The German Cultural Council believes it is overdue to involve creators, artists, and other rights holders such as publishers, film, games, and music producers, or broadcasters in the revenues of companies that develop generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) like OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic. It is “imperative” that when protected works are used, not only for training such models and systems, “appropriate compensation is paid.” Politicians must ensure that rights holders also benefit from the economic advantages of this technology.
AI enables “machine-generated results that are increasingly indistinguishable from human creations and cannot be understood by humans in the creation process,” states the Cultural Council in a statement released on Monday. Generative AI significantly impacts authors, artists, and media companies, sometimes threatening their existence. Most stakeholders face both risks and opportunities, albeit to varying degrees.
There is a complaint about the “massive use” of protected works. In legal literature and existing, yet not fully reviewed, case law, it is often argued that legal restrictions on the exclusive exploitation rights for using protected works to train AI models “are generally applicable.” However, there are also strong opposing voices claiming that the EU copyright exception for text and data mining does not apply here. From the perspective of affected rights holders, it is generally “very difficult to comprehend that it should be legally permissible” to use their protected works for AI developments based on a legal allowance. Such developments have “enormous consequences” for exploiting their creations.
The best way to achieve the demanded compensations is by “granting the necessary usage rights contractually,” explains the working group of German cultural associations. Therefore, licensing agreements should “continue to be enabled and optimally supported.” The Cultural Council calls for a rapid and comprehensive legal-political discussion of the open copyright issues both domestically and especially at the EU level. It is not just about usage freedoms for text and data mining, but “about the massive use” of protected works. Legal requirements should “always apply when models and systems of generative AI are placed on the market in the EU” or when the results are used within the community. They should also apply in principle to US companies.
The demand for fair compensation reflects the concerns of creators and rights holders who see their works being used without appropriate recognition or remuneration. As AI continues to evolve, the balance between innovation and the protection of intellectual property remains a crucial debate. The involvement of rights holders in the economic benefits of AI is seen as a necessary step to ensure that the creative industries continue to thrive alongside technological advancements.
In conclusion, the German Cultural Council emphasizes the need for a structured approach to address the challenges posed by generative AI. By ensuring that creators and rights holders are fairly compensated, the creative sector can coexist with technological progress, fostering a sustainable environment for both innovation and artistic expression.