The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released a paper to resolve the issue of the use of copyright data in training the AI models is to be seen as infringement of the copyright laws or just a fair dealing exception. the matter acquires urgency as courts have to decide the matter as there are cases filed about this in India as well as abroad.
It is obvious that governments would like to promote AI and developers cannot be expected to negotiate with a large number of aggrieved since their works are used for commercial gain without consent or compensation. the paper’s aim is to create a framework where developers get lawful access to training data while creators receive a guaranteed payment without litigation.
The jurisdictions in Asia and parts of Europe have chosen a route of broad text-and-data-mining (TDM) allowing AI training without permission. The right holders can have opt-out rights. The DPIIT discards this arrangement on two grounds. The creators would not have a structured way to claim compensation. Besides, considering India’s size and diversity, administration of opt-outs would become complex. The fairness doctrine underlying around unpaid use will have to be sorted out first.
The paper proposes a hybrid model summarised as One Nation, One License, and One Payment. AI developers should get a blanket license (mandatory) to use all lawfully accessed copyrighted work for training models. Creators, on their part, get a statutory right of remuneration, with royalties payable only when AI systems are commercialized and start generating revenue.
These royalties will be set aside by a designated autority, subject to judicial review. The royalties will be collected and distributed through a central mechanism designed as a single window.
There are objections to this since creators do not have the right to refuse the use of their work for AI training. There are constitutional issues of the copy rights being equivalent to property rights. Nasscom objects to centralised agency being created fo channelizing royalties calling this a tax on innovation.
The Committee has said its reasoning is rooted in AI scale and its opacity. There is wide scraping from Internet and data access from billions of data points. It is impossible to negotiate permissions on case-by-case basis or to grant each creator a veto. That will halt innovation or lead to an uneven playing field where Big Tech swallows all the necessary rights.
A single-window statutory license removes the need to sign up hundreds of bilateral contracts. It is conducive for startups.
The paper invites suggestions and feedback over the next month.
Leave a Reply