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.
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.
Examples of how “poisoned” artworks can produce an incorrect image from an AI query. Source: MIT
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.
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.
Ms Sultana also said she was “resigning” from the Labour Party after 14 years.
She was suspended as a Labour MP shortly after they came to power last summer for voting against the government maintaining the two-child benefit cap.
Several others from the left of the party, including Mr Corbyn, were also suspended for voting against the government, and also remained as independent MPs.
More on Jeremy Corbyn
Related Topics:
However, Ms Sultana was still a member of the Labour Party – until now.
Mr Corbyn has previously said the independent MPs who were suspended from Labour would “come together” to provide an “alternative.
The other four are: Iqbal Mohamed, Shockat Adam, Ayoub Khan and Adnan Hussain.
Mr Corbyn and the other four independents have not said if they are part of the new party Ms Sultana announced.
In her announcement, Ms Sultana said she would vote to abolish the two-child benefit cap again and also voted against scrapping the winter fuel payment for most pensioners.
Ms Sultana also voted against the government’s welfare bill this week, which was heavily watered down as Sir Keir Starmer tried to prevent a major rebellion from his own MPs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:47
Protesters block Israeli arms manufacturer in Bristol
On Wednesday, Ms Sultana spoke passionately against Palestine Action being proscribed as a terror organisation – but MPs eventually voted for it to be.
She said to proscribe it is “a deliberate distortion of the law to chill dissent, criminalise solidarity and suppress the truth”.
Ms Sultana said they were founding the new party because “Westminster is broken but the real crisis is deeper – just 50 families now own more wealth than half the UK population”.
She called Reform leader Nigel Farage “a billionaire-backed grifter” leading the polls “because Labour has completely failed to improve people’s lives.
Image: Ms Sultana called Nigel Farage a ‘billionaire-backed grifter’. Pic: PA
The MP, who has spoken passionately about Gaza, added: “Across the political establishment, from Farage to Starmer, they smear people of conscience trying to stop a genocide in Gaza as terrorists.
“But the truth is clear: this government is an active participant in genocide. And the British people oppose it.
“We are not going to take this anymore.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said: “In just 12 months, this Labour government has boosted wages, delivered an extra four million NHS appointments, opened 750 free breakfast clubs, secured three trade deals and four interest rate cuts lowering mortgage payments for millions.
“Only Labour can deliver the change needed to renew Britain.”