A/80/278 life, to create and to make their work accessible to the public. AI may reduce the ability of artists to access the public sphere. III. Placing cultural rights and creativity at the heart of artificial intelligence policy A. The inadequacy of the existing systems 53. Measures must be taken as soon as possible to prevent the further loss of data, the flooding of platforms with inexpensive substitutes and copies of creative outputs and the erosion of cultural rights by the uncritical use of AI. Currently, international law does not have the teeth to address such challenges. The norms that provide the elements of an international legal framework applicable to AI and human creativity originate mainly from instruments focused on three areas: artificial intelligence, cultural diversity and intellectual property. The Special Rapporteur referred to these legal systems in her report on digitalization (A/HRC/58/60). Most of these instruments are legally non-binding and share a common feature in that, while they refer to fundamental rights and freedoms as a basis for setting objectives, principles or commitments, they fail to include explicit references to cultural rights. For example, although the UNESCO recommendation on the ethics of AI is an instrument strongly rooted in a human rights-based approach, it is non-binding, and both the 2024 revised AI principles of the Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development and the 2024 Global Digital Compact also refer to rights, but not cultural rights, and are also not binding. 54. Several international political declarations refer to the human rights implications of AI, but have not been followed by concrete action. Real political will is important in addressing the violation of cultural rights by AI. States need to set limits and respect their human rights obligations when it comes to technological progress. Transparency and copyright are either not included in recent legislative initiatives, such as the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law or, when they are, as in the Artificial Intelligence Act of the European Union, implementation guarantees are missing. Concerns have been raised that the draft code of practice for general purpose AI models, which was designed to accompany the Artificial Intelligence Act and is aimed at clarifying obligations with respect to transparency and copyright, will possibly weaken the text of the Act. 82 Implementation of the legislative frameworks is important. 55. Multinational enterprises are undoubtedly the main winners in the AI revolution. 83 The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights contain a recognition that all business enterprises have “an independent responsibility” to respect human rights and that, in order to do so, they are required to exercise human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address impacts on human rights. 84 The requirement of due diligence and the need for continuous evaluation of the impact of AI on human rights, including through impact assessments, have been repeatedly stressed, not least in paragraph 25 (a) of the Global Digital Compact. __________________ 82 83 84 25-12403 Submissions by the European Coalitions for Cultural Diversity, p. 2; the International Federation of Actors, p. 3; and the Alan Turing Institute, p. 5. See Véronique Guèvremont and Maxime Mariage, Fair Culture – A Key to Sustainable Development, German Commission for UNESCO (2021), p. 30. See A/HRC/59/53, para. 44. 17/21