The Silent Exploitation of Art
- Mar 23
- 6 min read
Updated: Mar 24
The Value of Labour in the Digital Age
The clash between artistic creation and artificial intelligence shows no sign of abating. AI is everywhere we turn and has become a real headache. This is not so much due to the contributions that AI tools make to our daily lives, but rather the effects they have behind the scenes. Funded and invested in by global giants, this sector has become a vast financial ocean. The countries and companies that have staked their futures on AI and are racing to secure a front-row seat in order to avoid being left behind are revealing how human labour is being devalued. How so? Let's take a closer look.
In fact, the technology we refer to as AI has been around for over a decade. The system that we have enjoyed the benefits of for the last few years, but will suffer the consequences of particularly in the long term, is generative AI. We generally refer to it as AI, and I will continue to use this term in this article.
Of course, the investments discussed in relation to this sector involve astronomical sums of money. A Goldman Sachs report from late 2025 forecasts investment of $500 billion by 2026, whereas a Reuters article from February mentions $650 billion. Currently, most of the top 50 most valuable companies are technology firms that continue to invest heavily in artificial intelligence.
At first glance, this picture may not seem alarming, but it actually should be. As well as depicting monopolistic structures, it illustrates how this technology could come to dominate every aspect of life. In other words, AI's scope is not limited to technology; it has the potential to dominate everything. Consider robotic waiters working in a restaurant, for example. We find them strange because they are outside the norm. AI, on the other hand, feels important or necessary precisely because it is unfamiliar yet simple to use. Once something becomes part of daily life, it becomes irreversible . We cannot manage without the internet, phones or electricity.
I should have started with this point. Let me continue without going on too long. I mentioned the concept of artistic expression at the beginning. Let's return to that slowly.
The other day, I read a friend's article on the subject. She examined an aspect of AI tools that we might not initially pay attention to, drawing on her own experience. When I saw that the question that had been on my mind for some time was being raised again in her article, I gave it some thought. In summary, I reached the following conclusion:
Even if articles are not publicly accessible, AI tools can still use them if they are published online.
This raises a major problem. This is because AI tools are trained using visual, audio, and textual content found online. This means that all the content we generate essentially stems from the work of others. This situation often goes unnoticed because the usage rights of online content are not adequately protected, and the voices of content creators are not sufficiently heard.
You might think of it this way: You’ve probably heard of terms such as copyright, usage rights and the public domain. These are some of the legal frameworks that prevent you from using any content you haven't produced yourself without permission, while ensuring that creators receive financial compensation for their work. For this reason, we always cite the sources of texts we reference and credit the sources of images we use, regardless of the medium (provided they have not entered the public domain). Thus, the issue of usage rights is becoming a legal process involving two parties. This time, the matter is taking shape through AI. In other words, on one side are the creators and on the other are the companies that own the AI tools, which are worth billions (perhaps even trillions) of dollars. There is no need to elaborate further.
It is important to remember that, however appealing they may seem, all technological innovations also bring security vulnerabilities, an inherently threatening nature and legal issues that initially appear unclear.
Therefore, while legal safeguards may be required, we are individuals who understand how the world works. The rhetoric and manoeuvres of those involved in ongoing global conflicts are highlighting this issue once again. In this situation, as in many others, money talks.
However, there will always be artists who oppose the status quo.
For example, in February 2025, over a thousand musicians protested against the government's proposed copyright changes. They turned this into an album. The 12-track album contains no music. When the track titles are combined, the phrase “The British government must not legalise music theft to benefit AI companies” emerges. By naming the album “Is This What We Want?”, the artists emphasise that this proposal does not take their views into account. The government's motivation for the proposal was to introduce a “commercial research exemption” that would allow AI companies to use copyrighted music to train their models without obtaining permission or paying licence fees.
In short, the work produced can be used for any purpose, including the development of AI, and the artist will not receive any payment. Artists view this as the legalisation of music piracy. The situation today is not the same as when we used to buy and listen to pirated CDs. This is why I felt the need to highlight both sides of the legal process. With a pirated CD, at least you get to know the artist, and you might even form a connection with them. It's a form of self-generated advertising, and some artists used to make their albums available for free on their websites. The issue here, however, signifies a fundamental shift in the dynamics between the parties.
For now, the government has taken a step back. But it’s certain to remain problematic. How do we know? Because another recent incident has occurred.
The London Book Fair took place this month. There was one book that caught my eye. Its title is “Don’t Steal This Book” (Don’t Steal This Book). It contains a list of approximately 10,000 authors’ names and no other text. It is, in other words, a symbolic act of defiance. On the back cover, there is a clear statement.
“The UK government must not legalise book theft to benefit AI companies.”
Yes, this time the focus of the discussion is literature rather than music. In other words, the issue is not limited to music, but also concerns the textual data and literary works that form the basis of language models.
This protest was staged in response to the government’s latest proposal, which was identical to the previous one. It would have permitted AI companies to use copyrighted works without permission. In short, every piece of information that ends up online passes through these tools, including this article. This article included. Indeed, they are even attempting to strip authors and publishers of their legal rights. In response, some publishers have launched an AI licensing initiative. As far as I understand, the argument is that AI companies should pay to use this content. Whether this is opportunism or a genuine solution is for you to judge.
Ultimately, the writers' stance bore fruit and they won the day. At least for now.
Since the measures were first proposed for the music industry around a year ago, the government's stance has remained unchanged. Given this, and especially if the outcome is positive, wouldn't the government — or other governments — wish to apply this to other forms of artistic expression as well? With investment in AI reaching billions of dollars in recent years, would governments not do everything in their power to advance its development, which they claim to be constantly refining? However, while this advances the production of increasingly human-like responses and content, does it not undermine the creativity of real, living human beings? Are these billionaires, corporations and governments — who have vowed to encroach thoughtlessly upon the artistic expressions to which we have dedicated our labour and time — not the very embodiment of evil? After all, they have already eroded our security, boundaries and privacy.
They have already started using AI to create animations, TV series and film scenes, as well as actors. I am particularly curious to see what will happen with the AI-assisted creation of actors. Do you think we will see similar developments in this area next year, or perhaps even sooner?
Comments