header-logo header-logo

Artificial intelligence & copyright law: at odds?

207184
How should copyright laws function in the context of artificial intelligence? Emma Kennaugh-Gallacher highlights the urgent need for clarity in the UK’s approach
  • There is a pressing need for clear regulations around artificial intelligence’s (AI’s) use of copyrighted material, especially regarding training data.

In October last year, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella made his contribution to the ever-growing body of commentary on the conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) technology and intellectual property (IP) infringement. As the defendant in several copyright infringement proceedings worldwide, it probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to learn that Microsoft considers that making use of copyright works for the purposes of training machine learning AI models should not amount to infringement.

Nadella questioned why a machine learning model is any different from someone reading a textbook and using the information they take in to produce new content. While his provocative conclusion, that reading a copyright work and then creating ‘new knowledge’ could be infringement, falls wide of the mark, he is certainly

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll