Congrats on the hard work of getting it considered. As a software developer working for a California publisher, I have some 'vested interest' in this topic.
The technical definitions are strong, but the bill sounds like Step 1 in a multi-step process? Seems like letting the rights-holders know is only part of the needed action. Or does it assume that the actual claiming can be done through regular copyright law?
The first thing to highlight, for people reading this thread, is that AB 412 is not a copyright bill, and has nothing to do with federal copyright law. It does not seek to change it or create a new, alternate legal framework for copyright. The people opposing the bill love to repeat this, and it's simply not true. So any actual copyright infringement claims would be taken outside the realm of this particular bill.
To be very open about this, gen AI model developers should support this bill even if for their own interests. Because there is no currently no transparency, any creator with a copyright is obliged to assume their information is contained in every model. AB 412 would give model developers a way to clear their name if a rights holder's works or information was in fact not included in the training datasets.
Brilliant reporting Birgitte! Usual Big Tech playbook lines being trotted out by those who oppose the bill I see. Transparency is a necessary precursor to a market for licensing.
Thank you for writing and sharing this!
Congrats on the hard work of getting it considered. As a software developer working for a California publisher, I have some 'vested interest' in this topic.
The technical definitions are strong, but the bill sounds like Step 1 in a multi-step process? Seems like letting the rights-holders know is only part of the needed action. Or does it assume that the actual claiming can be done through regular copyright law?
The first thing to highlight, for people reading this thread, is that AB 412 is not a copyright bill, and has nothing to do with federal copyright law. It does not seek to change it or create a new, alternate legal framework for copyright. The people opposing the bill love to repeat this, and it's simply not true. So any actual copyright infringement claims would be taken outside the realm of this particular bill.
To be very open about this, gen AI model developers should support this bill even if for their own interests. Because there is no currently no transparency, any creator with a copyright is obliged to assume their information is contained in every model. AB 412 would give model developers a way to clear their name if a rights holder's works or information was in fact not included in the training datasets.
Brilliant reporting Birgitte! Usual Big Tech playbook lines being trotted out by those who oppose the bill I see. Transparency is a necessary precursor to a market for licensing.