AI lab by information labs

🔍 In this TL;DR episode, Prof. Dr. Alexander Peukert (Goethe University Frankfurt am Main) discusses his primer on copyright in the EU AI Act with the AI lab

⏲️[00:00] Intro

⏲️[01:26] Q1-Merging copyright & AI regulation:

What challenges arise from merging copyright law and AI regulation?

How might this impact legislation, compliance, and enforcement?

⏲️[06:08] Q2-AI Act copyright targets:

Who are the main targets of the AI Act's copyright-related obligations?

⏲️[09:33] Q3-AI Act copyright obligations:

What key copyright-related obligations does the AI Act impose on AI model providers?

How should training content summaries and TDM opt-out mechanisms be implemented?

⏲️[14:44] Wrap-up & Outro

🗣️ Any copyright infringement triggers remedies. (...) In the EU AI Act context, it’s very different because the EU AI Act establishes systemic compliance obligations.

🗣️ AI model providers have to put in place a general copyright policy. Whether that policy is sufficient or not is then a question which is pretty difficult to answer and not straightforward.

🗣️ When we merge copyright with the AI regulation, (...) this is also true for the DSA, (...) you have to ask: at what point is a systemic compliance obligation violated? Only then do you have a violation of this AI regulation.

🗣️ The AI Act is primarily enforced by public authorities (...). That might become a challenge for rightholders because they were used to enforce their rights at their will. Now they have to make sure that the [EC or national authorities act].

🗣️ For the first time, (...) public authorities enter the copyright environment to a very significant extent through the EU AI Act.

🗣️ The specific copyright obligations are only addressed to general-purpose AI model providers. (...) AI systems that are then built upon it (...), which eventually create the output, are not subject to specific copyright obligations.

🗣️ The EU legislature (...) said: we focus on the [general-purpose AI] models because they are the very basis of all systems, and if we target them (...), then we make sure that any kind of system, generative AI [is] copyright-compliant.

🗣️ The EU AI Act [obliges] AI model providers to program their crawlers, who crawl the Internet, to collect data for [AI] training (...) in a manner that the opt-out of copyright holders is respected.

🗣️ There’s a market for AI training data, which is based on these copyright rules in connection with the EU AI Act.

🗣️ You have to put in place a copyright policy. (...) One potential consequence (...) might be a kind of moderation obligation so that you have to make sure that not only the training (...) but also the eventual output is copyright-compliant.

🗣️ It might become difficult for the [general-purpose] AI model provider to moderate the output of systems that another company has built on [their] model. (...) I see a potential problem in the implementation of these copyright obligations.

🗣️ The [training content] summary need not be granular so that you mention each and every URL that you have mined, (...) it suffices to describe the content in a narrative way. So what kind of databases have you searched or crawled?

🗣️ The [training content] summary (...) is a tool to enable rightholders to figure out whether they were mined and perhaps whether their preventive measures were circumvented and (...) potentially sue for copyright infringement.

🎙️ Prof. Dr. Alexander Peukert | Full Professor of Civil, Commercial and Information Law at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main

🌐 GRUR International | Copyright in the Artificial Intelligence Act – A Primer

🌐 Prof. Dr. Alexander Peukert

http://ssrn.com/author=1244916 

Alexander Peukert (pronounce as Poikert) has since 2009 been full professor of civil, commercial and information law at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main. He studied law and obtained his Dr. iur. (s.c.l.) at the University of Freiburg (1993-1999). After his second state examination (2001), he practiced law in a Berlin law firm specializing in copyright and media law. From 2002 to 2009, he was senior research fellow and head of the U.S. department at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Munich.