“The weakening of copyright is the collapse of the creative ecosystem”
The cultural and artistic community is increasingly opposing the 「Korea Artificial Intelligence Action Plan (Draft)」 that the government is promoting. On December 15, 16 creator and rights organizations representing all fields of cultural content, including literature, music, broadcasting, art, and video, issued a strong criticism statement, stating that the plan announced by the National AI Strategy Committee “undermines the essence of copyright and threatens the sustainability of the cultural industry.”
These organizations specifically pointed out that Action Plan 32 effectively opens the door for AI companies to use copyrighted works as training data without the consent of the copyright holders, labeling it a ‘de facto exemption clause for unauthorized and free use,’ and called for immediate withdrawal and a comprehensive review.
“AI development without fair compensation is merely exploitation”
The creator and rights organizations argue that this plan directly denies the principle of ‘fair compensation,’ which is the foundation of copyright law. While copyright law aims to protect the rights of creators and harmonize social use, it fundamentally relies on the payment of fair compensation for creative labor.
The organizations criticized the government for excessively expanding the scope of fair use under the pretext of fostering the AI industry, allowing for-profit private companies to freely utilize creators' private property. They argue that this weakens creative motivation and is a choice that ultimately undermines the competitiveness of the cultural industry in the long run.
“Distorted global trend… merely selective citation”
Strong counterarguments have been raised against the ‘global trend’ touted by the government. The international community is actually moving towards requiring clear permission from copyright holders during the AI training process and transparently disclosing the sources and scope of training data.
Nevertheless, pushing for extensive exemptions for profit based solely on exceptional cases from some countries is seen as deceiving creators and distorting international trends.
Weakening existing guidelines… “AI company biased policy”
Criticism has continued that the 「fair use guidelines」 already established by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism are insufficient in terms of protecting creators. In this context, the government's direction to establish legal exemption provisions for AI training in just a few months is viewed as a biased policy that reflects only the interests of AI companies, according to the cultural and artistic community.
The organizations evaluated this as “a hasty push without consistency with existing systems or social consensus.”
Ineffective opt-out, shifting responsibility to individual creators
A particularly problematic aspect is the ‘opt-out’ method. The condition that copyright holders must directly express their refusal in a machine-readable format to receive protection is seen as a structure that effectively forces individual creators, who lack technology and capital, to waive their rights.
The organizations criticized it as “a system that shifts the responsibility to prevent rights infringement onto individual creators,” stating that it is merely an ineffective measure.
“The creative ecosystem must not be sacrificed for the goal of becoming a global AI powerhouse”
A representative from the creator and rights organizations stated, “While the government acknowledges the increasing value of training data, ignoring the creators who are the rights holders of that data is a clear policy contradiction,” emphasizing that “we must not commit the error of destroying the cultural and artistic ecosystem for the goal of becoming a global AI powerhouse.”
They further stated, “We will continue to respond strongly until the policy direction is revised to a sustainable AI development strategy based on fair compensation, correcting the widespread copyright infringements that are already occurring in the AI training process.”
The cultural and artistic community views this issue not merely as an industrial policy debate, but as a matter concerning the value of creative labor and cultural sovereignty. It is a critical time for social discussions on how innovation in the AI era and the rights of creators can coexist.
