrust well earned. And again, at least with regard to generative AI designed to make creative works, none of the parties empowered to write policy in this area should forget the bottom line:  that when it comes to producing creative work, we truly do not need generative AI.

[1] Concord et al. v. Anthropic and NYT v. Open AI, et al

SEE ALSO: The Washington Post reported this month that Big Tech continues to significantly fund and influence academia in these policy areas.

Photo by: Jollier

Generative AI is a lot Like a Video Tape Recorder, No?

In my last post, I focused on the hypothetical fair use defense of generative AI under the principles articulated in the Google Books decision of 2014. In this post, I want to address another claim that has arisen—both on social media, and in comments to the Copyright Office—namely that generative AI companies should be shielded against secondary liability for copyright infringement under the “Sony Safe Harbor.”

This refers to the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Sony v. Universal (The “Sony Betamax” Case), holding that the video tape recorder (VTR) is legal based on two interrelated findings: 1) the fair use opinion that consumers had a right to “time-shift” the viewing of televised material; and 2) therefore, the VTR would be used for substantially non-infringing purposes. Thus, although some parties would inevitably use the VTR for infringing purposes, Sony Corporation could not be liable for contributory infringement in such instances.

Clearly, there are some bright, shining distinctions between the VTR and a generative AI. The VTR was not designed by inputting millions of AV works into a computer model, and its purpose was not to generate “new” AV works. Instead, those obsolete machines performed two very basic functions: they made videotape copies of AV material, and they displayed copies of AV material for a specific type of personal use.[1] As noted in the post about Google Books, the Court in Sony also had a fully developed product and a clearly defined purpose in the VTR. And again, this is not so with respect to understanding the purpose of a given generative AI.

I believe the novelty (and even the uncertainty) of the AIs purpose is fatal to the argument that generative AI companies are necessarily shielded by the “Sony Safe Harbor.” This is because in Sony, the anticipation of substantially non-infringing use rests on the novel “time-shifting” notion introduced into the fact-intensive fair use finding. In other words, “time-shifting” was a principle specific to the technology at issue, and no analogous concept lurks anywhere in the purpose of a given AI, let alone all AIs still in development. Imagine if Sony Corp. walked into court with a box of assembled electronic parts, declared that they’re not quite sure what the box can or will do yet (though it might distribute homemade copies into the market!), but they would really like a fair use decision and liability ruling in their favor.

Non-Infringing Use Under Different Rationales

To be clear, it is plausible—even reasonable—to expect that the majority of outputs by a generative AI are, or will be, non-infringing. In fact, I believe this is one of the pitfalls when it comes to hoping that copyright can address the presumed threat of AI outputs:  because the substantial similarity bar, finding that Work A infringes Work B, is thrown into a doctrinal tailspin. For example, when a person knowingly copies a work, this fosters a strong claim of infringement, but independent creation is a non-infringing act. And then, there are shades in between willful infringement, innocent infringement, and non-infringement, depending on the facts of a particular case.

In addition to copyright’s limiting doctrines, which allow myriad “similar” works to coexist without legal conflict, I predict that generative AI has the potential to warp the evidentiary foundations necessary to a substantial similarity test to prove infringement. If that is correct, it may be one rationale for predicting widespread non-infringing use, but it is highly distinguishable from the foundations for the “Sony Safe Harbor.” Meanwhile, the consideration of secondary liability (as with fair use) depends substantially on the purpose of the technology at issue—and that purpose remains unclear.

The mundane, mechanical VTR only potentially threatened the “making available” rights for works produced and owned by creators. This is not remotely comparable to a computer model “trained” with millions of protected works for the purpose of enabling that computer model to produce new “works.” To paraphrase my brief comments to the Copyright Office, if a particular work goes into the machine and a potentially infringing copy of that work comes out of the machine, I do not believe there is any authority which broadly shields the developer from liability.

With that example in mind, though, it is worth noting that a code-based service, unlike a physical electronic device, can be revised concurrent with delivery to the market. Thus, unlike Sony and its Betamax, the AI developer looking to limit liability for copyright infringement has the opportunity (dare we say obligation?) to make every effort to design and continually update a system to avoid copyright infringement. This may entail licensing materials used to “train” a generative AI and/or ongoing tweaking of the algorithm to avoid infringing outputs. Either way, if the developers don’t want to build these kind of safeguards for the most revolutionary tech of 2023, surely they cannot be allowed to hide behind a liability shield established in 1984 for a box now collecting dust in the attic.

[1] They also frustrated many consumers who tried to set the clocks, but that’s another matter.

Photo by: Tamer_Soliman