Ranking Member Johnson's Opening Statement For Hearing on AI and Right of Publicity
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet will hold a field hearing on Friday, February 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. PT in Los Angeles, California. The hearing, "Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Part II – Identity in the Age of AI" will examine how Congress can support responsible innovation in applications of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and address growing concerns about the misuse of AI technology, especially with respect to the likeness, voice, and other identifying characteristics of individuals. The Subcommittee will hear the perspective of artists and creators for whom their likeness, voice, etc., are critical to their livelihoods, as well as that of innovators leading the AI revolution.
WITNESSES:
Lainey Wilson, 2024 GRAMMY Nominee; 2023 CMA Entertainer of the Year; 2023 ACM Female Artist of the Year - testimony
Harvey Mason jr., President and CEO, Recording Academy - testimony
Christopher Mohr, President, Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) - testimony
Jennifer Rothman, Nicholas F. Gallicchio Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Thank you, Chairman Issa, for calling this important hearing today. I have to say, I’m enjoying this tour of artistic and creative hubs. And I would be remiss to not put in a plug for Atlanta, Georgia, where the music industry generates nearly $990 million each year, as our next destination.
But joking aside, this hearing could not have come at a better time. On a weekend where the music industry is set to celebrate their best and brightest, their up-and-comers, and their living legends, we are here to examine the laws that protect creators from misuse of a technology that is poised to upend the world as we know it.
Drake and The Weeknd didn’t collaborate to produce “Heart on My Sleeve.” President Biden didn’t record a robocall telling New Hampshire Democrats not to vote in their primary. And Tom Hanks did not appear in a video endorsing a dental plan. They didn’t have to. Using generative artificial intelligence, or generative AI, a layperson can manipulate an individual’s image, likeness, or voice to produce novel content without the subject’s knowledge or consent.
Altering voices and manipulating images is nothing new. Creating new material indistinguishable from reality is.
Because of these technological advancements, 2024 will be the first AI presidential election, where deepfakes and misinformation will have the power to deceive voters and make a controversial election even more divisive. Abuse of women through the creation of explicit images with generative AI is already a problem. And consumer fraud through the replication of loved ones’ voices is no longer a ponderous law school hypothetical.
Beyond the parade of horribles, generative AI poses unique challenges to the creative industries, in which AI has the potential to create an even larger gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Aspiring singers, songwriters, and musicians move to Atlanta, Georgia every day in the hopes of making it in the music industry. These individuals—many of whom are my constituents—often work multiple jobs while they pursue their dream of being able to make a living wage based on their creative talents alone. Between COVID shutdowns of concert venues and increased costs of living, artists in my district already feel their dream is even farther out of reach. Misuse of generative AI technologies could compound that problem.
For example, copyright laws protect an aspiring singer from having her work performed without compensation. But that copyright does not necessarily extend to the sound of her voice. AI can create an original background track in her voice simply by ingesting previous recordings, without her knowledge, without her consent, and certainly without payment.
Our question today is not if, but how Congress should act to protect artists from such treatment. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that the creators who enrich our society with their talent and work are able to live and thrive in the age of AI. Many states protect a right of publicity, but no such right exists at a federal level. I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses how they believe the current system is working and what protections should look like if enacted by Congress.
Finally, I recognize that change is not something we can ignore. We cannot legislate a perpetual “here and now” into existence. And we should not want to. In addition to the profound medical, business, and therapeutic advancements offered by AI, the creative industries themselves have already benefited from the incorporation of AI into their artistry. Indeed, that same aspiring singer can experiment and create new works without the resource-intensive equipment and studio time needed just a few years ago.
I thank the Chairman again for holding this important hearing, I thank the witnesses for their time, and I yield back.