Generative AI and Creative Commons Licences – The Application of Share Alike Obligations to Trained Models, Curated Datasets and AI Output

Generative AI and Creative Commons Licences – The Application of Share Alike Obligations to Trained Models, Curated Datasets and AI Output external link

JIPITEC, vol. 15, iss. : 3, 2024

Abstract

This article maps the impact of Share Alike (SA) obligations and copyleft licensing on machine learning, AI training, and AI-generated content. It focuses on the SA component found in some of the Creative Commons (CC) licences, distilling its essential features and layering them onto machine learning and content generation workflows. Based on our analysis, there are three fundamental challenges related to the life cycle of these licences: tracing and establishing copyright-relevant uses during the development phase (training), the interplay of licensing conditions with copyright exceptions and the identification of copyright-protected traces in AI output. Significant problems can arise from several concepts in CC licensing agreements (‘adapted material’ and ‘technical modification’) that could serve as a basis for applying SA conditions to trained models, curated datasets and AI output that can be traced back to CC material used for training purposes. Seeking to transpose Share Alike and copyleft approaches to the world of generative AI, the CC community can only choose between two policy approaches. On the one hand, it can uphold the supremacy of copyright exceptions. In countries and regions that exempt machine-learning processes from the control of copyright holders, this approach leads to far-reaching freedom to use CC resources for AI training purposes. At the same time, it marginalises SA obligations. On the other hand, the CC community can use copyright strategically to extend SA obligations to AI training results and AI output. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to use rights reservation mechanisms, such as the opt-out system available in EU copyright law, and subject the use of CC material in AI training to SA conditions. Following this approach, a tailor-made licence solution can grant AI developers broad freedom to use CC works for training purposes. In exchange for the training permission, however, AI developers would have to accept the obligation to pass on – via a whole chain of contractual obligations – SA conditions to recipients of trained models and end users generating AI output.

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Generative AI and Creative Commons Licences – The Application of Share Alike Obligations to Trained Models, Curated Datasets and AI Output},
	author = {Szkalej, K. and Senftleben, M.},
	url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/jipitec/article/view/415},
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-12-13},
	journal = {JIPITEC},
	volume = {15},
	issue = {3},
	abstract = {This article maps the impact of Share Alike (SA) obligations and copyleft licensing on machine learning, AI training, and AI-generated content. It focuses on the SA component found in some of the Creative Commons (CC) licences, distilling its essential features and layering them onto machine learning and content generation workflows. Based on our analysis, there are three fundamental challenges related to the life cycle of these licences:  tracing and establishing copyright-relevant uses during the development phase (training), the interplay of licensing conditions with copyright exceptions and the identification of copyright-protected traces in AI output. Significant problems can arise from several concepts in CC licensing agreements (‘adapted material’ and ‘technical modification’) that could serve as a basis for applying SA conditions to trained models, curated datasets and AI output that can be traced back to CC material used for training purposes. Seeking to transpose Share Alike and copyleft approaches to the world of generative AI, the CC community can only choose between two policy approaches. On the one hand, it can uphold the supremacy of copyright exceptions. In countries and regions that exempt machine-learning processes from the control of copyright holders, this approach leads to far-reaching freedom to use CC resources for AI training purposes. At the same time, it marginalises SA obligations. On the other hand, the CC community can use copyright strategically to extend SA obligations to AI training results and AI output. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to use rights reservation mechanisms, such as the opt-out system available in EU copyright law, and subject the use of CC material in AI training to SA conditions. Following this approach, a tailor-made licence solution can grant AI developers broad freedom to use CC works for training purposes. In exchange for the training permission, however, AI developers would have to accept the obligation to pass on – via a whole chain of contractual obligations – SA conditions to recipients of trained models and end users generating AI output.},
	keywords = {ai, Copyright, creative commons, Licensing, machine learning},
}

How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive external link

Quintais, J. & Husovec, M.

GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law, vol. 70, num: 4, pp: 325-348, 2021

Abstract

Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of Article 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in Article 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that Article 17 introduces either a ‘special’ or a ‘new’ sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.

Bibtex

Article{Quintais2021GRURInt,
	title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive},
	author = {Quintais, J. and Husovec, M.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200

},
	doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200},
	year = {0218},
	date = {2021-02-18},
	journal = {GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law},
	volume = {70},
	number = {4},
	pages = {325-348},
	abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of Article 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in Article 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that Article 17 introduces either a ‘special’ or a ‘new’ sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.},
	keywords = {Article 17, communication to the public, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, frontpage; copyright law, intermediaries, Licensing},
}

How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms external link

Husovec, M. & Quintais, J.

2020

Abstract

Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions. [This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]

Bibtex

Article{Husovec2020c,
	title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms},
	author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
	url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463011},
	year = {2020},
	date = {2020-09-29},
	abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.

[This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]},
	keywords = {Article 17, communication to the public, Copyright, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, intermediaries, Licensing},
}

Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society external link

Metzger, A., Senftleben, M., Derclaye E., Dreier, T., Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Hilty, R., Hugenholtz, P., Riis, T., Rognstad, O.A., Strowel, A.M., Synodinou, T. & Xalabarder, R.

2020

Abstract

The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.

Bibtex

Article{Metzger2020,
	title = {Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society},
	author = {Metzger, A. and Senftleben, M. and Derclaye E. and Dreier, T. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Hilty, R. and Hugenholtz, P. and Riis, T. and Rognstad, O.A. and Strowel, A.M. and Synodinou, T. and Xalabarder, R.},
	url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323},
	year = {0507},
	date = {2020-05-07},
	abstract = {The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.},
	keywords = {algorithmic enforcement, applicable law, collective copyright management, content hosting, Content moderation, copyright contract law, EU copyright law, filtering mechanisms, Freedom of expression, Licensing, notice-and-takedown, private international law, transformative use, user-generated content},
}

Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics external link

Quintais, J., Frosio, G., van Gompel, S., Hugenholtz, P., Husovec, M., Jütte, B.J. & Senftleben, M.

JIPITEC, vol. vol. 10, num: nr. 3 - 2019, 2020

Bibtex

How to license Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms external link

Husovec, M. & Quintais, J.

2019

Abstract

How can the EU Member States license Article 17 of the new Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market? This is the central question that this paper addresses. To answer it, we first analyse the nature of the right included in Article 17. We argue that the nature of the right has a number of serious consequences for its licensing. First, it determines whether the right is mandated by public international law, and hence what licensing modalities are allowed under the 1994 WTO TRIPS Agreement and 1996 WIPO treaties. Second, it clarifies what other conditions European Union law itself imposes on the newly established right and its implementation into national law. These restraints shape the margin of discretion of EU Member States. Third, it may imply changes to existing licensing practices, including the need for collective rights management organisations to obtain new mandates. Fourth, it influences how Member States can incorporate users’ rights into the legal framework. We argue that Article 17 is a special or sui generis right. We identify how this right fits the existing international and EU law, and explain why the Member States have a broad margin of discretion when implementing the corresponding licensing regimes. Perhaps most importantly, and counter-intuitively, we show that the legal arguments against Article 17 licensing via modalities of statutory licensing and mandatory collective management schemes are weaker than one might initially think.

Bibtex

Article{Husovec2019,
	title = {How to license Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms},
	author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
	url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011},
	year = {1003},
	date = {2019-10-03},
	abstract = {How can the EU Member States license Article 17 of the new Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market? This is the central question that this paper addresses. To answer it, we first analyse the nature of the right included in Article 17. We argue that the nature of the right has a number of serious consequences for its licensing. First, it determines whether the right is mandated by public international law, and hence what licensing modalities are allowed under the 1994 WTO TRIPS Agreement and 1996 WIPO treaties. Second, it clarifies what other conditions European Union law itself imposes on the newly established right and its implementation into national law. These restraints shape the margin of discretion of EU Member States. Third, it may imply changes to existing licensing practices, including the need for collective rights management organisations to obtain new mandates. Fourth, it influences how Member States can incorporate users’ rights into the legal framework. We argue that Article 17 is a special or sui generis right. We identify how this right fits the existing international and EU law, and explain why the Member States have a broad margin of discretion when implementing the corresponding licensing regimes. Perhaps most importantly, and counter-intuitively, we show that the legal arguments against Article 17 licensing via modalities of statutory licensing and mandatory collective management schemes are weaker than one might initially think.},
	keywords = {Article 17, Copyright, DMS Directive, frontpage, Licensing, ontent sharing service providers, Platforms},
}

The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look external link

Quintais, J.

European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 42, num: 1, pp: 28-41, 2020

Abstract

This article provides an overview and critical examination of the new Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. Despite some positive aspects, the Directive includes multiple problematic provisions, including the controversial new right for press publishers and the new liability regime for content-sharing platforms. On balance, the Directive denotes a normative preference for private ordering over public choice in EU copyright law, and lacks adequate safeguards for users. It is also a complex text with multiple ambiguities, which will likely fail promote the desired harmonization and legal certainty in this area.

Bibtex

Article{Quintais2019e,
	title = {The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look},
	author = {Quintais, J.},
	url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3424770},
	year = {0107},
	date = {2020-01-07},
	journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
	volume = {42},
	number = {1},
	pages = {28-41},
	abstract = {This article provides an overview and critical examination of the new Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. Despite some positive aspects, the Directive includes multiple problematic provisions, including the controversial new right for press publishers and the new liability regime for content-sharing platforms. On balance, the Directive denotes a normative preference for private ordering over public choice in EU copyright law, and lacks adequate safeguards for users. It is also a complex text with multiple ambiguities, which will likely fail promote the desired harmonization and legal certainty in this area.},
	keywords = {Collective licensing, Copyright, digital content, Digital Single Market, EU law, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, Licensing, Online services, text and data mining},
}

Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing? external link

Bodó, B., Gervais, D.J. & Quintais, J.

International Journal of Law and Information Technology, vol. 2018, num: 4, pp: 311-336, 2018

Abstract

This article offers a normative analysis of key blockchain technology concepts from the perspective of copyright law. Some features of blockchain technologies—scarcity, trust, transparency, decentralized public records and smart contracts—seem to make this technology compatible with the fundamentals of copyright. Authors can publish works on blockchain creating a quasi-immutable record of initial ownership, and encode ‘smart’ contracts to license the use of works. Remuneration may happen on online distribution platforms where the smart contracts reside. In theory, such an automated setup allows for the private ordering of copyright. Blockchain technology, like Digital Rights Management 20 years ago, is thus presented as an opportunity to reduce market friction, and increase both licensing efficiency and the autonomy of creators. Yet, some of the old problems remain. The article examines the differences between new, smart-contract-based private ordering regime and the fundamental components of copyright law, such as exceptions and limitations, the doctrine of exhaustion, restrictions on formalities, the public domain and fair remuneration.

Bibtex

Article{Bodó2018d,
	title = {Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing?},
	author = {Bodó, B. and Gervais, D.J. and Quintais, J.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IJLIT_2018.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlit/eay014/5106727},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay014},
	year = {0927},
	date = {2018-09-27},
	journal = {International Journal of Law and Information Technology},
	volume = {2018},
	number = {4},
	pages = {311-336},
	abstract = {This article offers a normative analysis of key blockchain technology concepts from the perspective of copyright law. Some features of blockchain technologies—scarcity, trust, transparency, decentralized public records and smart contracts—seem to make this technology compatible with the fundamentals of copyright. Authors can publish works on blockchain creating a quasi-immutable record of initial ownership, and encode ‘smart’ contracts to license the use of works. Remuneration may happen on online distribution platforms where the smart contracts reside. In theory, such an automated setup allows for the private ordering of copyright. Blockchain technology, like Digital Rights Management 20 years ago, is thus presented as an opportunity to reduce market friction, and increase both licensing efficiency and the autonomy of creators. Yet, some of the old problems remain. The article examines the differences between new, smart-contract-based private ordering regime and the fundamental components of copyright law, such as exceptions and limitations, the doctrine of exhaustion, restrictions on formalities, the public domain and fair remuneration.},
	keywords = {blockchain, Copyright, frontpage, Licensing, smart contracts},
}

Literature review on the use of licensing in library context, and the limitations this creates to access to knowledge external link

Yakovleva, S.

vol. 2017, 2017

Abstract

The dual purpose of this literature review is, first, to identify and summarise limitations that result from the use of copyright licences in a library context, and, second, to illustrate these limitations with specific examples available in both the academic and grey literature. The licences discussed in the reviewed literature deal essentially with access to, and use of, digital content.

Bibtex

Formalidades del derecho de autor en la era de internet: filtros de protección o facilitadores de licenciamiento external link

van Gompel, S.

Revista de Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, vol. 5, num: 1, pp: 9-55, 2017

Keyword: Licensing