California doesn't own AI policy

In recent years, Californians have seen government intrusion on overdrive. From water rationing to cracking down on the “gig economy,” Sacramento has been telling us how to live our lives and run our businesses. Now, the state government has its eyes set on one of our most fundamental rights: the freedom of contract.

Contracting is the opposite of governmental regulation. It allows people to make mutually beneficial agreements without the coercive powers of the state dictating the terms. People make contracts every day without government interference.

When it comes to contracts for the use of one’s digital likeness, Sacramento now wants to limit this freedom, driven by a technopanic over generative artificial intelligence.

Assembly Bill 2602 targets so-called “digital replicas,” which are virtual representations of real people. Creators have been employing replicas for decades, using teams of skilled animators and computer-generated imagery (CGI). AI streamlines and reduces barriers to this technology, making it easier for smaller producers without large movie studio budgets to incorporate digital replicas into their art.

Of course, when technology becomes available to the masses, it’s more difficult to control.

The bill would insert government into the creative process, unnecessarily dictating special provisions about the use of digital replicas if the business seeks to create a digital replica of an agreeable employee. What’s worse is the legislation would be retroactive and invalidate existing contracts if the employee was not represented by a lawyer or union representative during the negotiation period.

Californians can adopt a child, get married, sell a house, create a last will and testament, and organize a corporation in the Golden State without paying a lawyer or union dues. But sign an agreement about digital replicas? That’s a bridge too far, say the sponsors of AB 2602.

While one can appreciate the wisdom of individuals retaining counsel in many contexts, it’s not the government’s job to require that for digital replicas or any other reason. Such a requirement is likely unconstitutional and, as a policy matter, is a dangerous overreach that compromises the individual liberty of performers and ordinary Californians.

What’s more, AB 2602 does nothing to address actual harms, and potential harms, associated with digital replicas created using AI. This technology has been used for exploitation. The phony pornographic AI-generated images of Taylor Swift released on social media last month is a shocking example. Likewise, an AI-generated voice clone used to convince parents their child was kidnapped, or an unauthorized dental ad featuring an AI-generated Tom Hanks, were not created by good-faith businesses, but rather malicious actors seeking illicit financial gain.

AB 2602 does nothing to curtail or punish such behavior but imposes a variety of new costs on individuals and businesses that seek legitimate uses of the technology.

The proposal is simply impractical. The law’s terms like “digital replica” and “generative artificial intelligence” are ill-defined and so vague that it’s unclear how such a retroactive requirement would even apply.

Would a cartoon rendering of an actor in a Simpsons episode meet the definition of a “digital replica”? Will common editing techniques and CGI use cases, like those that put Forrest Gump at the center of major world events, now be considered “AI”? Are studios and production companies, let alone smaller creators, supposed to comb through their oeuvre and attempt to identify “digital replicas” that the authors of the bill can’t even define? This would be a boon for lawyers, but a waste of time and money for creators — and a loss for California’s economy.

As is often the case, Sacramento is rushing to regulate complicated questions that may be better answered by others. Copyright law is a federal matter and it makes sense to see what Congress may do before we try to preempt a more deliberative action.

There are worthy concerns underpinning AB 2602. No one wants to see actors and creators exploited by new technology. But Sacramento shouldn’t go it alone.

— The above op-ed by Lance Christensen, CPC's Vice President of Government Affairs, was originally published by the Southern California New Group about AB 459. Since its publication, the bill has been reintroduced as AB 2602.

Register now for CPC's Parents, Not Partisans Summit 

Have you registered yet for CPC's third annual Parents, Not Partisans Summit in Sacramento on Tuesday, March 12-Wednesday, March 13, 2024? Our theme this year: Who Controls the Classroom? We're proud to partner with PERK (Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids) to present an all-star lineup of speakers who will offer their insights and in-depth skill building on grassroots mobilization, effective advocacy, strategic communications and more!

On Tuesday, hear from Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute and creator of the popular Tuttle Twins children's book series, and parental rights champion Sonja Shaw, President of the Chino Valley Unified School Board, along with:
 

• Tab Berg | Political Strategist & Founder, TAB Communications  
• Amy Bohn | Founder & President, PERK
• Dr. Nicole Conragan | School Choice Advocate & Board Secretary, Parents for School Options
• Kira Davis | Author & Podcast Host
• Maxie Douglas | Director of Communications, California Senate Republican Caucus
• LTC Kenney Enney (Ret.) | Trustee, Paso Robles Joint Unified School District
• Erin Friday | Co-Leader, Our Duty (U.S.) & Executive Committee Member, Protect Kids California
• Sophia Lorey | Outreach Director, California Family Council 
• Julie Hamill | Attorney & Trustee, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District 
• Alexis Nester | Political Director, Parents Defending Education Action
• Frank Xu | President, Californians for Equal Rights Foundation

• Tom Sheehy | Principal, Sheehy Strategy Group
• Hector Barajas | CEO, Amplify360

RSVP now for CLEO's Virtual Event: Protecting California's Kids

Save the date for CLEO's virtual event, Protecting California's Kids, on Thursday, March 7, 2024 from 12:00-1:00pm. Join us for an update on parental notification policies and litigation, legislation and ballot initiatives to protect the rights of California's parents and kids with our panelists: 

• Scott Davison — Attorney, Director of the Carlsbad Education Alliance, and Co-founder of Students First California
• Erin Friday — Attorney and Co-leader of the Western Region of Our Duty
• Jonathan Zachreson — Roseville City School District Trustee, Founder of Reopen California Schools, and Co-founder of Students First California.

You must register for the event to receive the Zoom link. Register here and the Zoom link will be emailed to you before the event.