In July, a German court delivered a landmark ruling on a question at the heart of the generative AI boom: Can artificial intelligence companies use copyrighted works to train their models without the creators’ permission?
The case involved Suno, an AI music-generation platform, and Germany’s GEMA, which represents music creators. On July 31, the Munich Regional Court largely ruled in GEMA’s favor, finding that Suno had infringed copyright by using six musical works from GEMA’s repertoire to train its AI models.
The ruling prohibited Suno from reproducing the works for model training and ordered it to provide information and pay damages in relation to several works.
The ruling is significant because it moves the debate over AI and copyright beyond questions of style imitation and into a more fundamental issue: whether copyrighted works can be turned into training data without authorization or compensation.
AI presents a challenge that is simultaneously technical, social and political. The copyright framework was built for an analog world, where content was created by humans and territoriality provided a coherent organizing principle.
AI, however, deepens tensions already present in the digital environment regarding artist remuneration and transparency in the use of protected content, as AI companies have immense commercial gains from using them while leaving rights holders without compensation.
This disregard for copyright leaves authors in a precarious position, undermining the incentives that sustain human creative production and simultaneously exposing them to the massive competition from synthetic content, as we are already witnessing in music streaming services.
GenAI as currently structured is a mechanism for transferring value and income from the creative sectors of all countries to a handful of AI companies, a particularly concerning risk for developing countries and their vibrant cultural production.
Despite the disruption posed by AI, copyright history shows that debates over the protection of creators’ rights in the face of new technologies are nothing new. With the arrival of each new technology, such as phonograms, radio and television, international copyright law was updated to cope with the new developments.
Now, the challenge is how to address copyright in the age of AI.
While the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty were negotiated in reaction to the changes brought by the internet, they lack the flexibility to adapt to the contemporary digital landscape.
Fundamental issues such as transparency and fair remuneration for the use of copyrighted content remain unresolved for streaming services, let alone GenAI.
The principle of technology neutrality holds that existing copyright rules apply to GenAI, including the right of reproduction. But this does not mean that shifts in how protected content is used and managed under GenAI do not require minimum international safeguards. Such safeguards would encourage countries to adopt legal regimes that balance the protection of authors while fostering innovation by AI companies.
Despite the urgent need to update the regulatory framework to ensure copyright remains effective in the face of GenAI, there is a concerning lack of effective actions within the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Whether this stems from pressure from countries opposed to the topic or from actions that fail to address fundamental issues at the core of AI and copyright, WIPO has yet to fully address some of the unresolved issues at the intersection of copyright and AI.
WIPO initiatives such as the “AI Infrastructure Interchange” discussed the infrastructure underpinning copyright, overlooking basic questions such as how creators will know if their content has been used and how they will be remunerated for it.
Meanwhile, WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights focuses on a broadcasting treaty whose progress is measured in geological eras, with no end in sight after decades of negotiations.
It is against this backdrop that platforms such as the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization have emerged as a strategic alternative for discussing GenAI and copyright.
This is particularly relevant for strengthening partnerships among the Global South nations, which share historical and social aspects and have the potential to build markets and business models that foster a positive relationship between the creative and technological sectors.
We must not resemble the characters in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, endlessly waiting for something that never comes, trapped in circular conversations and the perpetual promise that actions will come “tomorrow” all while the digital economy advances indifferent to the interests of the creators who define our humanity.
International copyright law must ensure the sustainability of works born of human ingenuity while providing AI developers with a regulatory framework that preserves mankind’s creativity and cultural diversity as core elements.
The ability to reconcile those demands will shape not only the future of intellectual property but society’s participation in the knowledge economy.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
