AI lab by information labs

🔍 In this TL;DR episode, João Quintais (Institute for Information Law) explains the interaction between the AI Act and EU copyright law, focusing on text and data mining (TDM). He unpacks key issues like lawful access, opt-out mechanisms, and transparency obligations for AI developers. João explores challenges such as extraterritoriality and trade secrets, offering insights into how voluntary codes of practice and contractual diligence could help align AI innovation with EU copyright rules.

#AI #ArtificialIntelligence #GenerativeAI

⏲️[00:00] Intro

⏲️[00:51] Q1-What are the key interactions between the AI Act and EU copyright law, particularly concerning text and data mining (TDM) practices?

⏲️[7:12] Q2-How do you see the transparency obligations of the AI Act shaping the relationship between AI developers and rightsholders?

⏲️[15:22] Q3-Is the extraterritorial reference of Recital 106 of the AI Act enforceable?

⏲️[24:35] Wrap-up & Outro

🗣️ "The AI Act links to Article 4 by obliging general-purpose AI (GPAI) model providers to identify and respect rights reservation mechanisms and disclose a sufficiently detailed summary about the training data used."

🗣️ "The Copyright Directive of 2019 introduces exceptions and limitations for text and data mining (TDM), with Article 3 aimed at research and Article 4 applying broadly but with additional requirements like rights reservation or opt-out mechanisms."

🗣️ "The concept of TDM is so broad that it applies to activities involved in pre-training and training AI models, impacting entities across the value chain, not just model providers."

🗣️ "Entities like Common Crawl or LAION that perform upstream activities like web scraping are not directly regulated by the AI Act but are part of the broader TDM definition under the Copyright Directive."

🗣️ "One debated requirement is the rights reservation or opt-out mechanism for publicly accessible online content."

🗣️ "The transparency provision in Article 53(1)(d) requires GPAI model providers to make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of training data, balancing interests like copyright, privacy, and fair competition."

🗣️ "If the summary is too vague, it becomes meaningless; if too detailed, it might infringe on trade secrets—so finding a balance is critical."

🗣️ "The usefulness of the training data summary lies in clarifying whether TDM exception requirements, such as lawful access and respect for opt-outs, have been met."

🗣️ "A significant challenge is ensuring compliance when data sets are obtained from upstream providers not subject to the AI Act, raising questions about responsibility and enforcement."

🗣️ "The Act balances interests, acknowledging the impossibility of listing all copyrighted works used in training due to territorial fragmentation and low originality thresholds."

🗣️ "Recital 106 aims to prevent regulatory arbitrage by requiring compliance with EU copyright standards, even for AI models trained outside the EU."

🗣️ "The principle of territoriality in copyright law conflicts with the extraterritorial implications of the AI Act, as copyright rules are typically governed by the location of the activity."

🗣️ "Using contractual obligations and voluntary meta-regulation, such as commitments from upstream providers, offers a more consistent way to enforce compliance than extending the law extraterritorially."

🗣️ "The Act's compliance incentives might still push GPAI providers to align with EU standards to avoid severe sanctions, even if extraterritorial enforcement remains uncertain."

🗣️ "Some suggest contractual obligations or meta-regulation as more practical solutions to ensure upstream compliance with EU law."

🎙️  João Pedro Quintais | Assistant Professor, Institute for Information Law (IViR)

🌐 Article | Generative AI, Copyright, and the AI Act

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4912701 

🌐 Joao Pedro Quintais

https://www.ivir.nl/employee/quintais/ 

Dr João Pedro Quintais is Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam’s Law School, in the Institute for Information Law (IViR). João notably studies how intellectual property law applies to new technologies and the implications of copyright law and its enforcement by algorithms on the rights and freedoms of Internet users, on the remuneration of creators, and on technological development. João is also Co-Managing Editor of the widely read Kluwer Copyright Blog and has published extensively in the area of information law.