WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators and Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) held a hearing today focused on the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law.
The hearing, entitled “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property — Part II: Copyright,” welcomed creators and experts on the topics of intellectual property and artificial intelligence to discuss how AI companies are using copyrighted works to train AI models; whether using that copyrighted content for training constitutes infringement; whether AI-generated creations should be eligible for copyright protection; and whether changes to the laws may be needed to address AI-related creation.
At the hearing, Senator Coons discussed how policy should incentivize AI innovations and creations while also respecting creators’ rights and work. He also raised proposals, including a federal right of publicity, to establish U.S. policy leadership while maintaining a strong creative sector.
In his opening remarks, Senator Coons also premiered “AI, AI,” a song parodying “New York, New York,” that was entirely written and created by generative AI programs to demonstrate the opportunities and challenges AI can pose for creators.
For information on the first IP subcommittee hearing on AI entitled “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property — Part I: Patents, Innovation, and Competition,” click here.
A video and transcript of Senator Coons’ opening remarks are available below.
WATCH HERE
Senator Chris Coons: This hearing will come to order. I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for participating today, and I'd like to especially thank my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Thom Tillis, and his staff for working with us on such a collaborative basis to put this hearing together. Welcome back from Vilnius. Senator Tillis was over at the NATO Summit, and I'm thrilled he's able to join us, and we're able to do this hearing today. This is our second hearing in as many months on the intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law and policy. You and your team have been great partners in pursuing this. If you will indulge me for a moment, senator, before I proceed with my remarks, I'd like to ask that we play just a little clip of something to frame the challenges of this topic. Made with the permission of all the relevant rights holders:
“Start spreading the news
AI's got something to say.
It’s coding it its own way
learning the rules today.
These digital minds
they're making the headlines
creating new sounds and rhymes
in a world where tech combines
AI, AI…”
Thank you for your forbearance. Yes, a round of applause is certainly welcome.
My team actually produced a version of that where it is a duet between me and Frank Sinatra, but my voice came out so horribly flat; I didn't want to impose that on any of you.
Creating the song “AI, AI” to the tune of “New York, New York” was great fun, and I appreciate my team that worked so hard in pulling that off, but the very existence of it highlights a couple of the core questions around copyright raised by generative artificial intelligence. ChatGPT wrote the lyrics following the style of “New York, New York,” although perhaps not quite as moving and inspiring as the original words, to any but IP enthusiasts. Another generative AI tool was used to take Mr. Sinatra's recorded songs, and his voice, and his phrasing, and his style, and set that to music. So, a couple of those core questions: Did ChatGPT infringe the copyright on “New York, New York” when it drafted lyrics representing its lyrical style? What about the AI tool that set those lyrics to music? Did either that tool or did I run afoul of Mr. Sinatra's rights by mimicking his voice? In my case: no, because we got specific approval. Or did I just use AI tools to enhance my own creativity? And if so, should this newly created song be entitled to copyright protection?
These are just a few of the questions I hope we'll explore with our panel of talented and insightful witnesses as we consider the impact of artificial intelligence on copyright law and policy and the creative community. As we all know, AI is rapidly developing. Generative AI tools have brought many new people into the creative fold and have opened new avenues for innovation. People who may not have ever considered themselves creatives are now using these tools to produce new works of art. Artists themselves have used AI tools to enhance their own creativity. Paul McCartney recently made headlines, announcing that AI helped create the very last Beatles song 50 years after the band broke up.
As I previewed, AI creates new copyright law issues, including whether using copyrighted content to train AI models is copyright infringement, whether AI generated content should be given copyright protection, and many more. These questions are working their way through the courts. How the courts decide them and the decisions we make here in the Senate and in Congress about how to respect and reinforce existing copyright protections and works will have significant consequences, not just for the creative community, but our overall competitiveness as a country.
While generative AI models are trained on copyrighted content, IP considerations haven't been included or sufficiently considered in proposed IP regulatory frameworks here in the U.S. In contrast, some of our competitors recognize IP policy as an important tool. The EU is currently planning to require AI companies to publish the copyrighted materials used in training models. The UK provides copyright protection for computer generated works. These are just some initial concerns, and I think there are initial steps that we can take to ensure sustained U.S. leadership on artificial intelligence.
First, it's critical to include IP considerations in any regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, and to give our copyright office – and this framework – a seat at the table. We should also consider whether changes to our copyright laws or whole new protections, like a federal right of publicity, may be necessary to strike the right balance between creators’ rights and AI's ability to enhance innovation and creativity. I'm excited to explore these issues today. We've got a great panel, and a great partner, and great members of the committee. With Senator Tillis' cooperation, we've assembled this wonderful panel. I'll introduce them shortly, but first I'll turn it over to my ranking member, Senator Thom Tillis.