Europe

8488 readers

1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

French MPs want to amend EU's copyright rules to cover generative AI (www.euractiv.com)

submitted 9 months ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/europe@feddit.de

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"How to identify original works by artists? How to attribute works generated by AI intermediaries? How to remunerate authors whose works have been used? How to manage opt-outs for artists who refuse their content to be used by AI? These are the questions that require a review of the copyright directive in light of generative AI,” says Mireille Clapot, the Member of Parliament leading on the opinion and President of France's National Assembly’s High Commission for Digital and Posts (CNSP).

Although Clapot and her colleagues welcome the AI Act, they believe the Copyright Directive will have to be amended because of the recent technological developments in AI.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why? It's how patents always have worked. And even with a maximum of 20 years for patents they are more often used to stifle innovation rather than encourage it.

Copyright and patents should start at 5 years, and then be possible to extend 5 years at a time up to 20 years if the company owning the copyright or patent can prove it's still in active use and not only used to prevent others from moving forward.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Art is not the same as technology. Artist have a rather personal and intimate connection to their creation, while at the same time the usability of art is not crucial for advancement of society, like it is with technology. Therefore it seems fair to me that an artist has the right to stop his art from being used in context he does not like. For example a liberal artist work used for advancement of racist propaganda.

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

But that already happens all the time. Vedy often the rights end up in the hands of some corporation and the author gets to have ~zero say in how it's used.

Doesn't seem to have been a particularly big issue.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

But the author has to sell his rights for this first, which he should be able to decide for himself.