I don't want a US tech bro as a patron - which is why artists must defend our copyright in the age of AI | Anna Funder

2026-07-06 · Source: AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian · Field: Legal & Regulatory — Intellectual Property & Patents, Regulatory Affairs & Government Relations · Depth: Fundamental Awareness, medium

Summary

Anna Funder, an author, highlights the widespread ingestion of copyrighted creative works, including her books, by AI companies without consent or payment. She details how US tech giants, valuing high-quality text as "special sauce," scraped the internet and even pirated books or physically scanned them to train large language models. These companies are lobbying governments, including Australia's, to introduce "text and data mining exemptions" or compulsory acquisition schemes to legalize their use of creative content for free. Funder notes a US\$1.5bn settlement in Bartz v Anthropic, where she received US\$3,000 for one stolen edition, but argues legal action is insufficient. She emphasizes that copyright, existing for 316 years since the 1710 Statute of Anne, is fundamental to artists' independence and democratic values, asserting that negotiation for licensing is feasible.

Key takeaway

For policymakers considering AI regulation and copyright reform, recognize that current "text and data mining exemptions" or compulsory acquisition proposals undermine established intellectual property rights. Your decisions must uphold creators' ability to license their work, mirroring existing industry practices for fair compensation. Prioritize frameworks that facilitate direct negotiation between AI developers and rights holders, rather than expropriating creative assets.

Key insights

AI companies are ingesting copyrighted works without consent, prompting legal battles and lobbying efforts against creators' property rights.

Principles

• Copyright is fundamental to creative independence and democratic values.
• Creative works are individual property, not collective "ore" for mining.
• Negotiation for intellectual property licensing is a standard industry practice.

In practice

• Creatives can form groups to lobby governments for copyright protection.
• Authors can pursue legal action for copyright infringement, though it may be limited.
• Publishers and collecting societies can facilitate licensing negotiations for AI use.

Topics

• AI Copyright Infringement
• Intellectual Property Law
• Text and Data Mining
• AI Model Training
• Creative Economy
• Government Lobbying

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, Legal Professional, Policy Maker, Domain Expert

Related on AIssential

• Intellectual Property vs. Machine Learning: Data Ownership and AI Models in the Age of Litigation — AI's reliance on vast datasets without clear consent creates profound, unresolved intellectual property and ownership disputes.
• ‘This is fine’ creator says AI startup stole his art — Unauthorized commercial use of meme-able art by AI companies sparks artist outrage and potential legal action.
• Why Europe's latest Meta ruling matters: International approaches to AI legislation are diverging. — Europe and the US are diverging on AI legislation, particularly regarding platform compensation for content extraction.
• Dave Eggers: ‘Once you have a machine think and write for you, you’re cooked as a species’ — Human creativity, rooted in unique individual thought, is fundamentally incompatible with and threatened by AI generation.
• ‘It will never cover what’s authentic’: African music industry weighs up AI risks and rewards — AI offers music industry tools but cannot replace human authenticity, especially in vulnerable markets.
• Industry welcomes rethink as UK drops preferred AI copyright plan - Research Information — The UK government dropped its preferred AI copyright exception, prioritizing fair licensing and creator protection.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian.