Rotem Farkash: More conversation needed in AI copyright debate

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Opinions expressed by Digital Journal contributors are their own.

The UK’s arts and entertainment industry is not merely a cultural pillar famous all over the world, it is also a major economic force which contributes a staggering £126 billion to the economy and employs 2.4 million people. Rotem Farkash, an entrepreneur and expert in AI, argues that any proposed changes to copyright laws require the full consultation of all stakeholders. 

The copyright debate as it stands

Recent proposals outlined by the UK Government aim to provide AI companies with a copyright exemption for text and data mining which would allow them to train their models on copyrighted work.

However, these plans have reignited a debate within the creative industries regarding the regulation of AI. Currently, UK copyright law does not explicitly address the use of copyrighted materials in training AI models, which leaves holders and AI developers in legal and creative limbo. 

AI’s relationship with copyrighted material is certainly a contentious topic. Many artists argue the technology threatens their livelihoods as their work is used by AI models to generate images which replicate and compete with their own original work. 

The volume of this debate has only been compounded by recent warnings from performing arts leaders, with 35 industry figures signing a statement outlining their concerns over the government’s plans. 

The ability to ‘opt-out’

The UK Government has pointed to OpenAI’s existing ‘opt-out’ mechanism, which allows news publishers to block web crawlers from accessing their content, as a potential model for creative industries. 

However, Rotem Farkash observes that placing the onus on artists to track and prevent unauthorised use of their work is unrealistic. Compounding this, OpenAI itself has warned that the US position in the global AI arms race would be lost if leading AI models were not allowed to be trained on copyrighted material. 

This, therefore, raises a problem that artists lack control over how their work is being exploited. 

The perceived issues with existing copyright framework

The Government argues that existing copyright legislation is untenable due to a proliferation of legal disputes. Recent cases, such as Getty Images vs Stability AI alongside non-AI copyright claims between musical artists, illustrate the complexity of copyright enforcement. 

Rather than abandoning these protections, Rotem Farkash argues these cases highlight a need for a modernised, enforceable framework that balances innovation with fair compensation. 

Artists speak out

A myriad of artists strongly oppose the UK Government’s proposed changes. Some even have protested through creative means like releasing a silent album entitled ‘Is This What We Want?’ The album, which is co-written by more than 1,000 musicians, challenges the proposed dilution of copyright protections. 

However, not all artists echo this sentiment. Musician Will.i.iam has expressed optimism about AI’s role in creativity, which Rotem Farkash says, “underscores that the creative industry itself is divided on the issue of copyright.” 

The debate’s impact on AI development and trust

Rotem Farkash argues that the debate is having a broader, often unrecognised impact on AI. The debate extends beyond the immediate economic and ethical considerations to technological development. 

Mr. Farkash observes that uncertainty surrounding copyright could both hinder AI’s development and place unnecessary pressure on the creative industries. As he puts it, a lack of clear, fair regulation risks fostering a system where neither artists nor AI developers thrive. 

The lives of millions of artists will be deeply affected by the depth and breadth of future discussions regarding the AI-Copyright nexus. Any decision from the UK Government must be made via transparent conversations with all stakeholders — especially artists, AI developers, policymakers, and the public. The UK Government must ensure that innovation does not come at the expense of the creative professionals who have long defined the nation’s cultural and economic landscape.