The US Copyright Office is opening a public comment period around AI
People have until October 18th to comment.
American friends! The US Copyright Office (which we know exerts huuuge influence in how these things are treated elsewhere) wants to hear opinions on copyright and AI.
"The US Copyright Office is opening a public comment period around AI and copyright issues beginning August 30th as the agency figures out how to approach the subject."
We can assume that the opposing side will definitely be using all of their lobbying power towards widespread AI use, so this is a very good chance to let them know your thoughts on AI and how art and creative content of all kinds should be protected.
One of the things they’re asking for comment on is the use of copyrighted works to train AI. The Copyright Office really will read what you write. If lots of people write in that they oppose allowing generative AI to train on copyrighted works, that could encourage the Copyright Office to also find that using copyrighted works to train AI engines should not be allowed. Courts routinely look at Copyright Office publications while interpreting the Copyright Act, so this is an opportunity to actually have a say in the issue.
You might be wondering how you should express that letting AI train on people’s copyrighted works is bad in a way that the Copyright Office will take seriously. The simple answer is: Be polite and be honest. If you’ve been a victim, you can share how you felt when you discovered your work had been used to train AI without your permission. If you think authors and artists deserve not to have their work used without their permission, you can say that. Be truthful. Don’t present something as a fact if it is not. Avoid hyperbole, inflammatory accusations, and foul language. It is okay to say you are upset, concerned, and/or hurt, but do it without calling someone else a “fucker.”
If you have no idea what to say, but want to comment, I've got some suggestions on how to write a comment under the cut.
Part One - Thank the Copyright Office for seeking public comment:
Thank you for opening these important questions up for public comment.
Or
I appreciate the Office’s interest in this topic and its request for public feedback.
Part Two - Who you are and why do you care?
I am an author/artist whose living depends on my being able to monetize my work
or
I am a supporter of authors and artists, and recognize that it is important in a democratic society to support the creation of art.
or
I am an author/artist whose work appears on my website.
Part Three - there is a strong public policy in granting authors the exclusive right to their works for a limited time (ie during the copyright period)
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution requires Congress pass laws “ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Permitting generative AI to train on copyrighted works without fairly compensating Authors for the Right to their Writings is inconsistent with the Constitution.
Or
There is a strong policy to promote art by allowing authors exclusive rights in their creative works during a set period of time. While a work is under copyright, therefore, it should not be used without the author’s consent to train generative AI. To do so would violate the author’s exclusive rights to control their work while copyright applies.
Or
The Copyright Act places time limits on when an author has exclusive rights in their creative works. This balances allowing the author to promote their work and recover for their efforts against the public’s ability to use the work. Applying this system to generative AI is fair - generative AI may be trained on materials in the public domain, but it would be a violation of an author’s exclusive rights in their works to train generative AI on the author’s work while it is under copyright.
Part Four - what do you want?
The Copyright Office should adopt positions finding that training generative AI on copyrighted works without the consent of the authors of those works violates the Copyright Act.
or
The Copyright Office should adopt positions that copyright infringement includes training generative AI on copyrighted works when it is done without the permission of the authors whose works are being used in the training.
Part Five - Thank you again for your time.
Thank you for considering these comments.
or
Thank you for your time and consideration in this important matter.
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! Please take a moment out of your day, on behalf of all authors, artists, and terrible bosses looking to replace human creativity with ultra-cheap good-enough alternatives to comment. And I don't generally ask for reblogs, but yeah. Do that too. But the most important part is commenting. Doesn't have to be perfect, just copy and paste from above if you want to, or write a heartfelt two-sentence "artists and writers should give consent and receive compensation to be included in a training set, and images and writing resulting from AI should not be eligible for copyright without significant further human manipulation/improvement of the generated image." Which is my own current stance on this issue.
I've seen two links floating on the reblogs for where to comment officially at, which is confusing
At regulations.gov: here
At the copyright office: here
BOTH OF THESE ULTIMATELY LINK TO THE SAME COMMENT FORM (on regulations.gov), so just to preemptively clear up that confusion, follow either link they're both fine
Edit: Someone added that non-USA residents can comment, too!
tangentwithtanner
gracieabrams
2087
turnnoffyourmind
romaincrisis
titsay
pixelskylines
