Well, to be clear (again) this is not about the European Union\u2019s AI regulation itself, but rather the implementation of it in the EU\u2019s member countries. It\u2019s not going as the creative industries hoped.<\/p>\n
Their latest protest came in the form of a joint statement from industry bodies<\/a> including Cisac, ECSA, EMMA, ICMP, the IFPI, Impala and IMPF from the music world, as well as their counterparts from other creative industries.<\/p>\n \u201cWe wish to formally express our dissatisfaction with the published GPAI Code of Practice, the GPAI Guidelines, and the Template for disclosure of a sufficiently detailed summary of training data under Article 53 of the EU AI Act,\u201d is their complaint\u00a0\u2013 these being the latest \u2018General Purpose\u2019 documentation for the regulations governing AI companies under the Act.<\/p>\n \u201cDespite the extensive, highly detailed and good-faith engagements by rightsholder communities throughout this process, the final outcomes fail to address the core concerns which our sectors \u2013 and the millions of creators and companies active in Europe which we represent \u2013 have consistently raised,\u201d they continued.<\/p>\n \u201cThe result is not a balanced compromise; it is a missed opportunity to provide meaningful protection of intellectual property rights in the context of GenAI and does not deliver on the promise of the EU AI Act itself.\u201d<\/p>\n So what now? The rightsholder bodies want the European Commission to \u201crevisit the implementation package and enforce Article 53 in a meaningful way\u201d. And it also wants the European Parliament and EU member countries to \u201cchallenge the unsatisfactory process of this exercise\u201d.<\/p>\n Will they? And if they do not, what will the creative industries do? These are the key questions around a piece of legislation that, when it was originally passed, was welcomed by the creative industries<\/a>.<\/p>\n