Summary of conference
How AI is deeply changing the artistic, cultural creative and media sectors ?
Hosted by MEP Daniela Rondinelli
organised by Eurovisioni, in Brussels
European Parliament , 14th February 2024
Our member, the Italian coalition Eurovisioni organised a debate in the European Parliament on the impact of A.I for cultural, creative and media sector. Moderated by Giacomo Mazzone, the panel had four MEPs present, the Commission and seven panellists.
Through the voice of our Chair, Carole Tongue, ECCD was represented in person. Her speech was applauded loudly by the participants, she highlighted the necessity to
- implement transparency principles for generative A.I,
- not use the TDM exceptions enshrined in the 2019 Copyright directive as they are not practicable and turn copyright on their head against creator rights holders
- Avoid AI companies getting their raw materials for free from creators. Therefore there must be fair remuneration through licensing or other methods
- More transparency of algorithms needed for both users and creators
She urged the Commission to reflect on a new model (potentially licensing) and a legislative proposal specifically addressing the impact of A.I for culture. Strong collective bargaining for creative workers also necessity to avoid actors/artists having to give away image rights.
MEP Brando Benifei (S&D, Italy, rapporteur IA ACT) was very pleased with the progress in the AI Act made in terms of transparency and called on the players in the sector to continue to work towards the proper implementation of the regulation, particularly in the summary of training data. He looked forward to getting details on how the AI office in the Commission would operate.
MEPDaniela Rondinelli (S&D, Italy) called for more synergies between DG Connect and DG EAC going towards future elections. Said that work on the AI Act would continue after the European elections.
MEP Domenec Ruiz Devesa (S&D, Spain, rapporteur report on status of the artist for CULT) presented his report, which addresses Generative AI and called for protection of creators. He called for the Commission to answer the proposal from the Parliament in the report to draw up a draft directive on working conditions.
MEP Antonius Manders (EPP, Netherlands, rapporteur report on status of the artist for EMPL) insisted on the fact that AI is not creative but copying and that our creators must be granted strong copyright protection.
UNESCO’s Secretary General of the Convention 2005, Toussaint Tiendrebeogo presented the relevant Unesco’s initiatives on the Status of the Artist and the Ethics of AI, recalled the essential role of CCSs for Unesco and announced that a study on the consultation on the status of the artist would be presented to the Intergovernmental Committee at the end of the month.
The Commission, represented by Judith Videcoq, Head of Unit DG EAC and Creative Europe extolled the virtues of all the Commission had done: DSA package; 2019 directive; AI Act and now a Commission study into the impact of algorithms so as to better promote EU content in the future. She outlined all the Creative Europe budget, Horizon funds and Recovery and Resilience funds that can be used for culture and digital priorities. Cloud for Cultural Heritage being developed. She seemed to confirm, between the lines, that the response to the Parliament’s call for a directive on the working conditions of creators could be negative. A letter is expected at the end of the month. She presented the Commission’s initiatives to create clusters dedicated to culture and renewed the Commission’s will to secure fair remuneration for creators. She apologised for DG Connect’s absence.
France TV, Eric Scherer, Info Media Lab Director:
Called to put end to data scraping from media organisations, and pointed that the opt-out in the AI Act is not enough. The exception in Article 3 could be used as a decoy because all the big tech companies now have a research foundation and can pretend to the exception enshrined in article 3.
AI companies do not :
- Respect for the work of publishers:
- Indicate (in their role as search engines) the sources of the content they generate which they propose to users
- Amplify Disinformation
- Do not provide transparency
What do we do if nothing tomorrow in the news will be credible ?
Why disinformation is not in the AI Act `? Open AI is not in the DSA
There is no mention in AI of disinformation risk ..why ?
Publishers need the cooperation of platforms on disinformation in particular
FRTV wants to negotiate licences on the conditions of use of its content by generative AI, and to guarantee its traceability.
How else can we protect journalists and their revenues ?
What about unauthorised data scraping ?
New generative AI doesn’t respect publisher contents
We’re inventing media of tomorrow without our consent using our content
3 main requests:
- Platforms have to ask our permission
- Negotiate outputs of Generative AI
- Help us to trace the use of AI
UNI Europa trades union, Olivier Roethig, Regional Secretary
How do we have a say in how it operates ? How are the huge profits from AI to be fairly shared ? Every sector will be hit. White collar workers will lose their jobs. Can’t force writers to use AI. Collective bargaining must kick in. Unions will try to use the American TUs example. Culture of social partnership essential. Must keep workers’ rights separate from AI Act. AI is not transparent. Calls for a fair sharing of value while negotiating with the social partners.
Proposes a directive on platforms that deals with collective bargaining.
European Federation of Journalist, Renate Schroeder, Director General, warned about the power and potential for abuse by the platforms. She wondered whether the AI developments would be the last nail in the media coffin ? She called for transparency requirements regarding generative A.I.s, She warned about the replacement of professionals in journalism (Axel Springer fired over 200 journalists, editors and chief editors). There is no replacement for human performance of journalists. AI should remain a tool and its development and integration shall be watched carefully.
Antonio Arcidiacono, Director of Technology and Innovation of EBU
Addressing creators and creative workers directly he said: we must join forces in the face of tech giants. We must defend yourselves and not be fragmented. Look for the advantages and the new jobs. Media will change and there will be a need for new trusted partners as intermediaries between people and the AI companies.
Above all we must educate new generations and give them the critical analysis skills necessary. Start with 7-11 year olds and involve necessarily their parents in this. Public service will become even more important with the role to inform. educate and entertain. We need EBU members to act urgently on all of this.
ILO participated to the event providing a compilation of statistics about creative and media jobs in Europe with some simulation about the possible impact of A.I. on these professions (see attachment).
During the debate that followed the presentations intervened the Secretary General of FIA (International Federation of Actors), that denounced that already the new contracts offered to the members of its federation by the big production companies often includes the cession of the image rights of the actor in perpetuity. A clause that only few of the most famous actors could refuse, but most of the young ones are obliged to accept. The representative of the professional interpreters complained that already the category she represented is losing job opportunities because many events are replacing them with automatic translations tools. The representative of the FEP (European publishers) raised the issue of a potential loophole in the A.I. Act, because some A.I. big companies are training their machines using the books accessible through the public libraries and invited the MEPs to have a close eye on these kinds of ways to bypass the new EU rules….