Negotiations over artificial intelligence piracy collapse as deal deadline to be missed again

The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for allegedly using its articles to train chatbots without permission and payment. Photo: ANGELA WEISS/AFP < p>One creative industry side said tech companies had committed the “original sin” of training AI systems to do copyrighted work, according to a source familiar with the debate.

As the summer deadline passed, the IPO said it expected to reach an agreement by the end of 2023, but the deadline has now slipped. It is believed that a draft agreement was circulated but neither party agreed to it.

The IPO declined to give a new deadline or commit to a deal that would eventually be agreed.

< p>The spokesperson said: “Members of our Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Working Group have been actively involved, and we are grateful for their contributions.”

“It would be inappropriate for us to comment on individual views or the final outcome at this stage.”

Viscount Camrose, the government's minister for artificial intelligence, acknowledged in recent appearances to a House of Lords committee that new laws may be needed to resolve the issue .

He said: “If, unfortunately, it turns out that there is no landing zone that all parties agree to, we will have to look at other means, which may include legislation, but I really hope that we won’t have to go there.”

Any legislative process is likely to be difficult as the government is keen not to oppose AI or creative companies, which are seen as key growth industries.

Dr Joe Twist, chief executive of music body BPI, said: «The success of leading The UK's global creative industries are underpinned by a robust set of intellectual property rights that make it clear that taking the work of creators without permission or paying them to train artificial intelligence models is neither fair nor legal.

“Some companies involved in artificial intelligence are trying to circumvent these rules to build their businesses, treating human creativity as food, without seeking consent or compensation from creative rights holders.

“It is vital that our political leaders support our creative industry, the fastest growing sector of the UK economy, and supported the underlying legal framework.»