On the Record: Behind the Hollywood-backed AI Copyright Transparency Act
On February 4, 2025, California assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan introduced the AI Copyright Transparency Act, which would apply to artificial intelligence models.[1] AI systems that trained their models using data from the Web originally did not disclose the sources used in training.[2] Creatives that own copyrighted material posted online would use this bill to verify if their material is used in AI-generated content.[3] However, creative groups who support the act were at odds with Silicon Valley tech companies, who argue it is unfeasible to implement in practice.[4]
This bill would require a developer of an AI system or model to document and develop a list of copyrighted materials used to train the system.[5] The developer would have to provide a comprehensive list of copyrighted materials to each copyright holder who submits a written request.[6] The developer would also have to notify applicable copyright owners who submit a request if the model does not use any of their materials.[7] This would be done using a Training Data Verification Request (TDVR) tool.[8] A copyright owner would use this tool to query a developer and find out if specific intellectual property was used to train a certain AI model.[9]
Developers would have seven days within receipt of a written request to provide a list of copyrighted materials to the copyright owner. [10] Likewise, they would have 30 days to notify a copyright owner that their materials are not being used.[11] If a copyright owner was not provided with a list or notice, they would bring a civil action suit for damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.[12] This law would apply to any GenAI system or model used commercially in California or made available to use in California.[13] Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan commented that this act would increase accountability for AI developers and empower copyright owners to exercise their rights.[14]
On March 18, 2025, the act had its first legislative hearing. Bauer-Kahan was joined by SAG-AFTRA, a union for creatives and one of the bill’s sponsors.[15] SAG-AFTRA representatives noted concerns over AI developers using artists’ work to train models without proper consent or compensation, and argued that technology companies have a current practice of hiding the works used to train models.[16] SAG-AFTRA also negotiated over AI during the strike against the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers in 2023.[17] SAG-AFTRA secretary-treasurer Joely Fisher testified at the bill’s first hearing, claiming that legislation is needed to enforce the AI agreements reached in the union’s contract.[18] Illegal distribution could already be penalized for up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.[19] Among other proponents include the National Association of Voice Actors, who stressed the importance of copyright ownership of sound files and expressed concerns over the livelihood of voice actors if not given proper control over how their work is used in GenAI.[20]
Opponents of this act include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA).[21] The CCIA testified against the act on March 18, arguing that it would place an uneven burden on startups and small businesses.[22] The Chamber of Progress, a representative of technology companies, wrote in an opposition letter that imposing documentation requirements on AI developers would negatively impact consumers by delaying access to emerging applications and reducing Gen-AI’s capabilities.[23] The group further asserted that the bill may conflict with established fair use protections.[24]
As of March 20, 2025, AB 412 has advanced to the House Judiciary Committee after a 10-to-3 vote by the California Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection.[25]
Footnotes
