In the UK, proposed regulations aim to ease restrictions on AI’s use of copyrighted material has come to the table, and it’s a move that has caused concern and backlash amongst creators and artists, who fear it could undermine their rights and compensation. Led Zeppelin guitar legend Jimmy Page has issued the following statement via Instagram opposing the move:
“In the disciplined studios of the early 1960s London, I honed my craft as a session musician, lending my guitar to a myriad of artists across genres. Those countless hours, often three three-hour sessions a day, were more than just work; they were a crucible of creativity, collaboration, and ceaseless inspiration.
I was required to create and conjure riffs and lyrical figures immediately without slowing down the momentum of the work being recorded with the other musicians and the artist.
This journey from the anonymity of session work to the global stages with Led Zeppelin was not a path paved by algorithms or data sets. It was a voyage marked by spontaneous improvisation and the unquantifiable spark of human ingenuity. The alchemy that transformed a unique riff into an anthem was etched into the collective soul of the band — a synergy that no machine can emulate.
Today, as artificial intelligence seeks to mimic and monetise creativity, we stand at a crossroads. AI-generated art and music, synthesised from existing human works, lack the visceral essence that comes from lived experience. They are but hollow echoes, devoid of the struggles, triumphs, and soul that define true artistry.
Moreover, the ethical implications are profound. When AI scrapes the vast tapestry of human creativity to generate content, it often does so without consent, attribution, or compensation. This is not innovation; it’s exploitation.
If, during my session days, someone had taken my riffs without acknowledgment or payment, it would have been deemed theft. The same standard must apply to AI.
We must champion policies that protect artists, ensuring that their work isn’t siphoned off into the void of machine learning without due regard. Let us celebrate and preserve the human touch in art — the imperfections, the emotions, the stories behind every note and cadence.
In defending the sanctity of human creativity against the encroachment of AI, we safeguard not just the rights of artists, but the very soul of our cultural heritage.”
A report filed by The Guardian outline, in part, the UK government’s proposals:
“The government’s preferred option in a consultation is to allow AI companies to train the models on copyrighted work by giving them an exception for “text and data mining”. However, under the proposals creatives would be able to opt out of the mining process through what ministers are calling a “rights reservation” system. The opt-out proposal has met with scepticism from opponents of the government consultation, who say there is no evidence of a “water-tight” rights reservation process in any country.
The government says that AI firms like OpenAI already allow news publishers to block web crawlers from accessing their content.
The consultation also proposes measures that require transparency from AI developers on what content they have used to train their models.
The proposals are similar to those in the EU AI Act, which also includes an opt-out option. However, the act’s provisions have come in for criticism from an architect of EU copyright law.”
Read the complete report here.
The post JIMMY PAGE Slams UK Government’s Proposed Copyright Rules For Artificial Intelligence – “When AI Scrapes The Vast Tapestry Of Human Creativity To Generate Content, It Often Does So Without Consent Or Compensation. This Is Not Innovation; It’s Exploitation” appeared first on BraveWords - Where Music Lives.
Continue reading...
“In the disciplined studios of the early 1960s London, I honed my craft as a session musician, lending my guitar to a myriad of artists across genres. Those countless hours, often three three-hour sessions a day, were more than just work; they were a crucible of creativity, collaboration, and ceaseless inspiration.
I was required to create and conjure riffs and lyrical figures immediately without slowing down the momentum of the work being recorded with the other musicians and the artist.
This journey from the anonymity of session work to the global stages with Led Zeppelin was not a path paved by algorithms or data sets. It was a voyage marked by spontaneous improvisation and the unquantifiable spark of human ingenuity. The alchemy that transformed a unique riff into an anthem was etched into the collective soul of the band — a synergy that no machine can emulate.
Today, as artificial intelligence seeks to mimic and monetise creativity, we stand at a crossroads. AI-generated art and music, synthesised from existing human works, lack the visceral essence that comes from lived experience. They are but hollow echoes, devoid of the struggles, triumphs, and soul that define true artistry.
Moreover, the ethical implications are profound. When AI scrapes the vast tapestry of human creativity to generate content, it often does so without consent, attribution, or compensation. This is not innovation; it’s exploitation.
If, during my session days, someone had taken my riffs without acknowledgment or payment, it would have been deemed theft. The same standard must apply to AI.
We must champion policies that protect artists, ensuring that their work isn’t siphoned off into the void of machine learning without due regard. Let us celebrate and preserve the human touch in art — the imperfections, the emotions, the stories behind every note and cadence.
In defending the sanctity of human creativity against the encroachment of AI, we safeguard not just the rights of artists, but the very soul of our cultural heritage.”
A report filed by The Guardian outline, in part, the UK government’s proposals:
“The government’s preferred option in a consultation is to allow AI companies to train the models on copyrighted work by giving them an exception for “text and data mining”. However, under the proposals creatives would be able to opt out of the mining process through what ministers are calling a “rights reservation” system. The opt-out proposal has met with scepticism from opponents of the government consultation, who say there is no evidence of a “water-tight” rights reservation process in any country.
The government says that AI firms like OpenAI already allow news publishers to block web crawlers from accessing their content.
The consultation also proposes measures that require transparency from AI developers on what content they have used to train their models.
The proposals are similar to those in the EU AI Act, which also includes an opt-out option. However, the act’s provisions have come in for criticism from an architect of EU copyright law.”
Read the complete report here.
The post JIMMY PAGE Slams UK Government’s Proposed Copyright Rules For Artificial Intelligence – “When AI Scrapes The Vast Tapestry Of Human Creativity To Generate Content, It Often Does So Without Consent Or Compensation. This Is Not Innovation; It’s Exploitation” appeared first on BraveWords - Where Music Lives.
Continue reading...
