While generative AI introduces novel complexities, the fundamental conflict over artist compensation is not new. Historical examples, like musicians' families suing record labels over royalties, show these battles predate AI. AI's use of training data without permission has simply become the latest, most complex iteration of this long-standing issue.
Related Insights
Despite the massive OpenAI-Disney deal, there is no clarity on how licensing fees will flow down to the original creators of characters. This mirrors a long-standing Hollywood issue where creators under "work for hire" agreements see little upside from their creations, a problem AI licensing could exacerbate.
The rise of AI music has created a significant challenge for streaming platforms. Fraudsters upload vast quantities of AI-generated music and use bots to generate plays, illegitimately collecting royalties. This industrial-scale "slop" problem threatens the financial integrity of the entire streaming ecosystem.
The legal question of AI authorship has a historical parallel. Just as early photos were deemed copyrightable because of the photographer's judgment in composition and lighting, AI works can be copyrighted if a human provides detailed prompts, makes revisions, and exercises significant creative judgment. The AI is the tool, not the author.
Solving the AI compensation dilemma isn't just a legal problem. Proposed solutions involve a multi-pronged approach: tech-driven micropayments to original artists whose work is used in training, policies requiring creators to be transparent about AI usage, and evolving copyright laws that reflect the reality of AI-assisted creation.
To handle royalties for AI-generated music, platforms can analyze the final audio file to algorithmically determine the likely prompt (e.g., "Taylor Swift singing a Gunna song"). This allows for fair royalty splits between the referenced artists, creating a viable monetization path.
The OpenAI-Disney partnership establishes a clear commercial value for intellectual property in the AI space. This sets a powerful legal precedent for ongoing lawsuits (like NYT v. OpenAI), compelling all other LLM developers to license content rather than scrape it for free, formalizing the market.
Actors like Bryan Cranston challenging unauthorized AI use of their likeness are forcing companies like OpenAI to create stricter rules. These high-profile cases are establishing the foundational framework that will ultimately define and protect the digital rights of all individuals, not just celebrities.
The concept of data colonialism—extracting value from a population's data—is no longer limited to the Global South. It now applies to creative professionals in Western countries whose writing, music, and art are scraped without consent to build generative AI systems, concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few tech firms.
The core legal battle is a referendum on "fair use" for the AI era. If AI summaries are deemed "transformative" (a new work), it's a win for AI platforms. If they're "derivative" (a repackaging), it could force widespread content licensing deals.
While an AI model itself may not be an infringement, its output could be. If you use AI-generated content for your business, you could face lawsuits from creators whose copyrighted material was used for training. The legal argument is that your output is a "derivative work" of their original, protected content.