‘The AI Doc’ Director Blasts AI Firms for Appropriating Artists’ Intellectual Property
For years, AI companies have relied on artists’ copyright-protected work to train their models, often without permission or compensation. Training data is the essential ingredient that fuels the creation of new AI models. In this landscape, companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, Meta, and Google are exploring vast areas of the internet and our shared cultural heritage for valuable data.
When I spoke to Daniel Roher, the Oscar-winning co-director of The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist, he shared a candid message for tech leaders claiming ownership over protected work.
In our discussions about the AI copyright issue, I recalled a conversation with a CEO from a prominent AI video company who stated that training qualifies as fair use. Roher had a straightforward reaction to this perspective.
He remarked, “The individual with a financial stake in the matter believes he can train his model on whatever he chooses?” Roher likened this attitude to a tobacco company executive asserting that smoking is beneficial. “My response would be, ‘Let’s take another look at that.’”
AI companies often present various justifications for their use of copyrighted material without remuneration. These include arguments about the cost of compensating individual rights holders, references to competing Chinese companies, and claims regarding fair use. Currently, numerous lawsuits from authors, musicians, journalists, and entertainment giants like Disney are addressing these fair use questions, insisting that AI companies should adhere to copyright law just like anyone else.
Last year, the U.S. Copyright Office published a report suggesting that training may not fall under fair use, although this conclusion is not legally binding. Early court rulings have leaned in favor of AI companies, with Big Tech advancing its “move fast, break things” approach. Traditionally, the philosophy of “ask for forgiveness, not permission” seems to apply, but often, AI companies bypass both.
In our conversation, I inquired whether the David versus Goliath struggle regarding AI copyright seemed futile. Roher reassured me, stating, “Language like ‘the battle’s already been lost’? Just take a breath. The battle is still very much ongoing. This represents a unique challenge of advanced technology arriving in a time governed by centuries-old legislative processes. While legal proceedings can be lengthy, the future of this intellectual property contention remains open.”
Roher encouraged those interested in artificial intelligence to stand against overreach from major tech companies. “So yes, when tech CEOs assert their power, the response should be clear. There is still a fight worth having, and I commend media outlets like the Hotnchill News for advocating for creators and engaging in this crucial public effort.”
Following the completion of The AI Doc, producer Ted Tremper, along with others, founded the Creators Coalition on AI to advocate for artists’ rights. As more creators take legal action, some AI companies have begun to establish agreements with major intellectual property holders like Disney and Universal Music Group. However, Tremper suggests that this trend may not be entirely beneficial.
“What’s happening is these companies are negotiating with those who have the most powerful legal teams. This suggests a two-tiered system is emerging, where larger corporations have the resources to protect their innovations, while individual creators’ contributions remain vulnerable.”
Tremper highlighted the challenges posed by Big Tech companies that harvest vast amounts of content—including books, movies, and TV shows—at scale. “The premise that a machine, designed to replicate vast amounts of human knowledge and labor, falls within reasonable fair use is difficult to accept.”
While the courts still have much to determine, both artists and AI companies are preparing for a legal landscape that could shape the future of AI development.
