Nick Clegg: Artists’ demands over copyright are unworkable - The former Meta executive claims that a law requiring tech companies to ask permission to train AI on copyrighted work would ‘kill’ the industry

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
1.webp
Sir Nick Clegg said it was “not unreasonable” for artists to want to be able to opt out of their work being used to train AI
DAVID MCHUGH FOR THE TIMES


Making technology companies ask artists’ permission before they scrape copyrighted content will “basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight,” Sir Nick Clegg has said.

The former deputy prime minister, who spent almost seven years working for the social media giant Meta, sided with technology companies when asked on Thursday about the clash over AI copyright laws.

He was speaking as MPs voted against proposals that would have allowed copyright holders to see when their work had been used and by whom.

Leading figures across the creative industries, including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, have urged the government not to “give our work away” at the behest of big tech, warning that the plans risk destroying the livelihoods of 2.5 million people who work in the UK’s creative sector.

However, Clegg said that their demands to make technology companies ask permission before using copyrighted work were unworkable and “implausible” because AI systems are already training on vast amounts of data. He said: “It’s out there already.”

Clegg defended technology companies at an event to promote his book How to Save the Internet, which will be released in September.

Speaking at the Charleston Festival, held at the East Sussex farmhouse made famous by the artist Vanessa Bell and the early 20th-century creatives known as the Bloomsbury Group, Clegg claimed that artificial intelligence was already able to “create” its own art.

“You can already create art of a sort [using AI], whether it’s a poem, a ditty, an essay, a short story, a picture. You can already do that,” he said

Referring to the question of whether “artists should be able to withhold their content from the AI models that are being trained,” he said: “On the one hand, yeah, I think it seems to me as a matter of natural justice, to say to people that they should be able to opt out of having their creativity, their products, what they’ve worked on indefinitely modelled. That seems to me to be not unreasonable to opt out.”

However, he added, “I think the creative community wants to go a step further. Quite a lot of voices say ‘you can only train on my content, [if you] first ask’. And I have to say that strikes me as somewhat implausible because these systems train on vast amounts of data.

“I just don’t know how you go around, asking everyone first. I just don’t see how that would work. And by the way if you did it in Britain and no one else did it, you would basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight.

“So, I think people should have clear, easy to use ways of saying, no, I don’t. I want out of this. But I think expecting the industry, technologically or otherwise, to preemptively ask before they even start training — I just don’t see. I’m afraid that just collides with the physics of the technology itself.”

Parliament heard on Thursday how both sectors needed to succeed to grow Britain’s economy. MPs voted 195 to 124, majority 71, to disagree with Baroness Kidron’s transparency amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

Clegg stepped down from his job at Meta earlier this year, after seven years in Silicon Valley. He resigned from his role as president of global affairs just weeks before President Trump’s return to the White House.

Article Link

Archive
 
Winning the AI race against China is important and we can't do it by restricting these companies from scraping everything they can. You know the Chinese aren't going to be held back by copywrite.
Requesting pictures of big titty goth girls in the style of Frank Frazetta is truly a gut punch to the CCP. I doubt they'll be able to recover.
 
Requesting pictures of big titty goth girls in the style of Frank Frazetta is truly a gut punch to the CCP. I doubt they'll be able to recover.
This is the part I don't understand with this shit. What the hell does image, photo, audio, and video generation do to win against china? Is it to deceive the people in that country? Are they trying to do the modern day equivalent to radio-propaganda in WWII? With the amount of censorship that happens in their media and internet I highly doubt that's gonna work. Robots for the military at least make sense.
 
This is the part I don't understand with this shit. What the hell does image, photo, audio, and video generation do to win against china? Is it to deceive the people in that country?
The argument generally goes something like:

1. Glorified chat bot
2. More computing power
3. ???
4. General artificial superintelligence

They predicted this shit was "ten years away" in the early 70s, too.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 𖦹Junkpop𖦹
He's not wrong as much as I dont wanna side with big corpos.

Winning the AI race against China is important and we can't do it by restricting these companies from scraping everything they can. You know the Chinese aren't going to be held back by copywrite.
This.

Death to copyright!
Unfortunately I also hate megacorps but I'll take what I can get right now.
 
It wouldn't be "death to copyright". It would be "death to copyright for the people who can already afford to lobby for copyright law". They would maintain all their own IP rights while being able to violate yours with impunity.
With the take it down act and other child protection laws being proposed for internet in the U.S this isn’t a death to copyright at all. Look at what the hell is happening with the internet archive, Sony trying to cut people’s internet off, etc. These corporations are the literal embodiment of rule for thee but not for me.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SIMIΔN
Ok; let's briefly try to reacquaint ourselves with reality. With no names and no pack drill, some posters have been railing, often in colourful terms about the travesty of providing special exemptions/benefits to the big tech/AI industry.

Attached is the formal document that is the subject of the OP in its latest available form from the Parliament website. It's not long, 4 pages in total, about 2.5 of actual text. Good luck finding any such special benefits/exemptions for big tech in there. Spoiler alert - there aren't any. I get that the news coverage has implied otherwise. Spoiler alert 2 - the news organisations lie.

This is NOT about big tech/AI getting benefits no one else has. It is about imposing additional requirements upon big tech/AI that no one else is subject to.

If you want to rail against AI/big tech/corpo evil, go for it. Have fun. But for the sake of Saint George of Floyd please try to refrain from complaining about non-existent horseshit.
 

Attachments

  • Winner
Reactions: The Thinking Abacus
Trickle down economics doesn't work outside of paper, what does work is trickle down regulations and more holes in the cheese greater known as personal freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chunky Salsa
It wouldn't be "death to copyright". It would be "death to copyright for the people who can already afford to lobby for copyright law". They would maintain all their own IP rights while being able to violate yours with impunity.
Either way, I'm not going to advocate for more copyright for any reason, even if the evil corporations are involved.
 
Pretty sure people other than yourself can't legally use your likeness without permission first.

And also, this isn't something that is somehow magically a new problem just because of AI. Unless you seriously believe the capacity to 'steal someone's likeness' only appeared with the rise of LLM tech.
Retarded take to be honest, why should they ask your permission? it's not like they deliberately copy you, the ai churn it out, so what are you going to do? Sue the ai? Demand that they change their work? And if they don't? sue them?

The capacity to steal someone's likeness without ai is way easier to persecute, you have the the target and the intent ready, but with Ai you don't. What a way to miss the point.

Again you miss the entire point by getting fixated about "your likeness". If the ai work can own and retain copyright, it means it can own and retain copyright over your EVERYTHING, because they can just scrape everything without permission.
Your research is their research(change a few words), your music is their music, your face, your likeness(change hairstyle), whatever traits they can scrape from you is theirs. And the same argument will be used against you, "everything is just a derivative of something, we didn't ask the ai to produce exactly this but that it did produce that, so you cannot blame us"

That's why OpenAi just go ahead and use a voice similar to Scarlett Johansson even after she refused permission, and then claim "no it's just the ai, it's not her voice." But unlike you & I, Scarlett Jo has a lot of money and connection to go into lengthy lawsuit, so OpenAi dropped it eventually.

The only reason this hasn't taken off (ai work being copyrighted) because other big corpos are afraid of other big corpos doing this very thing against each others. They couldn't give a shit about you & using every bit of info that they scraped from you and commercialize it.
 
He's not wrong as much as I dont wanna side with big corpos.

Winning the AI race against China is important and we can't do it by restricting these companies from scraping everything they can. You know the Chinese aren't going to be held back by copywrite.
What's needed, especially in the light of competition with China is to abolish copyright completely. Not create some special carve-out for AI. This is basically a corpo-vs-corpo tug of war, with tech on one side and (((media))) on the other. Copyright law overwhelmingly benefits giant media conglomerates over individual artists, who make most of their income from made-to-order material. The owners of the platforms and IP libraries are granted a perpetual license to print money, far beyond the original intended scope of copyright with a deadline of 90 years after the creator's death.

This rises to a level of a strategic danger to Western countries because it diverts investment away from actually productive fields and into IP because it's so profitable. If I can own a catalog of music and get paid from CD sales and music streaming, why would I want to invest in something like manufacturing that involves much higher overhead and labor costs? It's far less risky to collect an IP portfolio and get paychecks forever. If the US is going to gain back its manufacturing base and compete with China all investment needs to be directed toward real, tangible things, not rights to sell pictures and sounds.
 
And secondly, I'll be honest, this is pure selfishness, but I want the closest thing humanity has made to a magic wand. I want to be able to create songs or paintings or whatever in a style with just a couple of words sent to a magic math box. I can barely draw stick figures, and learning how to properly draw or paint would be time-consuming and I'd still probably not be good enough to get the vision in my head out. AI will (eventually, once the crappiness gets ironed out) allow me to bring nearly anything I want seen right there on my screen. I nor anyone else should have to let that be taken away. If you threaten this, you should be taken out like the supposed Luddites were.
Sketch from five years ago (When I was 18):
20250527_135747.webp
Sketch from a five years later, or about a week ago:
20250527_135809.webp
There isn't a hidden talent requirement, everything at least up to my current level is just practice and study. It's like complaining that it's unfair people aren't fat when you don't eat right and don't exercise.

And here's the deeper part, even if you got the end result AI that made whatever you want, You will still not be able to make art you care about with it. When you go through with learninghow to make art, you start appreciating the art other people make as well. Not just in an appreciation for the time it took but the millions of decisions that are taken during each art piece, even for something as simple as a circle. Even if you get the perfect AI program that makes whatever you describe, how can you generate it if you can't even describe the parts of an art piece that you like? I pretty much realized my time developing this skill was never wasted when people got the ghibli art engine, something good enough that I couldn't recognize it off the bat and even looked decent, and only used it for existing meme -> ghibli style.
 
How hard can it be to ask permission? Just have the AI write an email to the artist and ask.
CorridorDigital (one of the people who started experimenting with AI first with their AI Anime) Got an artist for the second episode.
There was also Love Letter to LA, where they had the animators work with the AI on pretty much every step:
You actually get better results with an artist, because you can fine tune the models with the help of the artists themselves instead of relying on whatever you can scrape and confusing the model with junk images. But the companies refuse to do this because the end result they want is all the zeroes on the balance sheet rubbed off, not more efficency or a better product.
 
Last edited:
They pirate Photoshop so they can spend thousands of hours honing a craft with it. People who resent artists seem to always forget that key detail — it's a lot of time and effort, and famously badly compensated, to the point that "starving artist" is a phrase. You're comparing that to a corporation scraping their work just to replace them in the economy so that you can generate Ghibli hentai or whatever you're using it for.
They pirateD Photoshop (past tense) because despite only costing RnD money, Adobe asked ridiculous prices for it, as well as constantly fiddling with it and making new versions. Nobody is pirating now because you can get something like ProCreate for a one-time payment of fifty dollars, and various off-brand drawing apps for free*.
 
Back