Five professional associations and unions in culture and communications in Quebec are joining forces to ask Ottawa for “a protective legislative framework” in the face of the risks posed by the development of artificial intelligence. In a joint statement released Tuesday, the quintet representing actors, directors and musicians demands a review of the Copyright Act to protect the rights of human creators.
The request targets in particular the obligation to obtain the agreement of an artist for the use of his work (including for driving machines), the payment of compensation in the event of use and the recognition of credits for identification of works. Professionals talk about the “3 basic Cs”.
The creators’ joint statement is released as part of the consultation organized by the federal government on the impact that generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has and will have on copyright. The joint declaration is signed by the Association of Directors of Quebec (ARRQ), the Union of Artists (UDA), Artisti (collective rights management company created by the UDA), the Guild of Musicians of the Quebec (GMMQ) and the Society of Radio, Television and Cinema Authors (SARTEC).
“We make a submission and we clearly say that we are concerned about what will emerge from the ongoing consultation,” explains Duty Gabriel Pelletier, president of the ARRQ. We are aware that there will be a lot of pressure from the industry to be able to do text and data mining with an exception to copyright. The industry wants to train machines without paying royalties for protected works. There is danger of looting. »
The development of the AGI poses more or less fundamental challenges for the rights of creators and artists in each of the sectors represented by the signatory organizations of the declaration. The possibility of drawing inspiration from creations of the past to generate texts and images at will and instantly forces us to ask ourselves basic questions.
Who owns the authorship of such algorithm-generated content: the programmer, the algorithm, or the human sources of inspiration? What remuneration models could make it possible to recognize the human source of an AGI creation? How can we punish, if necessary, plagiarism and the counterfeiting of a human creation by a machine? How to stop the mass proliferation of plagiarism by Internet users using conversational robots? The chronicler of Duty Jean-François Lisée summed up the threats by talking about the uberization of copyright.
Canada’s Copyright Act is revised every five years. The last major reform dates back to 2017. For example, it led to the extension of the protection of works from 50 to 70 years after the death of their creator by aligning with American rule.
Ottawa is now conducting consultations as part of its bill (C-27), relating to the supervision of AI. The associations are participating and are hopeful of meeting the ministers concerned (Heritage and Innovation, Science and Industry) in the coming weeks to ask that operators of digital tools be prohibited from circumventing existing rights.
There are two regimes:opt-in and theopt-out. L’opt-in requires active and prior agreement (if the creator has not said yes, it’s no). L’opt-out designates the absence of agreement necessary to use a work (if the creator has not said no, it is yes). The Quebec grouping favors the first model.
“The other essential aspect concerns transparency,” says Mr. Pelletier. How can we ensure that our works are not stolen if we don’t know that they are being used? AI companies must keep records of the works used, again to ensure that rights are respected. »
President Pelletier emphasizes that the idea is not to oppose progress, but to adopt laws to enforce rights in the context of new progress. “AI is a wonderful tool, but it remains a tool that relies on human creations,” he says. It is therefore necessary to legally regulate the use of protected works. »