Artificial Intelligence's Fair Use Crisis

Benjamin Sobel
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence's Fair Use Crisis","authors":"Benjamin Sobel","doi":"10.7916/D8WW90T7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As automation supplants more forms of labor, creative expression still seems like a distinctly human enterprise. This may someday change: by ingesting works of authorship as “training data,” computer programs can teach themselves to write natural prose, compose music, and generate movies. Machine learning is an artificial intelligence (AI) technology with immense potential and a commensurate appetite for copyrighted works. In the United States, the copyright law mechanism most likely to facilitate machine learning’s uses of protected data is the fair use doctrine. However, current fair use doctrine threatens either to derail the progress of machine learning or to disenfranchise the human creators whose work makes it possible. \nThis Article addresses the problem in three parts: using popular machine learning datasets and research as case studies, Part I describes how programs “learn” from corpora of copyrighted works and catalogs the legal risks of this practice. It concludes that fair use may not protect expressive machine learning applications, including the burgeoning field of natural language generation. Part II explains that applying today’s fair use doctrine to expressive machine learning will yield one of two undesirable outcomes: if US courts reject the fair use defense for machine learning, valuable innovation may move to another jurisdiction or halt entirely; alternatively, if courts find the technology to be fair use, sophisticated software may divert rightful earnings from the authors of input data. This dilemma shows that fair use may no longer serve its historical purpose. Traditionally, fair use is understood to benefit the public by fostering expressive activity. Today, the doctrine increasingly serves the economic interests of powerful firms at the expense of disempowered individual rightsholders. Finally, in Part III, this Article contemplates changes in doctrine and policy that could address these problems. It concludes that the United States’ interest in avoiding both prongs of AI’s fair use dilemma offers a novel justification for redistributive measures that could promote social equity alongside technological progress.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8WW90T7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

Abstract

As automation supplants more forms of labor, creative expression still seems like a distinctly human enterprise. This may someday change: by ingesting works of authorship as “training data,” computer programs can teach themselves to write natural prose, compose music, and generate movies. Machine learning is an artificial intelligence (AI) technology with immense potential and a commensurate appetite for copyrighted works. In the United States, the copyright law mechanism most likely to facilitate machine learning’s uses of protected data is the fair use doctrine. However, current fair use doctrine threatens either to derail the progress of machine learning or to disenfranchise the human creators whose work makes it possible. This Article addresses the problem in three parts: using popular machine learning datasets and research as case studies, Part I describes how programs “learn” from corpora of copyrighted works and catalogs the legal risks of this practice. It concludes that fair use may not protect expressive machine learning applications, including the burgeoning field of natural language generation. Part II explains that applying today’s fair use doctrine to expressive machine learning will yield one of two undesirable outcomes: if US courts reject the fair use defense for machine learning, valuable innovation may move to another jurisdiction or halt entirely; alternatively, if courts find the technology to be fair use, sophisticated software may divert rightful earnings from the authors of input data. This dilemma shows that fair use may no longer serve its historical purpose. Traditionally, fair use is understood to benefit the public by fostering expressive activity. Today, the doctrine increasingly serves the economic interests of powerful firms at the expense of disempowered individual rightsholders. Finally, in Part III, this Article contemplates changes in doctrine and policy that could address these problems. It concludes that the United States’ interest in avoiding both prongs of AI’s fair use dilemma offers a novel justification for redistributive measures that could promote social equity alongside technological progress.
人工智能的合理使用危机
随着自动化取代了更多形式的劳动,创造性表达似乎仍然是一项明显属于人类的事业。这种情况有一天可能会改变:通过将作者的作品作为“训练数据”,计算机程序可以教会自己写自然的散文、作曲和制作电影。机器学习是一种人工智能(AI)技术,具有巨大的潜力和对版权作品的相应需求。在美国,最有可能促进机器学习使用受保护数据的版权法机制是合理使用原则。然而,当前的合理使用原则要么会阻碍机器学习的发展,要么会剥夺人类创造者的权利,而正是他们的工作使机器学习成为可能。本文分三部分解决了这个问题:使用流行的机器学习数据集和研究作为案例研究,第一部分描述了程序如何从受版权保护的作品语料库中“学习”,并对这种做法的法律风险进行了编目。它的结论是,合理使用可能无法保护表达性机器学习应用,包括新兴的自然语言生成领域。第二部分解释了将今天的合理使用原则应用于表达性机器学习将产生以下两种不良结果之一:如果美国法院拒绝机器学习的合理使用辩护,有价值的创新可能会转移到另一个司法管辖区或完全停止;另外,如果法院认定该技术属于合理使用,那么复杂的软件可能会从输入数据的作者那里转移合法收入。这种困境表明,合理使用可能不再符合其历史目的。传统上,合理使用被理解为通过促进表达性活动而有益于公众。今天,这一原则越来越多地服务于强大公司的经济利益,而牺牲了被剥夺权利的个人权利持有人。最后,在第三部分中,本文考虑了可以解决这些问题的理论和政策的变化。它的结论是,美国对避免人工智能合理使用困境的两个方面的兴趣,为可以在技术进步的同时促进社会公平的再分配措施提供了一个新的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信