California lawmakers are again considering A.B. 412, a bill that would require AI developers to identify and disclose copyrighted works used to train generative AI systems.

The problem this year is the same as last year: it’s practically impossible to comply with this law. The bill demands information that often does not exist, and cannot realistically be obtained. 

EFF submitted an opposition letter to the California Senate Privacy Committee explaining why we continue to believe A.B. 412 is simply unworkable. To the extent developers do follow this law, it will have the effect of locking in the power of the largest companies in AI. 

A Burden That Can’t Be Met

A.B. 412 sounds simple: just have AI developers create and keep a list of all the registered copyrighted works they use in AI training. 

That may seem straightforward. In practice, it’s anything but. 

There is no machine-readable “list” of copyrighted works at the U.S. Copyright Office. And many copyright holders can get a copyright without even depositing a publicly viewable sample of the work—for example, software companies may register copyright on proprietary code without revealing it to the public. 

And on the open internet, copyright information is often incomplete, unavailable, or impossible to verify. One image may be registered with the copyright office, while the next is licensed under a free Creative Commons license (like the images that EFF creates), and the next is public domain. A message forum user might post an original story, photograph, or poem without any indication of ownership or registration status. 

The bill effectively asks developers to continuously cross-reference massive batches of online data against a copyright system that simply wasn’t designed to do so. If California passes A.B. 412, its impact will go far beyond the large AI companies we read about in the headlines. 

Not Just Big Tech

Supporters often frame this bill as a way to help creative workers have some leverage against Big Tech, but the bill reaches much further than the big AI companies. 

Its definition of “developer” extends to anyone who makes a generative AI model available to Californians. That includes indie developers tinkering with an existing model, open-source initiatives, nonprofits, and other non-commercial efforts. Recent amendments added exemptions for universities and government entities, which is important, but that still leaves out a vast swathe of non-commercial tech work that’s done by people without full-time jobs in government or academia. 

Large companies will hire compliance teams and lawyers to navigate these requirements. Smaller organizations and independent developers usually can’t. The result will be fewer opportunities for startups and new entrants. Faced with this massive compliance burden, some won’t even try. 

Courts Are Already Deciding These Questions

The bill is premised on the idea that copyright owners currently don’t have good remedies if they’re mistreated by AI companies. That simply isn’t true. And the growing wave of federal court filings in this space prove it. Content companies that want to sue tech companies, large or small, have no problem doing so. Those courts are still working through important questions about fair use and transformative use. Some courts have already concluded that many AI training activities qualify as fair use. Others continue to evaluate the issue.

California lawmakers should not rush to impose new state regulation while those questions remain unresolved. This is why copyright is governed at the federal level: both creators and fair users benefit from a single set of nationwide rules. 

At this point, the bill remains a solution in search of a problem. Rights holders already have powerful tools to protect their interests under existing federal law. What this bill adds isn’t clarity or transparency, but a costly and essentially impossible compliance burden that will discourage small developers and researchers. 

California has been able to support both artistic creativity and tech innovation for decades now.  But A.B. 412 does not strike the right balance. 

If you are a California resident and interested in speaking out about this bill, you can find and contact your representatives through this website. 

Two immigration protection bills passed by Democrats in the state legislature met different fates this week, with Gov. Jared Polis vetoing one and signing the other into law. 

Polis vetoed Senate Bill 5 on Wednesday, June 3, a measure that would have allowed people to sue federal immigration officers in Colorado civil court if those officers violated their constitutional rights. 

It was sponsored by Sens. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora, and Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, and Reps. Javier Mabrey, D-Denver, and Yara Zokaie, D-Fort Collins. 

Supporters of the bill said it was aimed at holding federal agents, like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, accountable. The measure was passed following national backlash to the January shootings and deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, which involved federal agents. 

In a letter describing his reasons for the veto, Polis said the bill was too narrow and could weaken other civil rights protections if it were to be struck down by a court. Polis said the bill only applies to violations during immigration enforcement, and does not provide an avenue to sue the federal government for violating rights during protests, elections, prisons or in the workplace.

“It’s that narrow focus that unfortunately creates legal jeopardy,” Polis wrote. “I believe Colorado has a chance to get this right — and we must pass a broader version of this bill that protects all constitutional rights, including in the immigration context, that will serve to truly hold public officials accountable.”

The same Democrats who sponsored SB 5 tried to pass a broader version of the legislation that would have allowed lawsuits against any government employee, including local, state and federal officials, for any civil rights violations. 

That measure, Senate Bill 176, dubbed the “No Kings Act,” was killed during a committee hearing in May after two Democrats — Sens. Dylan Roberts of Frisco and Lindsey Daugherty of Arvada — joined the committee’s two Republicans in voting it down. The bill faced pushback from local governments, police groups and district attorneys, as well as from Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who criticized the legislation for being overly broad and said it would lead to a flood of lawsuits against local and state officials. 

Polis, in his veto letter, wrote that he supported that bill and that his office worked with sponsors on the legislation, which he believed “would withstand legal scrutiny.” Polis blamed “overly intense and misleading lobbying from local governments and public entities” for the bill’s failure. 

Polis, who is term-limited after this year, urged lawmakers and groups involved with that bill to continue working toward a solution. He also acknowledged the need to hold federal officials to the same standards as state and local ones, writing that “we have seen too many examples of senseless deaths and constitutional rights violations during immigration enforcement operations and raids in recent years, and there is an urgent need for federal immigration agents to be held accountable for these lawless actions.”

So far this year, Polis has vetoed 12 bills, the most of his tenure as governor. 

Alex Sanchez, president and CEO for the Western Slope-based immigrant advocacy group Voces Unidas, said in a text message that he is “deeply disappointed” in the governor’s veto. 

“This veto caps one of the most disappointing legislative sessions for Latinos and immigrants in recent Colorado history — and Democrats, who control state government, are responsible,” Sanchez said. 

Sanchez criticized a bill passed by Republicans and some Democrats that raises the hourly threshold for overtime pay for agricultural workers from 48 hours to 56 hours, which Polis signed last month. He also blasted Democrats for killing a bill earlier this year that would have required state and local law enforcement to arrest federal immigration officers who violate state law and prohibited state and local law enforcement from concealing their identity.

“Colorado’s Latino communities deserved strong leadership,” Sanchez said. “We got excuses instead.”

Polis signs bill on immigration detention facilities 

Polis did sign another immigration-related measure on Thursday. 

House Bill 1276 expands the state’s ability to inspect and regulate immigration detention centers. The measure allows the state to inspect detention centers’ food, water quality and other conditions, and requires those centers to pay for the inspections. Detention centers will also need to submit data annually to the state on the health outcomes of detainees and pass an environmental impact study.

Additionally, the measure bans local and state transit services from transporting immigrants for detention and requires state agencies to publicly disclose when they have received a subpoena from federal immigration officers. 

A previous version of the bill would have held state agencies, not just their employees, liable for violating state laws on immigration information sharing, but that provision was removed after bill sponsors said they heard concerns from Polis.

“We won’t let the federal government operate dangerous and inhumane detention centers without oversight, and our bill ensures facilities are regularly inspected,” said bill sponsor Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, D-Glenwood Springs, in a statement. “All Coloradans deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and this law establishes some important guardrails for detention centers and safeguards Coloradans’ privacy.”  

The bill’s other sponsors were Weissman, Sen. Iman Jodeh, D-Aurora, and Rep. Lorena Garcia, D-Adams County. 

It will be much easier to watch University of Hawaii athletics this season, both in and out of the state.

Beginning this season, the University of Hawaii will move its broadcasts from Spectrum Sports to Hawaii News Now, a group of over-the-air stations owned by Gray Media. Gray will also have the opportunity to distribute some Hawaii programming on its stations outside Hawaii.

“This partnership is about maximizing exposure for our programs and ensuring every fan in Hawai’i and beyond can watch our games,” said UH Athletics Director Matt Elliott in a press release.

Advertisement

Broadcasts on Hawaii News Now will include 110 home sporting events per year, including all available football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball, men’s volleyball, and women’s volleyball games, along with a select number of baseball, softball, and women’s soccer events.

The announcement builds on changes made last season, when football broadcasts moved from pay-per-view to cable on Spectrum Sports. Outside Hawaii, broadcasts moved from the mobile-only Team1 Sports app to the more accessible free Mountain West app. The Mountain West is also in the process of launching a new, and likely paid, direct-to-consumer streaming service through the app for this upcoming season.

The University of Hawaii is part of a long list of sporting entities that have worked to make their sports properties more accessible in recent years. The old pay-per-view broadcasts long helped fund the extra travel required for other schools to play at Hawaii. This new partnership is expected to return the university $7.5 million a year, up from $3.2 million in the previous pay-per-view-focused deal with Spectrum. In addition, the university will receive additional media revenue by moving its athletics entirely to the Mountain West. Outside of football, Hawaii has long been part of the Big West, which has a far less lucrative media rights deal.

Several NBA and NHL teams have made similar decisions in recent years, including the Phoenix Suns and New Orleans Pelicans, which partnered with Gray Media to move all of their broadcasts over the air. Teams that have made the move have publicly expressed satisfaction with their decision despite earning less revenue than was the case through traditional RSNs.