Japan's Copyright Rules Draw AI Groups -- and Alarm From Creators 24
The Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association claims that AI-powered search engines by U.S. tech giants like Google and Microsoft likely infringe on copyright by using news articles without permission. Therefore, they're urging the Japanese government to quickly review and revise intellectual property laws to address these issues. Kyodo News reports (translated in English): The association argued in the statement that while traditional search engines direct users to various copyrighted material available online, AI search engines disclose the content, making them a completely different type of service. While stressing that in many instances, the essential content of the referenced article is reprinted in its entirety and therefore constitutes copyright infringement, the association also highlighted the issue of "zero-click searches," where users do not visit the source site. It warned that the lack of traffic could lead to the diminution of news organizations' reporting activities, which would then have a negative impact on democracy and culture.
The statement also expressed concern over potential inaccuracies in responses generated by AI search engines, which could give the impression that the source articles themselves were erroneous and damage the credibility of news organizations. The association added that providing AI search engine services without obtaining permission to use the source articles could violate the antimonopoly law. "There are many reasons AI companies are attracted to Japan, including the need for its companies to rapidly develop their digital capabilities and the country's declining population, which is very open to AI," said Yutaka Matsuo, a professor at Tokyo University and chair of the government's AI council, in a statement to the Financial Times. "One other attraction is that AI companies are permitted to learn from information without infringing copyright laws," he added.
The Financial Times says the push to bring AI companies to Japan has raised alarm for some content creators who worry their work isn't being protected. "As it relates to generative AI, Japan's existing Copyright Act does not contribute to protecting creators. In fact, it is focused on restricting the rights of creators," the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers said in a statement.
The statement also expressed concern over potential inaccuracies in responses generated by AI search engines, which could give the impression that the source articles themselves were erroneous and damage the credibility of news organizations. The association added that providing AI search engine services without obtaining permission to use the source articles could violate the antimonopoly law. "There are many reasons AI companies are attracted to Japan, including the need for its companies to rapidly develop their digital capabilities and the country's declining population, which is very open to AI," said Yutaka Matsuo, a professor at Tokyo University and chair of the government's AI council, in a statement to the Financial Times. "One other attraction is that AI companies are permitted to learn from information without infringing copyright laws," he added.
The Financial Times says the push to bring AI companies to Japan has raised alarm for some content creators who worry their work isn't being protected. "As it relates to generative AI, Japan's existing Copyright Act does not contribute to protecting creators. In fact, it is focused on restricting the rights of creators," the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers said in a statement.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't believe how fast the copyright rules can evolve new capabilities. Here's one documentary about how three unrelated rules - copyright, trademark and patent laws - evolved quickly into "intellectual property".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
AI-degenerated, of course.
Well, I agree with them (Score:5, Interesting)
They seem to have looked at things carefully, actually thought about it ignoring the hype and then drawn valid conclusions. People post stuff on their websites or otherwise to have others actually visit there to look at it. "AI" is removing that reward/revenue/attention/feedback channel. And that is just not acceptable. Essentially, "AI" is just a gigantic commercial piracy campaign and every time an answer is given directly, the damage the AI people do gets larger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Open how, to suck in other people's work and produce garbage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would be the difference between the two, though?
Re: (Score:2)
What would be the difference between the two, though?
Sewers exist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you react to garbage?
Because I don't enjoy when people dump it in my yard.
If you're still bothered, it means it's not garbage.
No, it means it is still dumped in my yard.
but it can also threaten their livelihoods. How?
It eats up resources that can be put to a better use.
Re: (Score:1)
It eats up resources that can be put to a better use.
Da comrade. You speak for all of planet. You are Economic Resource Planning Commission Tsar!
Re: (Score:2)
One, I'm not your comrade, as I don't associate with cretins, and two, it is a fact that the "AI" investment bubble is the exact opposite of efficient resource use.
The ginormous "investment" in AI so far has produced a bunch of garbage generators with dubious application prospects, while it has eaten up resources that might have helped with a bunch of things that are much more important than a glorified retard ex machina.
Such as, for example, carbon sequestration technologies, etc.
You may not like it, but t
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you react to garbage? If it's so garbage, then it doesn't matter. If you're still bothered, it means it's not garbage. The same thing we hear from artists - StableDiffusion is garbage, but it can also threaten their livelihoods. How? It can't be good enough to be a real threat and just a "degeneration machine" at the same time. This is a power grab - authors want to own ideas so AI can't reference them in any way or manner. And that is because human guided AI outputs are actually good and useful, of course with known limitations.
We didn't take a stand against garbage pop music and garbage movies and look where that ended up? We have to draw the line somewhere. Garbage AI will lead to garbage being shoveled at us from every direction far faster than the old media companies could do. We won't be hunting for the rare gem among the chaff. We'll be hunting for the single needle, scattered among dozens of haystacks, if we want anything that isn't garbage in our media. It should be assessed and held back on that basis alone until we eithe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you found out that "making a copy using a technical apparatus" and "a human reading something" is not the same thing. Congrats! The law has known that one for a few centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Ramifications (Score:2)
Seems to me that the news media may find themselves "hoist by their own petard." On the one hand they claim they are creating unbiased reports of facts, telephone book entries. Telephone book entries cannot be copyrighted. So their ask of protection from AI perusal on copyright grounds might have problems. On the other hand if they go with the argument that their reporting requires and involves significant creative effort that advertises to even the most dimwitted among us that the news media is blatantly l
Re: Ramifications (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand they claim they are creating unbiased reports of facts,
Some media don't even bother with facts [newsweek.com]. They just make up shit at random.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Japan so the rules are different to the US.
News reports are copyrightable in Japan. Technically the moral rights remain with the author, but they will have agreed by contract not to exercise them, and instead the newspaper will be authorized to protect them. If you check any random Japanese newspaper's website, the copyright notice makes it clear that any re-use of the material is only possible with agreement, and there will usually be a fee.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that works. Documentary films, for example, only report on the facts and things that took place (or are at least supposed to), they're still nontrivial creative endeavours, they even give Oscars for best documentaries. Photography, for that matter, is just a capture of light as it fell on objects in a particular place at a particular time, it's still considered a creative endeavour and is protected by copyright, at least in some countries.