– January 23, 2025 (Schweizer Musikzeitung)
One of the many aspects of artificial intelligence (AI) concerns both the protection of personal data and copyright and related rights. FIM has drawn up a declaration on this subject.
Since at least Greek antiquity, the fantasy of an anthropomorphic robot endowed with extensive learning capabilities has regularly stimulated the imagination, particularly in literature, especially since the advent of science fiction. But the recent dizzying development of artificial intelligence technology does not currently take the form of androids, but of data centers from which specific programs weave their artificial neural networks, training from data freely available on the Internet, including conversations on social networks or texts used by online translation tools. This immense mass of “training data” inspires and influences AI programs, enabling them, via algorithms, to generate new content based on the knowledge acquired – the best-known examples currently being conversational tools. As a reaction to this massive use of text, a considerable number of websites, including those of major newspapers, have made access to them subject to a fee, which contributes on the one hand to impoverishing the data accessible to individual users, who cannot subscribe to several sites, and on the other hand to skewing the quality of information available on the Web: misinformation or ideologically-oriented sites have no interest in preventing the use of their content; on the contrary, their content is thus enhanced as reliable information sites become inaccessible to AI search engines.
Technological revolution
The use of AI is not limited to writing more or less elaborate texts: it also collects image, audio and video files. Actors’ or singers’ voices are used without their consent, images of political figures are hijacked and video editing makes them say things they never said. Of course, alongside these worrying abuses, due more to malice and lack of legislation than to the technology itself, the use of AI can considerably facilitate certain activities by eliminating tedious repetitive tasks. This is the case, for example, with software that can identify unwanted noises in a recording and automatically remove them, including removing crackles when digitizing an old vinyl record. Similarly, many functions in music-engraving software work with AI – in fact, most people have been using this technology for several years without being aware of it. The film industry is using it on a massive scale, to the extent that many jobs are under threat, a fact spectacularly demonstrated by the American screenwriters’ strike in 2023, with the writers concerned demanding that AI tools be employed not to put them out of work and replace them entirely, but only as an aid to research or script details. Voice actors are also deeply concerned, fearing that they will be replaced by digital tools. Software programs offer the possibility of cloning voices and making them say whatever you want. One platform already offers the possibility of creating and sharing on the Web one’s own episodes of series whose entire conception (script, text, editing, characters, voice dubbing, music, etc.) is carried out by AI. Even if the first results are not always great, we are at the beginning of a technological revolution that is becoming accessible to everyone, for better or for worse.
In addition to the question of personal data protection, which rightly worries Internet users, the issue of copyright and related rights is the subject of sustained attention from artists’ associations. The debate is raging between those who are concerned about creators’ rights and are in favor of the most appropriate legislation possible, and those for whom works are just another type of data, fully exploitable without restriction by AI. The crucial point will be to know which interests will be considered overriding by legislators and courts. To this end, a declaration containing precise recommendations has been drawn up by the International Federation of Musicians (FIM), in which the USDAM is actively involved, in particular through Central Secretary Beat Santschi, who, we recall, is also Vice President of FIM.
The FIM declaration
After a brief review of the historical changes the music industry has faced, FIM points out that the evolution of the legal framework can go some way towards offsetting their negative effects. However, while the Rome Convention and WIPO’s WPPT treaty have provided welcome solutions for musical artists with regard to broadcasting and communication to the public, they have unfortunately been unable to effectively regulate downloading and streaming, as Article 10 of the WPPT, as currently implemented, does not allow performers to benefit from a fair share of revenues generated by the online exploitation of their recordings. This legislative framework is even less able to respond to the specific problems posed today by generative AI, whether in the case of the use of existing data or the end result of their employment.
FIM’s recommendations include the following considerations: “It is unacceptable that performers should fall victim to large-scale exploitation of their works, sounds, voices, images, appearance or style without their free, prior and informed consent and without any financial compensation. These artists should have the right to effectively authorize and prohibit the scraping [automated retrieval and organization of Web data] and the analysis of their works, sounds, voices, images, appearance or style by an AI system, including after the transfer of their exclusive rights, and to receive financial compensation for such use.
It is also essential to ensure that performers enjoy the same level of protection against unauthorized use of their interpretations by AI, whether they are based on a literary or artistic work, an expression of folklore or AI-generated material.”
Financial compensation
“Once AI has ingested and analyzed artists’ works, sounds, voices, images, appearance or style, it can use this data to produce new content on a scale representing a considerable distortion of the market and an objective threat to the careers and livelihoods of all current and future artists. We need a sustainable legal and economic environment that effectively prevents AI-generated audio and audiovisual materials from distorting the market with prices far below those of human creations protected by copyright and neighboring rights. Insofar as AI-generated content derives its value from human creations exploited on a large scale, it is entirely appropriate to envisage mandatory compensation mechanisms benefiting the creative community and applying to all generative AI tools.
Innovative remuneration mechanisms based on outgoing data should therefore be considered. Any AI-assisted generation of musical content should be subject to fair payments to performers, given that their work and talent constitute the knowledge base behind this content. These fair payments must not, however, have the effect of standardizing or unduly encouraging the replacement of human labor by generative AI. We need a payment system that honestly forces a producer considering the use of generative AI to weigh the economic benefits of human-created products and interpretations against the convenience of generative AI products.”
This topic will continue to be a source of interest and concern in the years and decades to come. Interesting reflections on this topic include the symposium held in May 2024 in Berne, “Artificial Intelligence and Creativity”, organized by the Swiss Coalition for Cultural Diversity, Suisseculture and the Federal Film Commission. Videos of the presentations can be found at on the Suisseculture website.