Amid the ongoing debate on whether the “fair dealing” exception on copyright infringement can be applied to the process of training AI models, a government committee has said that amending existing law will not help adequately protect the rights of content creators, nor will it reduce the legal exposure of AI developers.
“Amending the fair dealing provision under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, will neither help strike a balance, nor will it effectively address the legal exposure of AI developers under copyright law,” the committee under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) said.
This comes at a time when the intersection of AI and copyright law has become a focal point of legal discourse. In the age of AI, one of the most pressing issues is whether AI-generated works can be protected under copyright law.
The Logic Behind the Committee’s Argument
Explaining the rationale behind its argument, the committee said that the fair dealing provision is primarily an “exception” to copyright infringement, in the nature of defence and not an enabling provision such as the exclusive rights provision of copyright owners under Section 14.
“From a jurisprudential point of view, intellectual property rights work as a two-way sword. On the one hand, there is a growing awareness that such protection is a sine qua-non of the motivational factor underlying the creation of an intellectual work; however, on the other hand, granting an absolute protection to the intellectual work can be detrimental to the further progress of humanity,” it argued.
Furthermore, protection under the fair dealing provision is contingent upon meeting specific criteria. First, the burden of proof lies with the person or entity seeking protection under the copyright law.
Secondly, assuming that the first requirement is met, the AI developer must also show that it only used the copyrighted material for specific purposes mentioned in the aforementioned clause, such as research, criticism or review, the reporting of current events and current affairs, among others.
“As a consequence, any legislative amendment to the fair dealing provision to facilitate AI training will not reduce the legal uncertainty faced by AI developers,” the committee said.
Govt Panel Proposes Blanket Licence for AI Developers
A committee under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released a part of a working paper on the intersection of AI and copyright on Monday.
In its assessment, the committee found that content creators globally are demanding that the use of copyrighted material for training AI systems should be subject to “consent and compensation”. Further, they argue that allowing AI training on copyrighted works “without permission or fair remuneration poses an existential threat” to the creative industries.
On the other hand, the tech industry claims that training AI systems on copyrighted materials is “fair use” and should be exempted from copyright infringement, the committee noted.
In light of the arguments from both sides, the committee has proposed a mandatory blanket licence that would allow AI developers to train their models on any copyrighted work that can be accessed legally.
Under the proposed model, AI developers do not need to seek individual permission from content creators to train their models. However, content creators will receive a statutory right to remuneration through a new central royalty-collection body.
Why this Matters
This comes at a time when big tech firms such as Meta, Microsoft, Google, OpenAI and Anthropic are facing a growing number of lawsuits globally over the usage of copyrighted material to train their AI models without permission. While copyright owners have demanded compensation, companies have claimed fair use, sparking a high-stakes dispute over intellectual property rights.
Advertisements
Earlier this month, OpenAI lost a court battle to keep chat logs secret in a copyright case after a US federal judge asked the company to hand over the records, ruling that it wouldn’t violate users’ privacy. In India, the ChatGPT maker is also facing a copyright lawsuit from a consortium of media outlets led by ANI.
Prior to that, both Meta and Anthropic won their copyright lawsuits against authors, who alleged these companies infringed upon their rights by using their books without permission to train their AI systems. Legal experts that MediaNama spoke to earlier seemed to be divided over whether Anthropic’s use of the licensed books would fall within the scope of fair dealing in India.
Only time will tell whether India’s newly proposed model will end the disagreement between tech companies and people who own copyrights. For now, it’s clear: authors and creators will get paid when their work helps power these new AI systems.
Also Read:
Support our journalism:
For You
Source link
