Federal agency has collected more than 9,000 public comments
On Monday, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) closed its public comment period for its study of copyright law and the policy issues raised by artificial intelligence. During the two-month comment period, the agency sought input on how fair use applies to datasets AI models use during training; the scope of copyright protection for AI-generated content; how copyright liability principles could apply to AI content; and how AI is likely to impact creators, copyright owners, researchers, and the general public. Chamber of Progress submitted comments today, available here.
From Chamber of Progress’s written comments:
“Technology has continually reshaped our interaction with creative content. As these advancements create new opportunities for profitability, rights holders remain, understandably, vigilant. Yet, the current wave of copyright litigation targeting Generative AI might suggest that it is the providers of Generative AI services that are at greater risk—given the emerging and impossibly complex legal landscape new providers must navigate. Given this, new legislative frameworks to address the intersection of Generative AI and copyright are not needed.”
In its comments to the USCO, Chamber of Progress highlights the following principles:
- Any changes to U.S. copyright laws should prioritize advancement of generative AI and expression;
- Any proposed legislation must uphold existing principles of fair use and prevent rights holder abuse;
- No legislation should bring artistic style within the scope of copyright protections;
- Intermediate copying has always been fair use;
- And, training sets don’t disrupt the market for current derivative works.
Today’s comment submission, available here, follows a court decision today in the case of Andersen v. Stability AI. In the Northern District of California, a judge rejected copyright claims from plaintiffs who alleged that AI companies infringe because they scrape publicly available data. Instead, the court ruled that plaintiffs must identify specific infringed content and that content can’t be called an infringing work if it bears no similarity to the original input.
Chamber of Progress (progresschamber.org) is a center-left tech industry policy coalition promoting technology’s progressive future. We work to ensure that all Americans benefit from technological leaps, and that the tech industry operates responsibly and fairly.
Our corporate partners do not have a vote on or veto over our positions. We do not speak for individual partner companies and remain true to our stated principles even when our partners disagree.