Creators across the world are being urged to sign a new declaration on creativity and AI which was adopted in Paris earlier today during the General Assembly of CISAC, the global grouping of collecting societies that represent songwriters, composers and other creators.
Called The Paris Commitment, the declaration says that, “at a time when rapid advancements in AI risk undermining the value of creative work, we affirm a shared responsibility: human creativity must be protected, respected and sustained as a defining force of expression, culture, identity and progress”.
AI was the big topic during this year’s General Assembly, which is unsurprising given all the debates around copyright and AI remain pretty much unresolved, even as generative AI models become more sophisticated, more lucrative and more widely used. And the collecting societies that make up the CISAC membership - and the creators they represent - want policymakers to more urgently address these issues.
In his opening address, CISAC President Björn Ulvaeus admitted he uses AI as part of his creative process, and conceded that generative AI can, or at least will, generate music - and other creative works - that match human-created work in terms of structure and even emotion.
“In a recent study”, he said, “AI-generated music triggered stronger emotional responses than human-composed music. Participants described the AI music as more exciting, even if human music felt more familiar. More exciting. In a blind test, the machine wins”.
However, he continued - more optimistically and somewhat philosophically - “human creativity is not just expression, it is testimony, a life lived. That is what art has always been. Not decoration. Testimony”.
Expanding on that theme, he observed, “AI can read every love poem ever written and describe the feeling of love more eloquently than any poet. But these are still just words. It’s the map, not the territory. The symbol, not the thing”.
“We can only hope”, he added, “that humans will continue to care about the territory - even if the map becomes extraordinarily beautiful. And if we do believe that - as I do - then this is no longer only a philosophical question. It becomes a political one. And a legal one”.
Which brings us back to those debates around copyright and AI. Do AI companies need permission before using existing works to train their models? Should AI generated works enjoy copyright protection?
And if AI companies do negotiate licensing deals with the music industry, who are the deal-makers, how do those deals work, and how do individual artists and songwriters get paid?
Of course, many AI companies argue they don’t need permission to use existing works, relying in the US on the argument AI training is ‘fair use’, meaning no permission is required. That argument is being tested in multiple lawsuits in the US courts, including the one between the music industry and Suno.
“In a Massachusetts courtroom this summer”, Ulvaeus went on, “a judge will rule on whether Suno’s use was fair. If Suno wins, every licensing deal in the AI music space collapses. If it loses, licensing becomes the law of the land. A historic fork in the road and we are standing at it now”.
“Does the source of art matter?” he then asked, before adding, “I believe it does, not because humans can arrange sounds more cleverly, but because we arrange them having lived”.
And if you agree with Ulvaeus that - therefore - human creativity does indeed matter, music creators need policymakers around the world, and the wider music industry, to answer those copyright questions and address those issues in a way that protects human creativity.
Referencing the fact CISAC is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, Ulvaeus concluded.“People like us in this room have spent a century insisting - in legal and practical terms - that the person behind the work is real, identifiable and owed something. That insistence has never been more important. And it has never been more tested”.
Seeking to achieve those protections for human creators, The Paris Commitment sets out four key principles - four objectives that signatories of the statement want policymakers and the wider industry to recognise and deliver…
- the protection of human creativity and cultural diversity.
- transparency, licensing and fair remuneration in AI systems.
- the importance of collective management in sustaining creative ecosystems.
- the need for governments and policymakers to safeguard creators’ rights and cultural expression.