A/80/278
commercial in nature and not transformative, as it did not substantially alter the
original content to create new meaning or expression. 33
21. Similar cases have emerged in the music industry. In the United States, Sony
Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group are suing the start -ups Udio
and Suno, alleging that they used copyrighted works to develop their AI models,
which generate music based on user prompts. In India, a group of major newspaper
and book publishers has brought a case before the Delhi High Court, claiming that
OpenAI is using their content without authorization to train ChatGPT. 34 In the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Getty Images has filed a lawsuit
against Stability AI, alleging that the developer used millions of its copyrighted
images, along with metadata, without permission, to train its image -generating AI
model, Stable Diffusion. 35
22. European copyright law, unlike United States copyright law, does not recognize
the concept of fair use, but text and data mining are permitted on an exceptional basis.
The European Union Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market, revised in
2019, allows “reproductions and extractions made by research organisations and
cultural heritage institutions in order to carry out, for the purposes of scientific
research, text and data mining of works or other subject matter to which they have
lawful access” (article 3). Article 4 permits other actors to make “reproductions and
extractions of lawfully accessible works and other subject matter for the purposes of
text and data mining.” Rights holders may opt out, allowing them to prohibit text and
data mining. 36 The implementation of such opt-outs are very problematic, however,
as the companies remain very opaque and the lack of familiarity with data content on
the part of individuals and communities is widely exploited. 37 Clearly, AI companies
do not want to enter into licensing agreements, nor are they transparent about the
copyright-protected works used for training. “This has led to a total lack of
communication between AI companies and rights holders, where rights holders ’
requests to negotiate and discuss are ignored.” 38
23. Copyright regimes are especially ill-suited to protecting traditional cultural
expressions, and AI tools could exacerbate their vulnerability. The mandate holder
has repeatedly discussed the need to make copyright provisions effective. 39 In India,
for example, threats to traditional cultural expressions already come from decreasing
demand for them, the influence of middlemen and intermediaries operating copyright
regimes, and many other factors. “This is exacerbated by threats from AI-generated
art, which imitates [artisans’] style and processes without recognition or
compensation. This form of traditional knowledge and art receives very superficial
protection under the Indian Copyright Act due to the communal nature and
enforcement challenges.” 40
__________________
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
25-12403
United State of America, District Court of Delaware, Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre
GMBH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., Case No. No. 1:20-cv-613-SB, Memorandum Opinion,
11 February 2025.
See Delhi High Court, Ani Media Pvt. Ltd vs Open Ai Opco Llc, Order, 28 March 2025 (case
pending).
See High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual
Property, Getty Images and others v. Stability AI, Judgement, 14 January 2025.
Alexandra Bensamoun, “IA et culture: de la création aux données”, in Intelligence artificielle,
culture et médias, Véronique Guèvremont and Colette Brin, eds., (Canada, Presses de
l’Universite Laval, 2024), p. 337.
Submission by European Coalitions for Cultural Diversity, p. 1.
Submission by Society of Audiovisual Authors, pp. 2 and 3.
See A/HRC/28/57 and A/HRC/58/60.
Submission by Prakhar Singh, Samrudh Chirkankshit Bulani, Hargun Kaur, Amishi Jain and
Shatrupa Sharma of the Center for Advanced Studies in Cyber Law and Artificial Intelligence, p. 7 .
9/21