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 controversial assisted dying bill is still very much alive, having received a second reading in the House of Lords without a vote.
But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Day two of debate on the bill in the Lords was just as passionate and emotional as the first, a week earlier.
And now comes the hard part for supporters of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as opponents attempt to make major changes in the months ahead.
The Lords’ chamber was again packed for the debate, which this time began at 10am and lasted nearly six hours. In all, during 13 hours of debate over two days, nearly 200 peers spoke.
According to one estimate, over both days of the debate only around 50 peers spoke in favour of the bill and considerably more than 100 against, with only a handful neutral.
The bill proposes allowing terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. Scotland’s parliament has already passed a similar law.
Pro-assisted dying campaigners outside parliament earlier this month. Pic: PA
In a safeguard introduced in the Commons, an application would have to be approved by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior lawyer and psychiatrist.
The bill’s sponsor in the Lords, Charlie Falconer, said while peers have “a job of work to do”, elected MPs in the Commons should have the final decision on the bill, not unelected peers.
One of the most contentious moments in the first day of debate last Friday was a powerful speech by former Tory prime minister Theresa May, who said the legislation was a “licence to kill” bill.
That claim prompted angry attacks on the former PM when the debate resumed from Labour peers, who said it had left them dismayed and caused distress to many terminally ill people.
The former PM, daughter of a church of England vicar, had claimed in her speech that the proposed law was an “assisted suicide bill” and “effectively says suicide is OK”.
But opening the second day’s debate, Baroness Thornton, a lay preacher and health minister in Tony Blair’s government, said: “People have written to me in the last week, very distressed.
“They say things such as: ‘We are not suicidal – we want to live – but we are dying, and we do not have the choice or ability to change that. Assisted dying is not suicide’.”
Throughout the criticism of her strong opposition to the bill, the former PM sat rooted to her seat, not reacting visibly but looking furious as her critics attacked her.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Assisted Dying: Reflections at the end of life
There was opposition to the bill, too, from grandees of the Thatcher and Major cabinets. Lord Deben, formerly John Gummer and an ex-member of the Church of England synod, said the bill “empowers the state to kill”.
And Lord Chris Patten, former Tory chairman, Hong Kong governor and Oxford University chancellor, said it was an “unholy legislative mess” and could lead to death becoming the “default solution to perceived suffering”.
Read more:
Paralympian targeted with abuse for opposing assisted dying bill
The assisted dying debate has been politics – but not as we know it
Day two of the debate also saw an unholy clash between Church of England bishops past and present, with former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey claiming opponents led by Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell were out of touch with public opinion.
While a large group of bishops sat in their full robes on their benches, Lord Carey suggested both the Church and the Lords would “risk our legitimacy by claiming that we know better than both the public” and the Commons.
“Do we really want to stand in the way of this bill?” he challenged peers. “It will pass, whether in this session or the next. It has commanding support from the British public and passed the elected House after an unprecedented period of scrutiny.”
But Archbishop Cottrell hit back, declaring he was confident he represented “views held by many, not just Christian leaders, but faith leaders across our nation in whom I’ve been in discussion and written to me”.
And he said the bill was wrong “because it ruptures relationships” and would “turbocharge” the agonising choices facing poor and vulnerable people.
A campaigner in opposition of the bill. Pic: PA
One of the most powerful speeches came from former Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, awarded a peerage by Rishi Sunak after a dramatic Commons comeback after losing his arms and legs after a bout of sepsis.
He shocked peers by revealing that in Belgium, terminally ill children as young as nine had been euthanised. “I’m concerned we want to embed an option for death in the NHS when its modus operandi should be for life,” he said.
And appearing via video link, a self-confessed “severely disabled” Tory peer, Kevin Shinkwin, was listened to in a stunned silence as he said the legislation amounted to the “stuff of nightmares”.
He said it would give the state “a licence to kill the wrong type of people”, adding: “I’m the wrong type. This bill effectively puts a price on my head.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Assisted Dying vote: Both sides react
After the debate, Labour peer and former MP Baroness Luciana Berger, an opponent of the bill, claimed a victory after peers accepted her proposal to introduce a special committee to examine the bill and report by 7 November.
“The introduction of a select committee is a victory for those of us that want proper scrutiny of how these new laws would work, the massive changes they could make to the NHS and how we treat people at the end of their lives,” she told Sky News.
“It’s essential that as we look at these new laws we get a chance to hear from those government ministers and professionals that would be in charge of creating and running any new assisted dying system.”
After the select committee reports, at least four sitting Fridays in the Lords have been set aside for all peers – a Committee of the whole house – to debate the bill and propose amendments.
Report stage and third reading will follow early next year, then the bill goes back to the Commons for debate on any Lords amendments. There’s then every chance of parliamentary ping pong between the two Houses.
Kim Leadbeater’s bill may have cleared an important hurdle in the Lords. But there’s still a long way to go – and no doubt a fierce battle ahead – before it becomes law.
The UK and Irish governments have agreed a new framework to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles.
The framework, announced by Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn and the Irish deputy prime minister, Simon Harris, at Hillsborough Castle on Friday, replaces the controversial Legacy Act, introduced by the Conservative government.
“I believe that this framework, underpinned by new co-operation from both our governments, represents the best way forward to finally make progress on the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement,” said Mr Benn.
He added that it would allow the families of victims killed during violence in Northern Ireland between the 1960s and 1990s, to “find the answers they have long been seeking”.
The proposed framework includes a dedicated Legacy Commission to investigate deaths during the Troubles, a resumption of inquests regarding cases from the conflict which were halted by the Legacy Act.
There will also be a separate truth recovery mechanism, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, jointly funded by London and Dublin.
“Dealing with the legacy of the Troubles is hard, and that is why it has been for so long the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement,” said Mr Benn.
Mr Harris described the framework as a “night and day improvement” on the previous act. Scrapping the Legacy Act, introduced in 2023, was a Labour government pledge.
What this means
A section of the Legacy Act offered immunity from prosecution for ex-soldiers and militants who cooperate with a new investigative body. This provision was ruled incompatible with human rights law.
The 2023 law was opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, including pro-British and Irish nationalist groups.
The agreement replaces a controversial law. (Pic: PA)
The Irish government, which brought a legal challenge against Britain at the European Court of Human Rights, also opposed it.
Both governments said the new plans will ensure it is possible to refer cases for potential prosecutions.
Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government had pledged to improve relations with Ireland. (Pic: PA)
It will ‘take time’ to win families’ confidence
Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Harris, said in a statement that the framework could deliver on Ireland’s two tests of being human rights-compliant and securing the support of victims’ families, if implemented in good faith.
He added that winning the confidence of victims’ families would take time.
Dublin will revisit its legal challenge against Britain if the tests are met, it said.
Restoring strained relations
The UK’s Labour government had sought to reset relations with Ireland, after they were damaged by the process of Britain leaving the European Union.
The Conservative government had defended its previous approach, arguing prosecutions were unlikely to lead to convictions, and that it wanted to draw a line under the conflict.
A number of trials have collapsed in recent years, but the first former British soldier to be convicted of an offence since the peace deal was given a suspended sentenced in 2023.
The former SEC chair and Paul Atkins, the current head of the agency, both made media appearance this week to address significant policies proposed by US President Donald Trump.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment12 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024