Meta
CEO
Mark
Zuckerberg
says
there
are
complex
copyright
questions
around
scraping
data
to
train
AI
models,
but
he
suggests
the
individual
work
of
most
creators
isn’t
valuable
enough
for
it
to
matter.
In
an
interview
with
The
Verge
deputy
editor
Alex
Heath,
Zuckerberg
said
Meta
will
likely
strike
“certain
partnerships”
for
useful
content.
But
if
others
demand
payment,
then
—
as
it’s
done
with
news
outlets
—
the
company
would
prefer
to
walk
away.
“I
think
individual
creators
or
publishers
tend
to
overestimate
the
value
of
their
specific
content
in
the
grand
scheme
of
this,”
Zuckerberg
said
in
the
interview,
which
coincides
with
Meta’s
annual
Connect
event.
“My
guess
is
that
there
are
going
to
be
certain
partnerships
that
get
made
when
content
is
really
important
and
valuable.”
But
if
creators
are
concerned
or
object,
“when
push
comes
to
shove,
if
they
demanded
that
we
don’t
use
their
content,
then
we
just
wouldn’t
use
their
content.
It’s
not
like
that’s
going
to
change
the
outcome
of
this
stuff
that
much.”
Meta,
like
nearly
every
major
AI
company,
is
currently
embroiled
in
litigation
over
the
limits
of
scraping
data
for
AI
training
without
permission.
Last
year,
the
company
was
sued
by
a
group
of
authors,
including
Sarah
Silverman,
who
claimed
its
Llama
model
was
unlawfully
trained
on
pirated
copies
of
their
work.
(The
case
currently
isn’t
going
great
for
those
authors;
last
week,
a
judge
castigated
their
legal
team
for
being
“either
unwilling
or
unable
to
litigate
properly.”)
The
company
— again,
like
nearly
every
major
AI
player
—
argues
that
this
kind
of
unapproved
scraping
should
be
allowed
under
US
fair
use
law.
Zuckerberg
elaborates
on
the
question:
I
think
that
in
any
new
medium
in
technology,
there
are
the
concepts
around
fair
use
and
where
the
boundary
is
between
what
you
have
control
over.
When
you
put
something
out
in
the
world,
to
what
degree
do
you
still
get
to
control
it
and
own
it
and
license
it?
I
think
that
all
these
things
are
basically
going
to
need
to
get
relitigated
and
rediscussed
in
the
AI
era.
The
history
of
copyright
is
indeed
a
history
of
deciding
what
control
people
have
over
their
own
published
works.
Fair
use
is
designed
to
let
people
transform
and
build
on
each
other’s
creations
without
permission
or
compensation,
and
that’s
very
frequently
a
good
thing.
That
said,
some
AI
developers
have
interpreted
it
far
more
broadly
than
most
courts.
Microsoft’s
AI
CEO,
for
instance,
said
earlier
this
year
that
anything
“on
the
open
web”
was
“freeware”
and
“anyone
can
copy
it,
recreate
with
it,
reproduce
with
it.”
(This
is
categorically
legally
false:
content
posted
publicly
online
is
no
less
protected
by
copyright
than
any
other
medium,
and
to
the
extent
you
can
copy
or
modify
it
under
fair
use,
you
can
also
copy
or
modify
a
book,
movie,
or
paywalled
article.)
While
the
issue
is
still
being
debated
in
lawsuits,
a
number
of
AI
companies
have
begun
paid
partnerships
with
major
outlets.
OpenAI,
for
instance,
has
struck
deals
with
several
news
publishers
and
other
companies
like
Shutterstock.
Meta
recently
signed
an
agreement
with
Universal
Music
Group
that
included
provisions
around
AI-generated
songs.
Meanwhile,
some
artists
have
turned
to
unofficial
tools
that
would
prevent
their
work
from
being
used
for
AI
training.
But
especially
for
anything
posted
on
social
media
before
the
rise
of
generative
AI,
they’re
sometimes
stymied
by
terms
of
service
that
let
these
companies
train
on
their
work.
Meta
has
stated
that
it
trains
its
AI
tools
on
public
Instagram
and
Facebook
posts.
Zuckerberg
said
Meta’s
future
AI
content
strategy
would
likely
echo
its
blunt
response
to
proposed
laws
that
would
add
a
fee
for
links
to
news
stories.
The
company
has
typically
responded
to
these
rules
by
blocking
news
outlets
in
countries
like
Australia
and
Canada.
“Look,
we’re
a
big
company,”
he
said.
“We
pay
for
content
when
it’s
valuable
to
people.
We’re
just
not
going
to
pay
for
content
when
it’s
not
valuable
to
people.
I
think
that
you’ll
probably
see
a
similar
dynamic
with
AI.”
We’ve
known
for
some
time
that
news
isn’t
particularly
valuable
to
Meta,
in
part
because
moderation
of
it
invites
controversy
and
(according
to
Meta)
it
makes
users
feel
bad.
(“If
we
were
actually
just
following
what
our
community
wants,
we’d
show
even
less
than
we’re
showing,”
Zuckerberg
said
in
the
interview.)
The
company’s
generative
AI
products
are
still
nascent,
and
it’s
not
clear
anyone
has
figured
out
what
people
want
from
these
tools.
But
whatever
it
is,
most
creators
probably
shouldn’t
expect
that
it
will
get
them
paid.
Sign
up
for
Command
Line,
a
paid
weekly
newsletter
from
Alex
Heath
about
the
tech
industry’s
inside
conversation.
Monthly
$7/month
A
flexible
plan
you
can
cancel
anytime.
Annual
$70/year
A
discounted
plan
to
keep
you
up
to
date
all
year.
Corporate
$60/person/year
Keep
your
team
informed
on
the
inside
conversation.
We
accept
credit
card,
Apple
Pay
and
Google
Pay.
Original author: Adi Robertson
Comments