Evidence of meeting #11 for Canadian Heritage in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was games.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lisa Hepfner
Thank you.
I'm sorry; we're out of time for that, but I think you answered the question.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Entertainment Software Association of Canada
No problem.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's my turn to thank the witnesses for joining us today.
It's always instructive and interesting to get the points of view of the different cultural sectors affected by AI, this new reality.
Mr. Bischoff, we've talked a number of times, and again recently.
I'd like to know how your members feel about this AI thing.
Do they see it as something fantastic, a new tool they can use, or do they see it as something to worry about?
AI is causing a lot of concern, especially as it relates to copyright. I imagine you're worried about more than just the technology.
Could you tell us how your members see AI?
Director of Policy, Directors Guild of Canada
Thank you for the question.
To start with, I would say that members are very worried. It is one of the main concerns of Directors Guild of Canada members.
Like I said before, our members have always adapted to new technology. They use it.
I think there's a shift happening now with AI. This is a pivotal moment when we need to make a choice. I'm talking more specifically about generative AI.
When guild members use this tool, they need to be in control of it. Creative vision should always be protected. AI cannot be allowed to take control and replace them.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Directors have to adapt to new technology. That's nothing new. They've been doing it for the last fifty to a hundred years.
What is so worrisome about this new technology?
What makes it more threatening to your members than any other technology they've seen over the years?
What do you think, Mr. Sonoda?
National President, Directors Guild of Canada
It's a really great conversation. I loved your reference to the Gutenberg printing press and how masters would copy other masters' work. Intrinsic to that, there was always a human element—someone had to put something in the press, and someone had to paint strokes that Da Vinci did beforehand. What we're talking about here, and I think one of the points we want to make, is that this is entirely different.
Here's the existential scenario I grapple with as a director in Canada. I direct TV shows like Trailer Park Boys, Hudson & Rex, Murdoch Mysteries and This Hour Has 22 Minutes. A platform, any platform, is available to a consumer. The consumer says, “I want to see a Trailer Park Boys episode starring my best friend Sam and my dog Scruffy.” They want it to have a birthday party set in the parliamentary chambers we're in here. Then it creates that. There is no human authorship there.
It's like ordering a can of soup. You're talking about Andy Warhol's soup can. It's saying, “I want a tomato soup with a little bit of basil and maybe some pine nuts,” and that is the output of it, but the human storytelling is lost. That's what keeps me up at night.
You talk about what we're worried about. Our gaming experts here know the rapid rise of how fast this is happening—it's exponential. This is not science fiction; this is coming. When we say we have to be prepared for it, this is what we're talking about.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
It's very interesting that you referred to Mr. Chan's earlier comments about the printing press and the camera. Correct me if I'm wrong, but crafts didn't just disappear with those inventions, at least, not always.
You also talked about works that inspire others. Obviously, creators always reference other artists' works. Each creator references culture in their own way. That is how they create.
It's always been like that. We've often seen it in music. The creators of the song Stairway to Heaven were taken to court several times and accused of having copied part of a melody previously recorded in someone's basement. Up to a few years ago, the creators of the song Hotel California were dealing with the same thing.
All that to say that people have always had some recourse if they thought their work had been plagiarized. That isn't possible, though, with AI.
Would you agree?
a.k.a. EEPMON, Digital Generative Artist, As an Individual
Well, I think with AI, regardless of whether it's a machine or a person using the tool, it's a new derivative work. Let's be frank: The artists will always be the artists, and it's not a substitute for the...if it's mimicking something. If anything, it actually amplifies.... “Oh wow, this is a parody of an episode of Trailer Park Boys or a riff off Andy Warhol's pieces.” This whole parody aspect of it has been like that ever since. I would say that the fight between painters and photographers was huge. It was a big turning point.
My perspective is that I like to think new economies and new innovations are a result of this uncertainty, of these unknowns. That's why we're here today to discuss these things, some of which we won't even know until we are in it—the new opportunities that are a result of using these AI tools.
That being said, of course, we need to approach it in a way that.... That's why we're here to have these conversations. I agree that we have to address it head-on. I feel that to really clamp down on this technology would definitely stifle the innovation envelope. Meanwhile, our counterparts around the world are really accelerating it.
For the creative side, I think that's why I say the unknown and the unexpected—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lisa Hepfner
Thank you, Mr. Chan. Hopefully, we can get back to this question. We're out of time.
Mr. Généreux, you have the floor for five minutes.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC
Your comments are very interesting, Mr. Chan.
I've had a feeling since the beginning of this study that there is a big gap between the two sides. People are very afraid of what AI will bring.
Others, like you, say that's life. Let's use AI. I feel as if we're reaching a balance. Directors have to adapt to change. You've always been able to do so, and I think, inevitably, you'll continue to do so.
You've just said that, when it comes to innovation, you have to learn to accept and use new things; otherwise, you miss out on opportunities. As you said, people innovate everywhere. Young people in their basements in the remotest parts of New Brunswick, maybe even in Mr. Myles's basement, are creating things and moving forward.
I'll ask you the same question I'll be asking the artists who will be appearing before us this week.
Can we really live without copyright or without some sort of copyright framework?
I see Mr. Sonoda nodding. Mr. Chan, could you answer first?
a.k.a. EEPMON, Digital Generative Artist, As an Individual
Is that intellectual property?
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC
Is it possible to earn a living from intellectual property without a copyright framework?
Can artists make a living or will they be able to?
a.k.a. EEPMON, Digital Generative Artist, As an Individual
If I understand your question correctly, I think it's the idea of using IP to create some parody work as a derivative. Is that what you...?
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC
There are copyrights to protect works when they're created.
Do you, as a creator, use copyright to protect your works, for personal gain? In other words, do you use copyright to earn your living?
Do you need copyright today? Do you think it will still be necessary five, 10 or 20 years from now?
a.k.a. EEPMON, Digital Generative Artist, As an Individual
I think they can coexist. I've worked with brands, with IPs, on my own, without AI. Currently, right now, I'm using AI in increments to improve some of my codebase for my visual output.
I think they can coexist. I think that you let the markets decide, in a way, to see that perhaps the collaboration between IP and AI could come up with a new way of building an economy for the creative industry.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC
If I'm not mistaken, you work at Library and Archives Canada.
You once said in an interview that our library and archives house an incredibly rich collection.
Through the use of AI, so tools you're using today, how could we leverage that collection for the benefit of all Canadians and the rest of the world?
Right now, it's a question of identity. Could those tools help us define our identity?
a.k.a. EEPMON, Digital Generative Artist, As an Individual
I think so.
What's interesting is that with my experience at Library and Archives Canada as creator in residence, there's a wealth of data. There's a lot of stuff that's just tucked away that we don't know. It's hidden, but what data and the use of AI could do is bring this more democratizing accessibility to enable people to look at it.
Everyone could look at the pieces. It would be much easier for people to look at the art, based on using AI. Yes, why not? It's a tool. At the end of the day, for me, AI is a tool. Just like computer coding, AI is a way to express an art form. Why not use it to look at certain datasets and then express something out of it and create some new visual narratives about our cultural preservation?
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC
With AI, are you able to earn a living from your art?
a.k.a. EEPMON, Digital Generative Artist, As an Individual
Yes. The thing is that being a digital artist—this is not talking about AI but digital—allows me to work in different industries: fashion, video games, visual art, public art, murals. My work is very diversified.
Liberal
Liberal
Zoe Royer Liberal Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much to our witnesses for appearing here today.
The Library of Parliament outlines the policy divide between opt-in and opt-out regimes. The opt-in model requires creators' permissions before their work trains AI, and the opt-out model allows it automatically, unless they object.
Mr. Bischoff, you mentioned that the opt-in model would be preferable. Could you expand on the reasons that that's preferable to the opt-out model?
Director of Policy, Directors Guild of Canada
Yes, the reason is that authors should be able to consent to whether they'd like to opt in, and they should know what's in the public registries—when, in fact, their work will be used for training—so it would really be a disservice for authors and creators to only have access with the opt-out.
The opt-out—as we see is the case right now in Europe with the EU AI Act—has created a lot of issues, and most of the time it is very challenging, almost impossible, to understand how to opt out if your work has been used for training without authorization.
As the copyright framework stands, the opt-in is really the best option.
Liberal
Zoe Royer Liberal Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
In practice, with that meaningful consent—opting in—how could a policy ensure that creators are credited and compensated when their work trains AI systems? What would it look like in practice?
Director of Policy, Directors Guild of Canada
I believe that, as laid out, it's in different steps. First and foremost, it's to require full transparency from AI systems and also be able to access some public registries.
With regard to opt-in consent from authors and in terms of licensing schemes, we believe that the industry is working its way to developing appropriate systems for licensing. We've seen some examples. For example, I would cite the company Moonvalley. It's actually providing a system that is trained on lawfully acquired copyrighted works.
Those are some solutions that the industry is working its way—