Not only is the angry backlash from some established artists against the rise of generative AI short-sighted, protectionist and opportunistic; it’s a waste of time.
Nobody should be surprised that people like Elton John, Dua Lipa, or Chris Martin have joined forces to sign an open letter pressuring the British government. The old business models — the ones that thrived under tight control of copying and distribution — have no intention of giving up an inch of their profitability. But their outrage has no technological merit or legal logic. They simply want to keep collecting tolls on innovations they fail to understand.
What artificial intelligence does with copyrighted works is neither copying nor distribution. It’s analysis, pattern recognition, machine learning. Claiming that AI “steals” by training on protected works is as absurd as saying a musician steals by listening to thousands of records before composing. AI doesn’t copy — it synthesizes. Demanding that every use of a copyrighted work require permission or payment isn’t just technically unworkable — it’s incompatible with progress.
In this context, the contrast between Britain and the United States striking. In Britain, the music lobby has managed to stir political uncertainty. The letter signed by over two hundred artists calls for “urgent copyright protection against AI tools,” ignoring the fact that large models don’t store or reproduce full works but operate through statistical representations. Here, ignorance is disguised as a defense of art — but in reality, it’s a defense of privilege.
Meanwhile, in the United States, the debate has taken a sharply political turn: the dismissal of Shira Perlmutter as director of the Copyright Office has sparked an institutional earthquake. Perlmutter was ousted after publishing a report that attempted to raise doubts about the legality of training AI models on copyrighted works without authorization. The report suggested that many of these practices may not qualify as fair use, particularly in commercial contexts. According to multiple sources, her refusal to greenlight mass use of copyrighted materials by stakeholders — including figures like Elon Musk — may have triggered her removal.
The key question now is whether the administration will support a modern, functional, and reasonable interpretation of copyright, or instead revive an internal conflict between those who see AI as a chance to democratize creativity and those intent on defending outdated cultural monopolies. This is not an aesthetic debate — it’s an ideological battle over the future of creativity.
The real problem is applying an 18th-century rights regime to the 21st century. Copyright has become a trap: more an obstacle to innovation than an incentive to create. Let’s be clear: no matter how much pressure popular artists can put on a government, as long as there is no literal copying or distribution, no crime is being committed — not even under current law. Nor should there be.
* Enrique Dans Professor of Innovation at IE Business School and blogger (in English here and in Spanish at enriquedans.com)
Source: Medium
