AI, Copyright & Creativity: A Real Talk
I watched the open letter from Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa circulate like holy writ last week—demanding AI companies disclose every copyrighted work used to train their models.
"Darling, if I had to list every song that ever seeped into my subconscious before writing a melody, I’d still be drafting the footnotes for my 1997 B-side."
Over 400 artists signed a manifesto demanding retroactive transparency and payment. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: this isn’t about protecting art. It’s about preserving artificial scarcity in a digital age.
Why the UK’s "Opt-Out" Approach Is Brutally Pragmatic
Last week, the UK House of Commons rejected Baroness Kidron’s "transparency amendment." Tech Secretary Peter Kyle said forcing AI and creatives into a cage match is "unnecessarily divisive".
- "Theft" implies deprivation: If AI learns patterns, the original work still exists.
- Opt-in is a fantasy: Requiring licenses for every piece of training data would kill innovation.
- Creativity is remix culture: McCartney built "Yesterday" on borrowed chords. Hip-hop did it first.
The Real Villain Isn’t AI—It’s the Platforms
AI didn’t create this economy—it exposed it:
- Spotify pays $0.003 per stream
- TikTok’s creator fund is a rounding error
- Instagram is full of AI-generated art
The real issue isn’t training—it’s creators not getting paid fairly for the output.
The Irony of "Protecting Creativity" by Clinging to Copyright
- Copyright was designed to expire—not protect Mickey Mouse forever
- "Transparency" will overwhelm artists with red tape
- Ethical licensing is the way forward—not creative lockdown
A Path Forward: Beyond Nostalgia and Nihilism
✅ What Works:
- Opt-out for living artists
- Style compensation for mimicked sounds
- Tech subsidies for healthcare/housing
❌ What Doesn’t:
- Performance activism from legacy stars
- Innovation-stifling regulations
- Surrendering to U.S. tech monopolies
Bottom Line: AI Isn’t Theft
The real crime? Letting artists starve while tech and labels hoard the profits.
"In 1998, artists feared Napster would 'kill music.' Instead, it forced a reckoning with greed. AI is that reckoning 2.0."
Written by a musician who’s been sampled without credit—and still believes in the remix.
Why This Perspective Matters:
- Challenges tribal thinking between artists and engineers
- Exposes who actually profits from copyright
- Insists on nuance and real-world economics
- Proposes ethical, workable solutions
Subscribe by Email
Follow Updates Articles from This Blog via Email
No Comments