SAA - Society of Audiovisual Authors

The impact of AI on authors: livelihoods and cultural diversity at risk

Although AI can support human creativity, and many audiovisual professionals have integrated it into their workflow, it offers faster and cheaper solutions at their expense. It also reduces the cultural diversity provided by original works by screenwriters and directors. By 2028, GenAI outputs in the audiovisual sector are projected to reach €48 billion, while 21% of AV creators' revenues will be at risk (CISAC). GenAI outputs can also closely mimic or incorporate protected elements of original works, creating a market substitute that unfairly competes with rights holders’ human-created originals.

The European Parliament’s report confirms that the EU must protect and fairly remunerate its creators for the use of their works, to preserve its cultural vitality. Even when the AI providers are based outside the Union, their models are subject to European law if they are offered in the EU.

Copyright: the right tool, poorly enforced

The principle of human authorship is at the heart of copyright law. It provides the legal basis through which authors can control and be remunerated for uses of their works. However, current frameworks have significant gaps. The EU DSM Directive provides a TDM exception with an opt-out for commercial use (Art 4). While TDM exceptions are intended to encourage research and innovation, they can undermine authors' rights when exploited for commercial AI development. The EU AI Act includes transparency obligations, but rightsholders have no effective means of monitoring how their works are used.

The opt-out system is particularly problematic for audiovisual authors. They rarely control the distribution chain of their works; technical tools on websites like robots.txt and AI.txt are ineffective, as crawlers may disregard them. Metadata can be stripped or altered during transcoding and rehosting, and audiovisual works are spread across multiple platforms where original opt-out instructions aren't replicated. This makes it inherently difficult for audiovisual authors to effectively exclude the use of their works from AI training.

The European Parliament’s report acknowledges that rights reservation mechanisms are often impractical and fail to cover all copyright relevant acts involved in AI training. Furthermore, the European Parliament recognises the widespread evidence of copyright violations by GenAI providers, making it clear that the development of AI and the upholding of established rights are not mutually exclusive, but must advance together.

AI companies: profiting from imbalance

In addition to exploiting TDM exceptions to use copyrighted works without authorisation, AI companies do not sufficiently disclose which works are used to train models and the commercial value derived from them. Crucially, AI companies are also unwilling to seek solutions and engage constructively with CMOs, whose efforts are disregarded. This refusal to come to the table with the very organisations that are competent to manage rights and facilitate fair licensing, is unacceptable.

The European Parliament’s report addresses the imbalance created by AI companies. It calls for the establishment of a coherent and functioning licensing framework in respect of the use of protected works, to enable the fair remuneration of creators for the exploitation of their works by GenAI models. It encourages providers of AI models to seek licences from rights holders and stresses that effective and comprehensive transparency regarding copyright-protected works used to train AI models is an essential prerequisite for the development of such a market; The underlying message is clear: the absence of a licence does not mean the absence of an obligation.

CMOs: the collective answer to restore balance

CMOs are uniquely qualified to license and collect royalties relating to AI uses of works. They offer the collective infrastructure that individual authors cannot provide alone. Several licensing solutions are possible, all which centre on CMO involvement: voluntary collective licensing; extended collective licensing, which provides greater legal certainty than voluntary mandates alone; and statutory remuneration rights, which guarantee authors remuneration through centralised administration and enforcement entrusted to CMOs. Additionally, a rebuttable presumption of use would facilitate licensing mechanisms and enable CMOs to negotiate from a stronger position, thereby promoting an ethical and competitive market.

The European Parliament’s report calls on the Commission to facilitate, through consultation with collective management organisations, the establishment of voluntary collective licensing agreements per sector as the fastest route to a functioning licensing market delivering fair remuneration to authors. This would position CMOs as central to a framework that ensures fair remuneration while enabling AI providers access to high-quality training data.

Importantly, the report calls on the European Commission not to wait for the review of the DSM Directive to clarify licensing rules for GenAI and restore the bargaining power of rightsholders. The Parliament rightly encourages AI companies to seek licences and engage in effective cooperation with creators. It is now up to the Commission to translate these political demands in a way that ensure fair remuneration, meaningful transparency, and an effective licensing framework for audiovisual authors. Screenwriters and directors’ works fuel the AI economy and they deserve a framework that recognises this.

Annica Ryng