In a move that probably seems like a good idea to absolutely no one but me, I took it upon myself to heed the call to submit a brief policy document to the White House around its supposedly forthcoming AI Action Plan, as described in this Axios article.

My somewhat polemical submission follows on my 2024 submission to the US Copyright Office’s public consultation on gen AI, and their subsequent report on copyrightability (which in turn referenced my submission). I’m absolutely sure their conclusions are well-researched and come with the best of intentions, but to my eyes as an artist heavily incorporating generative AI tools merely serve to reinforce the status quo.

I know that is a lot of documentation for the lay person to try and parse, but the long and short of it is that, for me, the USCO missed the boat on this one, and doesn’t go anywhere near far enough towards creating an “AI positive” future for artists and creators of all stripes. I understand they are, no doubt, reflecting a lot of the anxiety and uncertainty that many of the 10K+ submissions they received expressed to them in no uncertain terms. But just because a particular opinion is popular does not always make it the right one that can paint a viable path forward.

Which is why I thought it behooved me (is that right? am I now hooven?), to paint – for the record – an entirely divergent view. Two copyright roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, you might say. And that has made all the difference … in making people angry at me online, of course. But that seems to be an inescapable aspect of the role I’m allowed to play in the cosmic drama around the unfolding of AI in the arts…

Anyway, while my submission may be a little bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect, I think it also raises some real issues around particularly global competitiveness for AI-driven intellectual property right. The fact that the Copyright Office got it – in my eyes – so wrong, seems to demonstrate to me that maybe we need to start over from the ground up, either with something new, something greatly diminished, or maybe even nothing at all to replace it. Probably that sounds like a heretical idea to some, but if the British government doesn’t even act as a register for copyrights (and it’s optional, and automatically granted without review in Canada), why does the American government spend so much time and effort dithering on all of this? (And not to mention getting sued for its efforts.)

There must be some better way forward. Though I have, of course, grave doubts about the capacity of the White House to find it. But who knows, perhaps market pressures will bear positive fruits here in time… Maybe my proposal falls short too, and my understanding of all the moving parts of copyright and the industries that it powers is of course human, limited, and perhaps incorrect at points. But I’m an artist, not a godlike superintelligence. And as such, every new art movement needs to take a few good shots at the old order before it can differentiate itself as the next paradigm. Here’s my own weird effort at that.

Read the full submission here.

Related writing & research