GEMA is the first recycling company to make a lawsuit against AI providers

GEMA was the first recycling company to take legal action against a provider of generative AI . This emerges from a statement by Tobias Holzmüller , the CEO of GEMA, which was published in the latest edition of politics & culture , the publication of the German Cultural Council.

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence has profound effects on the music industry and other sectors. AI tools prove to be valuable aids in the creative process.

Nevertheless, there is a risk that this technology could replace parts of creative work. In the statement, the area of ​​background music is explicitly mentioned here. study commissioned by GEMA in cooperation with its French partner organization Sacem

Ironically, the industry uses the works of the creative to develop competitive products that can deprive them of their livelihood. How does a recycling company with over 95,000 members react to such fundamental changes?

Since the economic successes of the AI ​​industry are strongly based on the content created by creative people-the company Openaai is now achieving annual sales of over $ 2 billion-it is only logical to request remuneration for the use of the protected rights in order to compensate for damage incurred.

GEMA presents license model

The GEMA has designed a license model that provides for a remuneration for the training of AI models and systems as well as for the generation of content and monetization. However, industry is hesitant, since numerous legal questions in the area of ​​generative artificial intelligence are still unclear. This includes the right to the right for text and data analyzes, the transparency obligations of the providers, the territorial applicability of copyright and the protection of generated content.

Legal situation in the United States and Europe with a decisive difference

This legal situation, which is indeed very confusing, often hides the essentials: in the United States, it is currently being discussed whether the models are subject to a remuneration obligation or whether this is possible under the so-called fair use doctrine of US law without permission and remuneration. In continental Europe, however, the legal situation is clearer: the training of AI models with protected works and their subsequent recycling must be remunerated, provided that the rights holders have reserved.

All essential rights holders have explained such a reservation. Nevertheless, there is no remuneration. It is undisputed that existing law must first be interpreted in order to create clarity between all participants - be it rights holder, author or national and international politics - ”

so Holzmüller in his statement.

The lawsuit against Openaai

GEMA was the first recycling company to sue the best -known provider Openai worldwide for using its rights before the Munich District Court. This takes a first step towards maintaining her interests and in particular that of its members. The chatbot chatt was able to reproduce original texts of numerous songs.

This not only proves that the processes subject to licenses are trained, but also that the underlying model has been trained with these works and that reproductions are present in the trained systems. This knowledge is crucial because it shows that the lack of transparency during training prevents the rights holders from enforcing their claims.

It is not without reason that the providers' transparency obligations are the focus of the current debate in Brussels. The newly founded AI-Office has the task of creating a template for the provider's information that they have to comply with in accordance with the AI ​​Act . "sufficient supremacy" to the authorities about your training process.

The tech lobby vehemently tries to prevent greater transparency and, above all, refers to the effort by reporting obligations. It is to be hoped that this advanced position will not be heard politically. Because it is obvious that providers must document the data used in detail; After all, the success of a system directly depends on the quality of this data.

The refusal to create transparency only serves to hide copied copyright infringement ”,

makes Holzmüller clear.

In the past, copyright law had to defy new technological challenges. Often this was a lengthy and painful process that ultimately created a balance between right -wing owners and users. This is necessary because both sides are dependent on each other.

It is crucial that the incentive for innovation is not lost. Gema's lawsuit represents an important step to promote this process.

You can read the whole post in the new edition 12/24-1/25 from politics & culture .

More topics of this issue:

• Culture under pressure
  missing federal budget, underfunded countries and municipalities: a plea for creative solutions for cultural financing
• Trust in museums
  A study by the Institute for Museum Research makes it clear: museums are among the most trustworthy institutions
• Culture populism
  After the election, Slovakia experiences drastic interventions, influence and personnel decisions in the cultural sector
• "Let's Remember!"
  Computer and video games can contribute to the teaching of history and to a lively commemoration in the present
• Focus on media policy
  votes from politics, media and civil society

Politics & Culture is the newspaper of the German Cultural Council. It is published by Olaf Zimmermann and Theo Geißler. It appears ten times a year and is available in station bookstores, on large kiosks, at airports and in the subscription: a single price: 4.00 euros, in the subscription: 30.00 euros (including postage), in the subscription for students: 25 euros (including postage).