A year ago, jaws were dropping around the world at the ease with which OpenAi’s Sora could create realistic-seeming video “from scratch”. Widely heralded as a black swan event for the movie industry, the introduction of Sora promised – and kept promsing – a revolution in video creation at scale. This week, OpenAI discontinued the Sora app, the company saying that it was going to pivot to using its tech “to help solve real-world, physical tasks” (Do you “solve” tasks?).

Disney had already entered a $1 billion partnership with Sora, with the plan of licensing some of its IP to OpenAI to allow users to create Disney-themed content of their own. It was the first studio to actually offer its material to an AI platform. But according to the BBC, since the Sora’s launch in 2024, the video creation tool has made a total of $1.4m in global net in-app revenue, raising the possibility that Gen AI video creation may not be the big money-maker people thought it might be.

This comes on the heels of Encyclopedia Britannica and its subsidiary Merriam-Webster’s suing of OpenAI in Manhattan federal ​court for allegedly misusing its content to train OpenAI models. Encyclopedia Britannica filed a similar lawsuit against Perplexity AI last year.

Britannica’s suit against OpenAI asserts:

The law does not permit OpenAI’s systematic disregard for the rights and intellectual property of Britannica and Merriam-Webster. By this action, Plaintiffs seek to hold OpenAI responsible for the substantial harm it is causing and illicit profits it is reaping by infringing on Plaintiffs’ copyrights and violating their trademark rights, and to protect the public’s continued access to high-quality and trustworthy online information.

UK Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

AI and the law also took center stage in the UK, with government publishing its Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence last week (download here). The report details the state of Gen AI and the creative industries, specifically as they apply to UK law. The report seemed to hedge its bets, avoiding black and white pronouncements, and recommending continuation of the status quo:

We must take the time needed to get this right. We will not introduce reforms to copyright law until we are confident that they will meet our objectives for the economy and UK citizens. This means protecting the UK’s position as a creative powerhouse, while unlocking the extraordinary potential of AI to grow the economy and improve lives. Any reform must ensure that right holders can be fairly rewarded
for the economic value their work creates, and that they are protected against unlawful and unfair use of their work. It must also ensure that AI developers can access high quality content. It is clear through the consultation and our subsequent engagement that there is no consensus on how these objectives should be achieved...

We have limited and uncertain evidence on the impact of copyright on the development and deployment of AI in the UK. We must continue to build this evidence base...

One positive outcome for creators and copyright holders was the rejection of a creator opt-out to protect copyrighted material from Gen AI training. The default, which had been the government’s preferred option, was that creators automatically agreed to models being trained on their work unless they deliberately opt out of such training. The government has now shut down that avenue. This would seem to bring it in line with other aspects of UK law, in which walking away with unattended items is counted as theft if there is no reasonable attempt to ascertain who owns them.

On the other side, the UK government will not enforce transparency on AI companies in how they create and train their models, instead opting for an industry led-approach to disclosure.

Concerns about digital replicas and deep fakes

Of particular interest in the report is the summary of consultation views from the public and different professional sectors around digital replicas. Some samples:

Several respondents, particularly within the creative industries, advocated for the implementation of legislative measures. There was no single view on what form the intervention should take, its scope or who should be liable when it is infringed. Suggested interventions included creating personality rights and specific digital replica rights and amending performers rights...

Equity, the UK’s performing arts and entertainment trade union, called for a new suite of IP rights for performers, including new image rights and updated performers’ rights and moral rights, to address specific issues performers are facing with an increase of AI-generated performances...

Some respondents suggested that the government should undertake further research on the impact of digital replicas as a first step. For example, Creative UK proposed that the Government should research the impact of digital replicas on creators…

Not all respondents thought legislative intervention was necessary. Producers from the TV and film industry and the tech industry generally thought the existing law provides sufficient control over voice and image in AI outputs…

While admitting that protecting copyright was essential, the government still went out of its way to emphasize that Gen AI is a pivotal technology in the creative industries going forward.

Image above courtesy of photoai.com