Since the popularisation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) – based on large language models – through software products such as ChatGPT, DALL-E and others, especially from US digital companies, such AI applications are the subject of intense public debate. Issues of copyright and the protection of human creativity are of central importance in view of the necessary use of data to train AI systems. Andreas Großmann, Scientific Director of FiF, asked in his opening speech at the FiF Forum whether the influence of technology can be seen as a curse or a blessing and pointed to warning voices from the scientific community as well as related problems, such as the quality of data and the risk of data being manipulated by AI.

Katharina Uppenbrink, Managing Director of the Initiative Urheberrecht e.V. (IU), gave an overview of the development history of AI from its beginnings to the expansion of generative AI since 2022 and presented the model of the lawyer Anu Bradford, according to which the global regulatory approaches to AI differ depending on the political philosophy that currently prevails. For example, market-driven and state-driven regulatory models are predominant in the United States and China, focussing on the preservation of corporate freedom and state power respectively. In contrast, the focus of the European Union's rights-driven model is on preserving fundamental rights and democratic structures and therefore offers good conditions for creating a fair regulatory framework to ensure an appropriate balance between all stakeholders. According to Uppenbrink, AI is generally a useful tool that is also valued and used in the creative industry for classifying, archiving and editing content and much more. Nevertheless, the use of generative AI raises many problems. In addition to legal and ethical challenges, questions about the distribution of profits and the risk to the economic existence of players in the cultural, creative and media industries are also mentioned. Therefore, a normative framework is needed that creates transparency and enables the licensing of content through suitable contracts, including appropriate payment and the labelling of AI-generated content. The IU is therefore demanding a series of regulatory measures in the area of copyright law, which are aimed in particular at better law enforcement for the parties concerned.

In the subsequent podium discussion, Petra Gehring, Professor at the Institute of Philosophy and Director of ZeveDi, compared the concept of free availability including rights of use of information – open access – which is common in the sciences and humanities with copyright in the creative industries and pointed out the problem of financing open access publication channels, which is essentially guaranteed by universities and research institutions – i.e. through public funding. Gehring also criticised the oligopolistic position of large academic publishers, who dominate the publishing industry due to their market power, but are no longer publishers in the traditional sense, but digital corporations with data-driven business models, whose contracts scientists are at the mercy of – often without precise knowledge of the further use or exploitation of their data. Thomas Stäcker, Director of the ULB Darmstadt, highlighted the advantages of open access publishing, which enables better access to sources and a better understanding of scientific findings and thus represents an essential element of the science economy. The change in the publishing industry towards open access licensing also goes hand in hand with the shift from analogue to increasingly digital publications. Therefore, at a time when interest in books is ‘in decline’, he believes that libraries also have a digital perspective. These libraries would, however, have to collect data themselves instead of simply licensing it. Libraries could contribute to greater data sovereignty by providing trustworthy, structured data. The plenary session reached a consensus on the problem of the platform economy, not only in the provision of AI services, but also in academic publishing and creative content. Katharina Uppenbrink drew attention to the precarious situation of artists – such as authors and musicians who become hobby authors and musicians due to poor conditions – and demanded that artists and scientists should not simply be subject to the conditions of large corporations. In this context, Petra Gehring commended the institutional set-up of the creative sector through organisations such as the IU or GEMA and also warned that there must also be an awareness in academia of the need to expose themselves to the business models of corporations when publishing. Thomäs Stäcker also questioned the extent to which we were making ourselves superfluous through the use of technology and to what extent the use of AI was even desirable under these circumstances. All those present agreed that grasping the complexity of the topic of AI and the resulting legal and social implications requires an intensive and interdisciplinary exchange – not only between the scientific disciplines, but also between all social stakeholders.