France’s cultural sector groups denounce parliamentary obstruction over AI legislation

Cultural sector groups in France denounced on Wednesday parliamentary obstruction over discussions on the Darcos bill, which aims to rebalance the power dynamic between authors and artificial intelligence companies.

SACD, a group defending authors' rights, deplored "the parliamentary obstruction strategy deliberately orchestrated by certain deputies from the Renaissance group" in a written statement.

The bill aims to establish a presumption of use of copyrighted works by artificial intelligence systems, and it was scheduled to be examined for a plenary session of the National Assembly on Thursday.

SACD noted that the mass filing of more than 100 amendments by several lawmakers from the Renaissance party "has the sole effect and purpose of delaying, complicating, and jeopardizing a legislative advancement long awaited by the entire cultural and press sectors."

The group argued that the obstruction calls into question the real ambitions of the party leader Gabriel Attal, who is a candidate for the presidency in the upcoming elections.

"When he claims the goal of making France 'the homeland of AI,' should we understand that this ambition is to be built on the widespread, even encouraged, theft of authors’ works?" SACD wrote.

"Should we understand that Gabriel Attal and his allies have firmly sided with the American tech giants, who would be the primary beneficiaries of maintaining the status quo, to the detriment of French creators?" it added.

Cecile Rap-Veber, CEO of the French Society of Authors, Composers and Music Publishers (SACEM), also described the day when Renaissance lawmakers "decided to bury culture and the press in favor of AI" as a "day of mourning."

In a social media post, she noted that the bill merely aimed to ensure respect for copyright by AI actors. "It creates no new rights, does not disrupt any legal balance."

"In the face of this, some chose obstruction. No one can seriously claim that 110 amendments submitted to such a limited text were intended to improve its drafting. Their effect was obvious: to prevent debate and delay the vote," Rap-Veber stated.

She noted that rejecting artists' demand for transparency and the enforcement of the law on the issue sends a message that "creators’ rights have become secondary whenever they collide with the interests of certain tech actors and the government’s political choices."

"Digital sovereignty cannot be achieved at the expense of cultural sovereignty. They must develop together. The debate is postponed, not buried. And everyone will now have to take responsibility," she added.