The “tsunami” of AI use cases and the risks for creators and copyright protections that it brings with it were in the spotlight at the CineLink industry section of the 31st edition of the Sarajevo Film Festival on Thursday.
“When AI hit us two years ago, my organization was very much focused on working on the streaming economy,” Cecile Despringre, secretary general of the Society of Audiovisual Authors, said during a panel discussion on the topic of “Artificial Intelligence, Authors’ Rights & Guild Solidarity.” “We were very busy trying to convince policymakers and streaming companies to pay [streaming] royalties to writers and directors when they exploited their works.”
Her team approaches AI and companies using content to train their AI models “with the same spirit,” she shared. “We consider that it’s a new use of these works and that the copyright principles should apply. We call it ‘the art of AI’ because you always have to find new slogans to make people understand.”
Despringre concluded that in terms of AI protections and regulations, it is all about three things: authorization, remuneration and transparency.
She then touched on the European Union’s AI Act, which was debated last year and went into effect at the start of the month. Under it, providers of general-purpose AI models (GPAI), such as ChatGPT, Deep Seek, and Dall-E, must comply with European copyright law in their use of copyright-protected materials in training their AI systems and provide “fair and appropriate” remuneration for copyright owners. Rightholder groups were consulted throughout the drafting of the act, but recently complained that the way the law is being implemented does not sufficiently protect artists and puts Europe’s creative industries at risk.
“It was a regulation to try to address this new economy, these new tools that are invading our lives with a systemic risk approach,” Despringre argued. “And it was very last-minute that some copyright rules were introduced, but very general ones about respect of EU copyright law, and after that, there was a process of implementing those rules through a Code of Practice. So we spent a lot of time over the last year discussing this code of practice – a big process that [required] a lot of energy for a very small result, I would say.”
Her conclusion: “What I can say, in a nutshell, is that it’s very disappointing from the rightsholders’ perspective, because it’s very much in favor of AI companies. It doesn’t really create a concrete obligation to respect copyrights, and it’s very limited in terms of transparency, which should be the basis of any discussion. As long as there is no transparency, you cannot design licensing models.”
Marta Krzeptowska, producer at Orka in Poland and also president of the Polish Postproduction Society, summarized her take on where the AI revolution stands this way: “Some people say that we are standing on the edge of a golden age where AI brings opportunity. For creators, it’s probably the end of the story, and they have to somehow find a way to exist, find existence in this new reality that definitely is a problem.”
She then shared that she personally is feeling “divided” given her dual roles. “It’s very, very difficult for us as producers to find a way to deal with AI because, as a producer, I need clarity,” she explained. “I need to be sure that the rights are protected.”
Any move to regulate AI may not work anymore, though. “I don’t know if it’s not a little bit too late right now,” she said. “The whole AI models and big companies are already fed with all the material. … They are stealing artists’ work. We know from TikTok stories that many artists have been copied – that’s really unfair. They lost their ability to earn money from their work, because the work is everywhere right now.”
AI may make things easy, but it may also do away with pain that drives creators, Krzeptowska argued. “Everything will be easy when AI means that you can just click the button, write that prompt. Where is the effort? Where is the pain? Because pain is part of creation, and the beauty, the true beauty of cinema, of every art, is pain.”
Sevara Irgacheva, secretary general of the European Film Agencies Directors Association, highlighted that the film industry has long dealt with technological and political challenges. “Sound changed the film industry. CGI, digital changed the film industry,” she said. “So, of course, AI is the next step.”
However, the speed and seismic shift of the new technology creates special challenges. “The difficulty with this step now is that the tools are becoming extremely accessible, so anyone could probably create more easily,” she said. “But the tools that exist right now have been built on existing content without any concept of authorship.”
And more questions will come up in the near future. “What would be the line between AI-assisted work, that is work where AI is used as a tool, and AI-generated work?” she highlighted. “This line can be very thin. And it’s not even in 10 years, it’s going to be in the next two to five years that these questions will arise.”
About the EU’s AI Act and other efforts to regulate, Irgacheva echoed that “legislation seems to always be behind.” That said, enforcement and education are key to making existing regulations effective. “It’s important to remind people regarding AI that they have to respect copyright, as included in the AI Act. But it should still be respected, even if there was no mention of copyright protection in the AI Act. This law still applies.”
The panelists highlighted how technology companies often warn about AI regulation possibly stifling innovation, arguing that copyright and other frameworks have so far not upended the internet or other tech innovations of the past.
Klemen Dvornik, board member of the Federation of European Screen Directors, pointed to the success of and attention attracted by Sean Baker’s Tangerine, which he made on an iPhone. “There comes a gimmick, and everybody wants to go in the same direction,” he said. “But there is only one Sean Baker and one Tangerine. There is no multitude of Tangerine-s.”
That said, AI “still gives an opportunity to people to show their voice, their creativity, to find a way to use a new tool that is available for a new way of filmmaking, or new type of filmmaking, and in that sense, AI is a new ground where we will play,” he argued. “Everybody will try it. The most important thing is for AI to stay a tool that helps us, for example, in post-production, where it will make things easier and faster. It will bring challenges, like job losses, but also opportunities.”
Economics will come into focus, though. “The question is: will it still be economically viable?” the expert said. “Because I think that AI-generated content will suck up money. … I think that AI-influenced or -made content will overflow the commercial market and will suck out a lot of money.”
What also worries Dvornik is that AI’s role in the “long process” of filmmaking could rise. “I did my [latest] film over seven years with a lot of people. You have a lot of collaborators,” he shared. “Everybody’s using AI, and I’m wondering how much this AI super brain is giving directions on creativity.”