Forum: Creators seek to keep existing rights, not gain new ones

I disagree with Ben Chester Cheong’s commentary, “The risk of overprotecting human content creators” (Sept 30).

Creators are not asking for new or stronger rights in the age of artificial intelligence. We ask only that the rights we already hold be maintained. Insisting that one’s work not be copied without permission is not overprotection. It is the basic premise of copyright.

The commentary also overlooks where generative AI gets its abilities. These models learn from vast bodies of newspapers, books, music, images and recordings created by humans, much of these scraped without consent or payment. Without human creators, there would be no generative AI.

The Google Books comparison does not hold. That case turned on the fact that users saw only limited extracts that could not replace the original. Generative AI does the opposite: It produces songs, images and text that compete directly with the works it was trained on.

Singapore’s computational data analysis exception was meant to support research and innovation. It was not meant to let commercial developers use works free of charge to build products that substitute for them. That is why the Government’s review of whether the exception still strikes the right balance is timely.

Nor is the concern about higher costs for AI developers persuasive. Paying for raw material is a normal cost of business, and AI developers are among the world’s best-funded companies. Collective management organisations already license vast repertoires and can do the same for AI training.

I agree with the writer that works generated largely by AI should not automatically enjoy copyright. As well, AI should not automatically deprive someone of copyright, just as using sophisticated cameras or digital production tools does not. But copyright protection should depend on substantial and identifiable human creative contribution. Merely entering a simple prompt and accepting an autonomously generated result should not be enough.

But “meaningful human creative control” is too vague a test, and the writer himself calls for clear guidance. I suggest that copyright be granted only where a human contributes at least 75% of the originality of the work. AI should be a tool that expands human creativity, not a reason to reduce the value or protection of human creativity.

Edmund Lam
Chief Executive Officer
Composers and Authors Society of Singapore