Latest news with #IsThisWhatWeWant?
Express Tribune
10-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Express Tribune
Dua Lipa, Elton John and more rally against AI plans
400 British artists, including Dua Lipa, Elton John, and Ian McKellen, are uniting against AI. In a letter addressed to UK prime minister Keir Starmer, the musicians, writers, and other artists demanded for copyright laws to be updated in order to grant them protection against artificial intelligence, as per the BBC. The artists assert that a lack of protection would be equivalent to them "giving away" their work to tech firms. They also believe that this would put "the UK's position as a creative powerhouse" at risk. They have formally requested the prime minister to support an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would ensure transparency between developers and the copyright owners whose material would be used to train AI models. "We want our creative industries and AI companies to flourish, which is why we're consulting on a package of measures that we hope will work for both sectors," said a government spokesman. "We're clear that no changes will be considered unless we are completely satisfied they work for creators." 'AI needs us' Other signatories include author Kazuo Ishiguro, band Coldplay, singers Kate Bush and Robbie Williams, playwright David Hare, Tom Stoppard, and Richard Curtis. "We are wealth creators, we reflect and promote the national stories, we are the innovators of the future, and AI needs us as much as it needs energy and computer skills," the letter states. It also emphasises that the government can put their concerns to rest by backing Baroness Beeban Kidron's proposed amendment ahead of a key vote in the House of Lords. As cited, the amendment would "allow both AI developers and creators to develop licensing regimes that will allow for human-created content well into the future." The letter comes amid concerns about creative security plaguing the entertainment industry. In an interview with the BBC in January, The Beatles alum Paul McCartney stressed that AI puts artists' copyright under risk. Appealing to the government, he said, "We're the people, you're the government! You're supposed to protect us. That's your job. So you know, if you're putting through a bill, make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you're not going to have them." In protest of the government's proposed changes to the copyright law, which would allow developers to use content on the internet unless the relevant right-holding creators elect to "opt out", more than 1000 musicians including Annie Lennox and Damon Albarn released a silent album in February. Titled Is This What We Want?, the album hoped to draw attention to the proposal's impact on the livelihoods of artists in the UK music industry. "In the music of the future, will our voices go unheard?" Kate Bush said in a statement. Even the sphere of authors resists the unlicensed nature of the government's plans. Ishiguro pointed to an earlier statement, which read, "Why is it just and fair — why is it sensible — to alter our time-honoured copyright laws to advantage mammoth corporations at the expense of individual writers, musicians, filmmakers, and artists?" The Nobel Prize winner further hoped that since the government seemed to acknowledge the dissent sparked by the opt-out proposal, a renewed consultation with a fairer scheme would be possible. However, only time would tell if future consultations would prove meaningful. "It's essential that they get this right," he wrote. "It's vital we take the time to work through the range of responses to our consultation, but equally important that we put in the groundwork now as we consider the next steps," the government said in a statement. "That is why we have committed to publishing a report and economic impact assessment, exploring the broad range of issues and options on all sides of the debate."
Euronews
13-03-2025
- Business
- Euronews
French publishers and authors sue Meta over copyright works used in AI training
Three French trade groups are launching legal action against Meta over the company's widespread use of copyrighted works to train its generative AI model - all without authorization. ADVERTISEMENT French publishers and authors have stated that they're taking Meta to court, accusing the social media company of using their works without permission to train its artificial intelligence model. Three trade groups said on Wednesday they were launching legal action against Meta in a Paris court over what they said was the company's 'massive use of copyrighted works without authorization' to train its generative AI model. Meta has rolled out generative-AI powered chatbot assistants to users of its Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp platforms, and the National Publishing Union, which represents book publishers, has noted that "numerous works" from its members are turning up in Meta's data pool. Vincent Montagne, the president of the National Publishing Union, accused Meta of 'noncompliance with copyright and parasitism.' Another group, the National Union of Authors and Composers, which represents 700 writers, playwrights and composers, said the lawsuit was necessary to protect members from 'AI which plunders their works and cultural heritage to train itself." The union is also worried about AI that 'produces 'fake books' which compete with real books,' said Francois Peyrony, the union's president. The third group involved in the lawsuit, the Société des Gens de Lettres, represents authors. They all demand the 'complete removal' of data directories Meta created without authorization to to train its AI model. Under the European Union's sweeping Artificial Intelligence Act, generative AI systems must comply with the 27-nation bloc's copyright law and be transparent about the material they used for training. The 'Is This What We Want?' tracklist Is This What We Want? This is the latest example of the clash between the creative and publishing industries and tech companies over data and copyright. Last month, more than 1,000 British musicians - including Annie Lennox, Kate Bush and Damon Albarn - released a silent album to protest the UK government's proposed changes to artificial intelligence laws that artists fear will threaten their creative control. The silent album, titled 'Is This What We Want?' and featuring the sounds of empty studios and performance spaces, is designed to be a symbol of the impact these changes could have on musicians' livelihoods. The tracklist boldly spells out: "The British government must not legalise music theft to benefit AI companies."
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
I streamed the totally silent AI protest album on Spotify – and if you don't like AI stealing the voices of music icons, I think you should too
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. What do you get when you put Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, and Damon Albarn into a room? A silent, ambient music protest album, of course. On Tuesday February 25, over 1000 artists banded together in a moving protest against a UK government proposal that would allow AI developers to use copy-righted music from creative professionals to train algorithms and other AI models such as ChatGPT and Open AI - unless right holders choose to opt-out. Just when I thought the UK government couldn't get more whack, lo and behold, it just did. The protest album, titled Is This What We Want? is now available to stream on platforms like Spotify and Tidal. It is a 12-song project consisting of ambient sound recordings from inside empty recording studios and other performance spaces, intending to shed light on the possible impact the proposal will have on creative livelihoods and the UK music industry. It's believed that one of the songs was recorded at Kate Bush's studio, and she didn't hold back with providing comment on the matter, asking; 'in the music of the future, will our voices go unheard?'. The icon has spoken. Is This What We Want? is just one of the many concerned reactions to the new proposal that has since sparked the wider Make It Fair campaign, acting as a means of protest, raising public awareness, and tackling legalized content theft. Since the inception of the campaign, it has enlisted the support of several more figures within British music including Ed Sheeran, Radiohead's Ed O'Brien, and Billy Ocean, as well as creative professionals outside of the music industry. Some of these names include film and stage producer Barbara Broccoli and national treasure Stephen Fry. Fry, like Kate Bush, has expressed his concerns: 'You don't promote growth in a garden by allowing all the pests to feast on the fruit and flowers, and you don't promote growth in an economy by allowing all the AIs to feast on the fruits of our creators'. It's difficult for me to write this, but it feels like we are witnessing a cultural genocide in the UK, where the looters and destroyers of artists' works are not human. They are, however, being aided by humans. Silent albums and I have a bit of a tumultuous relationship (if you've listened to Ethel Cain's most recent LP, you'll know what I'm talking about), but after streaming Is This What We Want? on Spotify, I've found a whole new appreciation for the art of the ambient album. Turns out, they're not just there to help you fall asleep at night. It goes without saying that the first thing that jumps out when listening to Is This What We Want? is the album's hollowness and static-like frequencies that, when put into the context of the government's proposal, paint a rather harrowing picture of the music industry's future. Especially if you have a set of the best earbuds or even better a good set of headphones (I use the Sony WH-1000XM5 noise-cancelling headphones), the album does a solid job of bringing the most otherwise-mundane sounds to the surface, be that the soft meow of a studio cat, the slow dragging of a chair across the floor, or the deep sigh of someone sat at a desk in clear disappointment. One of the better parts of the protest album is that it doubles as a fundraising opportunity, so from wherever you choose to stream Is This What We Want? profits will be donated to the charity Help Musicians, even though Spotify's reputation for artist royalties speaks for itself. It gives a whole new definition to the saying 'silence speaks volumes'. I'm a working musician, and as Spotify says it's not to blame for how little artists make from streaming, here's how you can really support your favorite bands Forget Spotify – I'm going all-in on Bandcamp for music in 2025, here's why you should too Spotify HiFi: release date rumors, price predictions, and everything we know so far
New European
05-03-2025
- Entertainment
- New European
Everyday Philosophy: John Cage and the sound of silence
'Performed' is a controversial word here, but Cage was clear that this wasn't purely a conceptual piece and gave instructions that it should be played (or rather not played) on any combination of instruments. The composition has three short movements of different lengths. Each performance of 4'33'' is different because of the different ambient sounds caused by different acoustics, different musicians, a different audience, and different noises coming from outside the performance space. In 1952 the avant-garde composer John Cage premiered 4'33' – perhaps the most philosophical of compositions. Consisting of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, or rather of the ambient sound that can be heard while the piece is being performed, it is by far his most famous work. There's a choice of live performances of 4'33' available on Spotify, and they vary considerably. As of last week you can also download Is This What We Want?, a whole album of recorded ambient silence in the style of Cage. Its tracks are labelled 'The' 'British' 'Government' 'Must' 'Not' 'Legalise' 'Music' 'Theft' 'To' 'Benefit' 'AI' 'Companies'. Unlike 4'33', which was influenced by Cage's interest in Zen, Is This What We Want? is a protest album. It was released by a collective called The 1000 Artists: over 1,000 musicians and groups, including Annie Lennox, Damon Albarn, and Kate Bush, objecting to proposed changes to copyright law which would give AI companies far greater freedom to use other people's music in training their algorithms without paying them royalties or acknowledging the source. Although there's a proposal for musicians to be allowed to opt out of their work being exploited in this way, that doesn't seem like a strong protection. The tracks of Is This What We Want? were recorded in empty studios and other performance spaces to underline the consequences for musicians of allowing AI companies this kind of freedom. Somewhat ironically, there is no mention of John Cage as the inspiration. But he surely is. It's worth noting that Cage's publishers Peters Editions have previously argued that some kinds of silence can be copyrighted. Perhaps they will again. Back in 2002 they lodged a claim for royalties against Mike Batt (he of the Wombles theme tune) after he'd included his own A One Minute Silence on an album that topped the classic charts in 2002, and cheekily credited it to Batt/Cage. Reports at the time suggested that Batt had settled out of court for this joke by paying the Cage estate a six-figure sum. But the composer, who declared that his own piece was much better than Cage's because he'd managed to say in one minute what took Cage over four, later revealed that he'd turned an optimistic copyright claim into a publicity stunt and had paid just £1,000 to the John Cage Trust as a gesture of respect to Cage. Peters Editions did, however, make the point that they believed the concept of a silent piece is 'a valuable artistic concept in which there is a copyright'. Batt's use of Cage's name in the credits, however, was probably what tipped them over into calling their lawyers. The 1000 Artists are certainly right that musicians' livelihoods would be threatened by any loosening of copyright laws. From the AI companies' perspective, they are simply resisting the direction of travel of history. For them, UK copyright law is an obstacle that is preventing creative use of AI in a post-ChatGPT world. Perhaps whoever came up with the idea of bypassing current copyright restrictions thought it would unleash a new version of Cool Britannia, but it's not obvious that a love of music is driving them. Making it all but impossible for composers and musicians to earn a living from their creativity doesn't sound like progress. AI might be transforming how music is made, but we shouldn't let it destroy the human world of music-making overnight. Copyright is always a compromise. It's a way of striking a balance between creators' and users' interests and providing legal redress against piracy and other unfair exploitation of intellectual and artistic contributions. Sometimes it serves the publishers of creative work better than it does the creators. It is constantly in flux and under challenge. New technologies prompt new laws. AI is, by its nature, parasitic on content, but that doesn't mean that we should make it easy for it
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
U.K. lawmakers back artists' protest against government plans to allow AI copyright exemption
Key lawmakers in the U.K. have added their voices to a pushback against government plans that would allow AI companies to train their models on creative works without asking permission. The government proposed a new copyright exemption for AI companies in mid-December. The consultation on the proposal caused waves of concern across the country's creative industries, which account for over 5% of the British economy. The sector's campaign against the exemption went into overdrive ahead of the consultation's closure on Tuesday. All of the U.K.'s major newspapers carried identical covers protesting against the change on Tuesday morning, while musicians such as Kate Bush, Damon Albarn, and Annie Lennox released an album featuring recordings of empty music studios and performance spaces, titled Is This What We Want? On Wednesday, Parliament's culture and technology committees released a joint recommendation to the Labour government, urging it not to introduce the exemption at this point. 'The groundswell of concern from across the creative industries to the government's proposals illustrates the scale of the threat artists face from artificial intelligence pilfering the fruits of their hard-earned success without permission,' Caroline Dinenage, chair of the culture committee, said. 'The government should not introduce an 'opt-out' approach to the use of creative works for AI training, where all works are fair game unless creators say so, given that the technical measures to enforce these opt-outs do not yet exist,' she said. Dinenage also called for 'much tougher requirements on transparency of the data being used to train AI models, so creators will know without ambiguity where they need to be remunerated for the use of their works.' What the U.K. does now is unlikely to affect AI models that have already been released: The big AI companies are widely believed to have hoovered up everything they could find on the public internet to train those models, without asking permission, and the models cannot now unlearn what they have absorbed. There are several lawsuits alleging copyright infringement pending in the U.S. against the AI companies that have created those models, but the outcome of those cases remains unclear. That said, the AI industry is still in its infancy with many models yet to be released. There are also global uncertainties around the legality of the AI companies' tactics. So the U.K.'s choices now could prove influential in the future, and possibly beyond the country's borders. The U.K. government is also keen to position itself as a potential hub for the development of AI models and attract inward investment from technology companies working on AI as well as to encourage the growth of AI startups launched in the U.K. It had hoped that having a copyright regime that made it easier to legally obtain data for training models might be a key element that would attract this sort of investment. And, in fact, a government-commissioned AI Opportunities Action Plan suggested that 'copyright cleared' government-owned datasets be made available for AI training. The parliamentary technology and culture committee chairs noted in a letter to the government that they had invited Google and OpenAI to appear at an evidence-gathering session, but the companies refused on the basis that the consultation was still ongoing. 'We chose not to press them, in part because we wanted to focus on arranging a productive session, and in part because the position of leading developers on the issue of copyright is clear,' they wrote. 'Nonetheless, it is disappointing that they chose to decline our invitation. This stance is all too familiar to our committees, which share an interest in furthering the public's understanding of how global companies develop, operate, and deploy their products, taking decisions that affect us all.' The film director and lawmaker Beeban Kidron, who is a member of the British House of Lords and who has taken a leading role in the industry's campaign, told Fortune on Wednesday that whatever ideas get taken up must 'start with acknowledging that those that create work, whether individually, in groups, or in companies, have invested their money, time, and talent to do so, and as such own it.' The Guardian reported that the government may partially back down on its plan, with one unnamed source saying: 'There are ways to protect certain sectors which are particularly important, and to make sure big U.S. technology giants are not getting all the benefit.' In a statement to Fortune, a spokesperson for the government's Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology said that 'no decisions will be taken until we are absolutely confident we have a practical plan that delivers each of our objectives, including increased control for right-holders to help them easily license their content, enabling lawful access to material to train world-leading AI models in the U.K., and building greater transparency over material being used.' This story was originally featured on
