AI Giants Face Copyright Conundrum as Generative Technology Goes Mainstream
A growing number of creatives are questioning how much copyrighted material is being used in AI tools, which can produce works strikingly similar to those created by humans. Google's Veo3 video tool and OpenAI's Sora 2, for instance, were found to be remarkably close matches to the BBC's Doctor Who and Warner Bros.'s James Bond.
Vermillio, a US-based tech platform, has developed a system that can track how much AI-generated content relies on pre-existing copyrighted material. According to Vermillio, Google's Veo3 tool generated an 80% match with its Doctor Who fingerprint, while OpenAI's Sora 2 was an 87% match.
This issue has sparked heated debate among copyright holders and industry leaders. Creative professionals are demanding compensation for the use of their work in building AI models. In a recent settlement, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by authors who claimed that the company had used pirated copies of their works.
The motion picture association trade group has urged OpenAI to take immediate action to address copyright issues surrounding its Sora tool. However, experts argue that this is only scratching the surface of a much larger problem.
"Time to stop pretending that the stealing is not taking place," said Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords and a leading figure in the fightback against the UK government proposals. "If Doctor Who and 007 can't be protected then what hope for an artist who works on their own and does not have the resources or expertise to chase down global companies that take their work without permission and without paying?"
Industry leaders are scrambling to find solutions as AI technology becomes increasingly ubiquitous. A key sticking point is the lack of transparency around how much copyrighted material is being used in AI tools. Vermillio claims its system can provide some clarity, but more needs to be done to ensure that creatives are fairly compensated for their work.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the use of copyrighted material in AI tools is a contentious issue that requires immediate attention from industry leaders and policymakers alike.
A growing number of creatives are questioning how much copyrighted material is being used in AI tools, which can produce works strikingly similar to those created by humans. Google's Veo3 video tool and OpenAI's Sora 2, for instance, were found to be remarkably close matches to the BBC's Doctor Who and Warner Bros.'s James Bond.
Vermillio, a US-based tech platform, has developed a system that can track how much AI-generated content relies on pre-existing copyrighted material. According to Vermillio, Google's Veo3 tool generated an 80% match with its Doctor Who fingerprint, while OpenAI's Sora 2 was an 87% match.
This issue has sparked heated debate among copyright holders and industry leaders. Creative professionals are demanding compensation for the use of their work in building AI models. In a recent settlement, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by authors who claimed that the company had used pirated copies of their works.
The motion picture association trade group has urged OpenAI to take immediate action to address copyright issues surrounding its Sora tool. However, experts argue that this is only scratching the surface of a much larger problem.
"Time to stop pretending that the stealing is not taking place," said Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords and a leading figure in the fightback against the UK government proposals. "If Doctor Who and 007 can't be protected then what hope for an artist who works on their own and does not have the resources or expertise to chase down global companies that take their work without permission and without paying?"
Industry leaders are scrambling to find solutions as AI technology becomes increasingly ubiquitous. A key sticking point is the lack of transparency around how much copyrighted material is being used in AI tools. Vermillio claims its system can provide some clarity, but more needs to be done to ensure that creatives are fairly compensated for their work.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the use of copyrighted material in AI tools is a contentious issue that requires immediate attention from industry leaders and policymakers alike.
. On one hand, I get it - creatives need to be paid for their work. Like, who has the time or resources to track down companies like Google and OpenAI that are basically copying their stuff? 
It's already a nightmare dealing with those guys.
Or do we need some kind of royalty system that's specific to AI-generated content? 
I mean, dont get me wrong, i love a good movie night or binge watchin my fav show but when it comes to creatives makin a livin off their work its just not fair that AI can jus steal and reproduce it like its goin outta style. Like Beeban Kidron said, whats the point if artists cant even protect themselves from these giant corps? 
when it comes to respecting creators' rights. 80% match with Doctor Who? That's just not cool 
. I mean, can you imagine if someone used your work without permission? It'd be a nightmare 
. Industry leaders should make sure they're compensating artists for their content. We need more transparency too 
. Vermillio's system might help, but it's only part of the solution 
. This is just the tip of the iceberg - what about all the other AI tools out there? 
. and now experts are saying that its not just about finding ways to compensate authors but also about making sure this doesnt become a total free for all 
.
, you feel? They're rakin' it in with these generative tech tools but creatives are gettin' screwed over 
. Industry leaders gotta come together and figure out how to fairly compensate creatives for their work. It's time to stop pretendin' that AI tech ain't takin' from existing works 
. We need more solutions than just Vermillio's system, we need a big picture 
. The movie industry's already been sued for $1.5 billion, so it's clear somethin' needs to change 
.
. The whole thing feels like a game of whack-a-mole - one problem gets solved and another pops up 
. And what's the solution? More fines? More lawsuits? That just creates more uncertainty for creatives who are already struggling to make ends meet 
.
. and now we're expected to just sit back and let them do whatever they want? 
not cool, imo. someone needs to step in and make sure the creatives are getting paid for their work. maybe a new system that requires companies to get permission from the original creators before using their stuff? or like, some kind of royalty structure that compensates artists when their work is used in AI tools 
. whatever it is, we need it ASAP 
. We need to know what's going on behind the scenes, how much of our work is being used, and who's profiting off it 
. We need to make sure that everyone's being fairly compensated for their work, especially in this new AI landscape 
. It's time for some serious accountability from these tech giants 
. And now we're supposed to believe that creators are gonna get paid for their work when these AI tools can just 'borrow' from anyone and everyone? Give me a break 
.
?
i mean, whats next? are we gonna have to start paying royalties just for existing? i think this is a huge problem and needs to be addressed ASAP 
. i mean, who gets to decide what constitutes "fair use" when its AI vs human creatives?