How Google’s AI legal protections can change art and copyright protections
Google has been facing a wave of litigation recently as the implications of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on copyright and privacy rights become clearer.
Amid the ever-intensifying debate, Google has not only defended its AI training practices but also pledged to shield users of its generative AI products from accusations of copyright violations.
However, Google’s protective umbrella only spans seven specified products with generative AI attributes and conspicuously leaves out Google’s Bard search tool. The move, although a solace to some, opens a Pandora’s box of questions around accountability, the protection of creative rights and the burgeoning field of AI.
Moreover, the initiative is also being perceived as more than just a mere reactive measure from Google, but rather a meticulously crafted strategy to indemnify the blossoming AI landscape.
AI’s legal cloud
The surge of generative AI over the last couple of years has rekindled the age-old flame of copyright debates with a modern twist. The bone of contention currently pivots around whether the data used to train AI models and the output generated by them violate propriety intellectual property (IP) affiliated with private entities.
In this regard, the accusations against Google consist of just this and, if proven, could not only cost Google a lot of money but also set a precedent that could throttle the growth of generative AI as a whole.
Google’s legal strategy, meticulously designed to instill confidence among its clientele, stands on two primary pillars, i.e., the indemnification of its training data and its generated output. To elaborate, Google has committed to bearing legal responsibility should the data employed to devise its AI models face allegations of IP violations.
Not only that, but the tech giant is also looking to protect users against claims that the text, images or other content engendered by its AI services do not infringe upon anyone else’s personal data — encapsulating a wide array of its services, including Google Docs, Slides and Cloud Vertex AI.
Google has argued that the utilization of publicly available information for training AI systems is not tantamount to stealing, invasion of privacy or copyright infringement.
However, this assertion is under severe scrutiny as a slew of lawsuits accuse Google of misusing personal and copyrighted information to feed its AI models. One of the proposed class-action lawsuits even alleges that Google has built its entire AI prowess on the back of secretly purloined data from millions of internet users.
Therefore, the legal battle seems to be more than just a confrontation between Google and the aggrieved parties; it underlines a much larger ideological conundrum, namely: “Who truly owns the data on the internet? And to what extent can this data be used to train AI models, especially when these models churn out commercially lucrative outputs?”
An artist’s perspective
The dynamic between generative AI and protecting intellectual property rights is a landscape that seems to be evolving rapidly.
Nonfungible token artist Amitra Sethi told Cointelegraph that Google’s recent announcement is a significant and welcome development, adding:
“Google’s policy, which extends legal protection to users who may face copyright infringement claims due to AI-generated content, reflects a growing awareness of the potential challenges posed by AI in the creative field.”
However, Sethi believes that it is important to have a nuanced understanding of this policy. While it acts as a shield against unintentional infringement, it might not cover all possible scenarios. In her view, the protective efficacy of the policy could hinge on the unique circumstances of each case.
When an AI-generated piece loosely mirrors an artist’s original work, Sethi believes the policy might offer some recourse. But in instances of “intentional plagiarism through AI,” the legal scenario could get murkier. Therefore, she believes that it is up to the artists themselves to remain proactive in ensuring the full protection of their creative output.
Recent: Game review: Immutable’s Guild of Guardians offers mobile dungeon adventures
Sethi said that she recently copyrighted her unique art genre, “SoundBYTE,” so as to highlight the importance of artists taking active measures to secure their work. “By registering my copyright, I’ve established a clear legal claim to my creative expressions, making it easier to assert my rights if they are ever challenged,” she added.
In the wake of such developments, the global artist community seems to be coming together to raise awareness and advocate for clearer laws and regulations governing AI-generated content.
Tools like Glaze and Nightshade have also appeared to protect artists’ creations. Glaze applies minor changes to artwork that, while practically imperceptible to the human eye, feeds incorrect or bad data to AI art generators. Similarly, Nightshade lets artists add invisible changes to the pixels within their pieces, thereby “poisoning the data” for AI scrapers.
Industry-wide implications
The existing narrative is not limited to Google and its product suite. Other tech majors like Microsoft and Adobe have also made overtures to protect their clients against similar copyright claims.
Microsoft, for instance, has put forth a robust defense strategy to shield users of its generative AI tool, Copilot. Since its launch, the company has staunchly defended the legality of Copilot’s training data and its generated information, asserting that the system merely serves as a means for developers to write new code in a more efficient fashion.
Adobe has incorporated guidelines within its AI tools to ensure users are not unwittingly embroiled in copyright disputes and is also offering AI services bundled with legal assurances against any external infringements.
Magazine: Ethereum restaking: Blockchain innovation or dangerous house of cards?
The inevitable court cases that will appear regarding AI will undoubtedly shape not only legal frameworks but also the ethical foundations upon which future AI systems will operate.
Tomi Fyrqvist, co-founder and chief financial officer for decentralized social app Phaver, told Cointelegraph that in the coming years, it would not be surprising to see more lawsuits of this nature coming to the fore:
“There is always going to be someone suing someone. Most likely, there will be a lot of lawsuits that are opportunistic, but some will be legit.”
Collect this article as an NFT to preserve this moment in history and show your support for independent journalism in the crypto space.
The US Nasdaq stock exchange is making SEC approval of its proposal to offer tokenized versions of stocks listed on the exchange a top priority, according to the exchange’s crypto chief.
“We’ll just move as fast as we can,” Nasdaq’s head of digital assets strategy, Matt Savarese, said during an interview with CNBC on Thursday, when asked whether the SEC could approve the proposal this year.
“I think what we have to really evaluate where the public comments come back in and then answer and respond to the SEC questions as they come through,” Savarese said. “We hope to kind of work with them as quickly as possible,” Savarese said.
Savarese says Nasdaq isn’t “upending the system”
The proposal, submitted by Nasdaq on Sept. 8, is requesting to allow investors to buy and sell stock tokens — digital representations of shares in publicly traded companies — on the exchange.
Savarese emphasized that Nasdaq is not trying to overhaul the way stocks are invested in when asked whether he expects other major exchanges to follow suit.
“We’re not looking at upending the system; we want everyone to come along for that ride and bring tokenization more into the mainstream,” he said.
“We want to do it in that responsible investor-led way first, under the SEC rules themselves,” he added.
It was only in October that Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev said that tokenization will “eventually eat the whole financial system.”
The crypto industry is divided on tokenized equities
Savarese emphasized that Nasdaq is aiming to be an innovator in the ecosystem, noting that the exchange was the first to transition markets from paper-based trading to electronic systems.
Related: DATs bring crypto’s insider trading problem to TradFi: Shane Molidor
Tokenizing stocks has been one of the most significant talking points in the crypto industry this year.
On Sept. 3, Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz said the company became the first Nasdaq-listed company to tokenize its equity on a major blockchain following its launch on the Solana network.
The conversation around tokenized equities has also drawn skepticism from the crypto industry.
On Oct. 1, Rob Hadick, general partner at crypto venture firm Dragonfly, told Cointelegraph that tokenized equities will be a significant benefit to traditional markets, but may not be a boon to the crypto industry as others have predicted.
Hadick said that if tokenized stocks use layer-2 networks, it creates “leakage” as value and may not flow back to Ethereum or the broader crypto ecosystem as much as hoped.
Magazine: When privacy and AML laws conflict: Crypto projects’ impossible choice
Hester Peirce, a commissioner of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and head of the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, reaffirmed the right to crypto self-custody and privacy in financial transactions.
“I’m a freedom maximalist,” Peirce told The Rollup podcast on Friday, while saying that self-custody of assets is a fundamental human right. She added:
“Why should I have to be forced to go through someone else to hold my assets? It baffles me that in this country, which is so premised on freedom, that would even be an issue — of course, people can hold their own assets.”
Peirce added that online financial privacy should be the standard. “It has become the presumption that if you want to keep your transactions private, you’re doing something wrong, but it should be exactly the opposite presumption,” she said.
The comments came as the Digital Asset Market Structure Clarity Act, a crypto market structure bill that includes provisions for self-custody, anti-money laundering(AML) regulations, and asset taxonomy, is delayed until 2026, according to Senator Tim Scott.
Related: SEC to hold privacy and financial surveillance roundtable in December
Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) challenge Bitcoin’s self-custody ethos
Many large Bitcoin (BTC) whales and long-term holders are pivoting from self-custody to ETFs to reap the tax benefits and hassle-free management of owning crypto in an investment vehicle.
“We are witnessing the first decline in self-custodied Bitcoin in 15 years,” Dr. Martin Hiesboeck, the head of research at crypto exchange Uphold, said.
Hiesboeck attributed the shift to the SEC approving in-kind creations and redemptions for crypto ETFs in July, which allowed authorized holders to exchange crypto for ETF shares and vice versa without triggering a taxable event, unlike cash-settled ETFs.
“A move away from the self-custody mantra of ‘not your keys, not your coins’ is another nail in the coffin of the original crypto spirit,” Hiesboeck added.
In February, notable Bitcoin analyst and investor PlanB, the developer of the BTC stock-to-flow model, announced that he transferred his Bitcoin to ETFs to alleviate the “hassle” of private key management.
PlanB’s announcement caused an outcry in the Bitcoin community, as many voiced concerns that handing over custody to a third party clashed with Bitcoin’s core values.
Magazine: When privacy and AML laws conflict: Crypto projects’ impossible choice
Jeremy Corbyn has declined to say his Your Party co-founder Zarah Sultana is a friend as supporters of the new grouping gather in Liverpool.
Speaking to Sky News on the eve of the conference, Mr Corbyn acknowledged “stresses and strains” in the set-up of the party but said it had become “a lot better in the last few days and weeks and we’re going to get through this weekend”.
The former Labour leader has publicly clashed with Ms Sultana, the MP for Coventry South, over the launch and structure of the new party.
Asked if they were friends, Mr Corbyn said they were “colleagues in parliament, and we obviously communicate and so on”.
The pair appeared at separate events on the eve of the party’s inaugural gathering.
Ms Sultana had previously claimed she was being “sidelined” by a “sexist boys’ club” within the fledgling party.
Mr Corbyn said her comments were an “unfortunate choice of words” but added that he had been more involved in the organisation of the conference than she had.
The co-founders have had a strained relationship since setting up the party. Pic: Your Party
The Islington North MP also said that Your Party was still waiting for Ms Sultana to transfer all of the funds she had raised from supporters.
“Obviously having money up front for a conference is a big help,” he said.
Ms Sultana has insisted she is transferring the donations in stages.
The weekend gathering in Liverpool will see supporters choose between four options for a permanent party name: Your Party, Our Party, Popular Alliance, For the Many.
The preferred choice of Ms Sultana – The Left – did not make the ballot.
Similarly, the Coventry MP had said she favoured a co-leader approach, but members will only be able to pick between single leadership or collective leadership models.
Speaking at her own pre-conference rally, Ms Sultana blamed a “nameless, faceless bureaucrat” for restricting the choices.
Read more from Sky News:
Reeves accused of deliberately making UK finances look worse
Famous names affected by prostate cancer criticise screening decision
The meeting also risked being disrupted by a series of member expulsions. One of those ejected, Lewis Nielsen, accused a “clique” of trying to “take over”.
Your Party sources said expulsions related to members of the Socialist Workers Party and that holding another national party membership was not allowed.
Ms Sultana blamed a “culture of paranoia at the top” and said she believed the same people who had been briefing against her were now also expelling members.
Mr Corbyn will open the conference on Saturday, while the results of the main decision-making votes will be announced on Sunday.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024