Image: Pixabay.com
It was as predictable as wasps at a picnic. Within days of the Canadian Parliament’s Heritage Committee releasing its report on “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Creative Industries”, with its lead recommendation being (my highlights)…
That the Government of Canada protect the property rights and interests of artists through the principles of the Copyright Act, in accordance with the ART principle—authorization, remuneration and transparency:
a) The Government of Canada must take the necessary steps and ensure that the scope of the Copyright Act applies to AI-generated content in order to guarantee copyright protection.
b) The Government of Canada must mandate greater transparency from AI developers regarding copyrighted works used to train their models, including disclosure of training data sources, to enable proper authorization and licensing.
c) The Government of Canada must establish a clear opt-in consent requirement for the use of copyrighted works in the training of artificial intelligence systems, ensuring that creators’ works may not be used for text and data mining or model development without their prior authorization.
…prolific tech and copyright commentator Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa was attacking its conclusions, issuing warnings that unless the tech industry is allowed (without authorization or compensation from rightsholders) to help itself to copyrighted content for the purpose of AI training, we will have “AI without Canada”. In other words, unless the tech industry is allowed to plunder Canadian content in the same way that it has been doing to date in the US (although this is meeting legal challenges and is quickly changing as licensing solutions take hold), there will be less Canadian content in the training data. This, apparently, will leave Canada as an “outlier” compared to peer jurisdictions. The AI developers will turn their back on Canada and rush off elsewhere. (This is a standard threat deployed by the AI industry to play off one country against another). He cites the EU, Japan, Singapore and Israel, as well as the US in support of this interpretation. Not mentioned as “peer jurisdictions” are the UK and Australia but then that would not have served the purpose of his narrative. Australia has recently declared it will not be legislating a Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception to its copyright laws to legalize unauthorized ingestion of copyrighted works for AI training, while the UK has just hit the pause button on a series of ill thought-out and badly received proposals to allow AI developers to freely use copyrighted content to train their AI algorithms unless rightsholders specifically opt out.
Singapore and Israel are among a small minority of countries that, under US pressure, have adopted US-style fair use laws that potentially allow for a weakening of copyright protection through a hodge-podge of court rulings. While many cite Japan as a jurisdiction that has given carte blanche to tech interests and AI developers, the facts are quite different as I pointed out in this blog post a couple of years ago. Japan has a strong cultural industry that it wants to nourish and protect and has defined its TDM exception very narrowly and carefully. The EU, has two provisions in its Copyright Directive related to AI training (Article 3 which permits TDM carried out only for non-commercial scientific research purposes, and Article 4, which permits TDM for any purpose, including commercial, as long as rightsholders have not opted-out, subject to strict transparency provisions by AI companies). Both impose constraints on AI developers, although there are differing views on opt-out.
Opting-out may sound like a compromise that both rightsholders and the AI industry could support but Britain’s example demonstrates otherwise. In its now aborted public consultation, the UK government put forward several options including its “preferred” option of opt-out. Fully 97 percent of respondents, from both the tech and creative communities, trashed this option. For creators, opting out not only stands copyright on its head (it is a property right, so why should holders of that right be required to notify someone who wants to infringe on that right that they may not do so, i.e. it’s like passing a law allowing anyone to picnic on my front lawn unless I post a “No Trespassing” sign), but it is technically difficult to do, especially for individuals and small-scale rightsholders. The robots.txt protocol is not binding and is in many cases not very effective. The tech industry doesn’t like opt-out because it imposes constraints on their untrammelled ability to access anyone’s copyright-protected content, anywhere, anytime. Instead the Committee recommends “a clear opt-in consent requirement” for the use of copyrighted works in the training of artificial intelligence systems.
Now it’s my turn to quibble. IMHO, there should be no explicit need for a rightsholder to “opt in”. I think that Canada’s copyright laws, properly interpreted, already provide sufficient protection to prevent unauthorized use. A rightsholder can “opt in” to AI training or any other unauthorized use not subject to fair dealing by granting a license to use their content. If that is an “opt-in” requirement then I am in favour. If yet another opt-in step is required, this would seem to be unnecessary. Licensing is a growing phenomenon. AI developers want reliable, curated content to develop their applications. As long as they are prevented from simply helping themselves, there is incentive for them to reach licensing deals with content owners. However, giving the tech industry a pass by allowing themselves to take for free whatever they want in the name of developing AI applications (for their commercial advantage) removes the needed incentive to negotiate with rightsholders. As to whether unauthorized use for AI training constitutes fair dealing, as Dr. Geist claims (“most TDM for AI training purposes would likely qualify as fair dealing under existing law”), this is doubtful to say the least. It is hard to imagine which fair dealing purpose currently applicable in Canadian law (research, private study, education, parody or satire, criticism or review, news reporting) would apply particularly when there are fair dealing limits to the amount of a work that can be used for such purposes, and specific factors that must be applied as to the effect of the dealing on the work.
The Committee’s lead recommendation is not the only complaint that Dr. Geist has about the Committee’s report. He feels it is unbalanced because the majority of its witnesses represented the cultural industries. It’s true that its lead recommendation is very much in line with the mainstream views of the Canadian cultural community. It was, after all, the Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This reminds me of the conflicting reports on copyright issued a few years ago by the Heritage Committee and its counterpart the INDU Committee. The 2019 Heritage Committee report, titled Shifting Paradigms, was attacked at the time by Dr. Geist as “the most one-sided Canadian copyright report issued in the past 15 years”. He claimed that there was “no attempt to engage with a broad range of stakeholders”, even though he himself appeared along with a number of others who shared his perspective on copyright. Shortly after issuing its own report, the INDU committee then issued a tone-deaf “We’re in charge” press release reminding the world that it had “sole responsibility” for administering the Copyright Act. (This is not strictly accurate). Dr. Geist’s main complaint, whether with “Shifting Paradigms” in 2019 or the current Heritage Committee report seems to be that the Committee members, in their wisdom, did not take his expert advice.
What is the function of Parliamentary Committees? It is to hear evidence, draw conclusions and make recommendations. He complains that while there were different points of view, including notably his, on how to tackle the issue under study, the Committee’s conclusions did not reflect these views. Was it because, numerically, there were more pro-copyright witnesses from the creative community that those from the Geist camp? That is theoretically possible if it were just a mathematical exercise of adding up comments in a pro and con column. But that is not the case. While the Report made a conscientious effort to capture the full range of comments, including those of Dr. Geist, in the end the members (from three political parties) made a judgement and reached consensus conclusions. (Although the Conservative Party members provided their own addendum that added to but did not refute the Committee’s conclusions). Presumably the members of the Committee were more convinced by the force of the arguments presented by some witnesses than others. Given the range and similarity of concerns presented by disparate members of the creative community it is not surprising where they came out in terms of conclusions.
Dr. Geist is entitled to disagree with these conclusions and recommendations. To be fair, his blog commentary echoes the position he presented to the Committee, except for his complaints about process. As I said at the outset, his attack on the Committee’s report is entirely predictable, like wasps at a picnic. And those wasps can be so annoying, distracting from the main event with the occasional bite and annoying buzzing, but as any determined picnic-goer knows, it’s important to not let them become the centre of attention. The Heritage Committee’s report was carefully considered and drafted by an all-party group after hearing from a wide range of experts. It provides important recommendations that the government would be well advised to take into account as it develops a legal framework in which both the AI and creative industries can co-exist and flourish.
© Hugh Stephens, 2026. All Rights Reserved
