#AI #GenerativeAI #Copyright #IP: "- Bring opt-out mechanisms to platforms where the data is shared. Buried in user agreements are clauses that give these platforms rights to train AI systems with users’ images (or text). If users aren’t comfortable with a platform’s policy on AI, they ought to be informed and able to opt out without consequence.

- Acknowledge that people generate images – not AI. Every AI-generated artwork is a product of some human intention, and subsequent interaction, with a tool to manifest that intention. Attributing authorship to the tool, rather than attributing it to an interaction of users, tools, and data, wrongly shifts accountability to the tool instead of the humans who build and use them. Designers of these tools ought to be accountable for their decisions in building them. There are content moderation decisions already at work, such as the blurring or censorship of inappropriate images.

- Empower data consent. If users of a company’s tools or an open source model create a “dataset” of images by a particular human artist without permission, or include large numbers of an artist’s work in a larger dataset, then the designers of those tools or models should be held accountable. There is an obligation to provide clear assurance that consent has been obtained for the data used in training datasets: just as one would in any ethical research endeavor.

- Affirm data rights as well as copyrights. There are limits to copyright law, which has long been flawed and over-restrictive to creative reinterpretation – and assumes that the court system is equally accessible to everyone. Placing the focus on the users who create outputs with AI tools is akin to faulting drivers when a vehicle malfunctions. Individuals who make and share AI-generated work should not be afraid of prosecution if these tools infringe another artist’s copyright"

https://techpolicy.press/a-new-contract-for-artists-in-the-age-of-generative-ai/