ETHICAL & LEGAL COMMUNICATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE
NADIA HORN
“Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means” (Kant, 1785).
PREFACE
Immanuel Kant emphasized that it is important to treat others with dignity and respect. This principle can guide ethical and respectful interactions, ensuring that communication treats others with respect by listening actively, valuing their perspectives, and responding thoughtfully. Communication, guided by these principles, avoids manipulation, deceit, and coercion. It focuses on honesty, transparency, and fairness. By treating individuals as ends in communication, relationships are built on mutual respect and trust. It encourages a collaborative environment where all parties feel valued and heard. This creates a valued dialogue, which is a prized commodity for any communication professional, especially in today’s interconnected society.
Our world is becoming increasingly interconnected, with technology achieving feats once only imagined in science fiction novels. Despite this connectivity, society has become fragmented, and communication now primarily occurs in the digital realm, demanding tailored information for different segments of society. Today’s digital environment includes the Internet, social media, the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, and the rapidly developing Artificial Intelligence, with each requiring its own unique approach in communication.
Maintaining a credible reputation as a communicator is crucial. The instantaneous dissemination of information through technology poses a challenge to communicators and content creators. Given the speed at which information travels through digital means, communicators cannot afford to make grave errors in their message or moral judgment. As Warren Buffett famously said, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently” (Connors, 2013). There is a pressing need to actively seek to reevaluate codes of ethics and to keep updated with fast-changing legal frameworks.
By creating this handbook, I intend to offer a valuable framework for modern communication professionals regarding ethical and legal communication in the digital era.
OVERVIEW
In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, communication professionals across various sectors face both significant opportunities and complex ethical challenges due to technological advancements.
From the increasing interactivity of social media to the automation features of artificial intelligence (AI), the modern digital environment has significantly transformed communication, requiring strong governance to prevent potential harm and a revised ethical approach to maintain trust and credibility.
This handbook is designed to provide professionals with strategies for ethical and legal communication in today’s digital landscape. It offers guidance to ensure responsible digital communication and addresses legal requirements and ethical
Additionally, it includes a case study that explores a realworld digital communication issue, serving as a practical example and demonstrating the application of the ethical principles and legal guidelines discussed in the handbook.
LAWS & REGULATIONS
“The law is reason unaffected by desire” (Aristotle, 1998, Book III, Chapter 16).
The First Amendment and Digital Communication
“The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (The White House, 2024). Today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape is challenging traditional communication norms and laws governing our freedoms, particularly the freedom of speech. In Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump, the court ruled that the interactive space on Twitter where users engage with President Trump’s tweets is a public forum and is protected by the First Amendment, prohibiting the President from blocking users (Knight First Amendment Institute at
Columbia University v. Trump, No. 18-1691, 2019). This case created a controversy, with some, like Harvard Law Review, raising questions about Twitter’s own free speech rights. As a private platform, Twitter typically controls who uses it and what is posted. By designating part of Twitter as a public forum, the court imposes First Amendment obligations on Twitter, creating a conflict between users’ rights to engage in the forum and Twitter’s right to control its platform (Recent Case: Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump, 2019).
The case involved President Donald Trump’s use of his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, which he used to communicate with the public about government policies and decisions. Several individuals were blocked by Trump on Twitter after they posted critical replies to his tweets. The First Amendment prevents the government from excluding speech or speakers
from a public forum based on their viewpoint. According to Global Freedom of Expression, The Court referred to Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006) to show that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against individuals for speaking out. It ruled that President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking the Plaintiffs for their critical comments. This case reinforced previous rulings that government officials’ use of social media for official purposes can be seen as a public forum under the First Amendment, based on the account’s description and usage (Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald J. Trump - Global Freedom of Expression, 2019).
This ruling highlights the importance of free speech rights in the digital age and sets a precedent for holding public officials accountable for ensuring open and inclusive communication on the platforms they use for official purposes.
Landmark Court Cases in Digital Communication
Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, Section 230.
The conflicting rulings of Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. brought attention to a significant issue in the legal treatment of ISPs and their responsibility for user-generated content.
To solve this debacle, congress enacted Section 230 to provide immunity to online platforms for third-party content and for the removal of certain categories of content, aiming to support internet businesses and encourage them to regulate harmful online content (Department of Justice, 2020).
Section 230 is considered by legal scholars to be one of the most important laws protecting free
speech online (Moore et al., 2021). It declares that: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Congressional Research Service, 2021).
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Internet service providers and private platforms from legal liability for user-posted content deemed objectionable.
This provision has allowed the Internet to expand by providing protections for small start-up companies that have since grown into major tech firms and allowed communication professionals to create and manage digital platforms in a way that protects users from harm while respecting free speech.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 1997.
This Supreme Court case addressed the constitutionality of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), which aimed to protect minors from harmful online content. The Court disagreed with the CDA, stating that there was no history of Internet regulation, and that the Internet was not as invasive as radio or television (Reno v. ACLU, 1997).
“The record demonstrates that the growth of the Internet has been and continues to be phenomenal. As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.” (Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 1997)
The Reno v. ACLU ruling established a fundamental precedent that the Internet is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of communication, ensuring that content on the Internet is protected against government regulation and censorship.
The ruling suggested that more narrowly tailored regulations could be developed to protect minors without infringing on the First Amendment rights of the public (Reno v. ACLU, 1997). This has contributed to the Internet becoming a crucial space for political discourse, social interaction, and cultural exchange.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 1984.
The famous “Betamax case” trial was about the use of video tape recorders (VTRs) for recording TV programs at home. The Supreme Court’s ruling declared this practice legal, setting a precedent for fair use of digital content and influencing later rulings on digital copyright (Sony Corp. V. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 1984).
This ruling safeguarded technologies with noninfringing uses and has significantly influenced digital platforms and how we interact with content today. It benefits a broad spectrum of communication professionals who depend on fair use to incorporate copyrighted material in their work and establishes an environment for new works that creatively transform existing content.
The case continues to influence how digital content is handled, shared, and protected in a constantly evolving digital landscape. Recently, its relevance has been tested by today’s rapidly advancing Artificial Intelligence technology, as seen in New York Times v. OpenAI. (Metz & Weise, 2024).
Influence on Content & Messaging
The landmark rulings provide a strong framework for communication professionals, allowing freedom of expression while respecting legal boundaries.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity to online platforms from liability for user-generated content and allows for moderation of content (Department of Justice, 2020).
The Reno v. ACLU ruling impacts communication professionals by reinforcing free speech protections, with emphasis on the importance of legal compliance, transparency, and ethical considerations.
The “Betamax” case allows communication professionals to leverage the fair use policy to create content that transforms or builds upon existing works. This ruling enables content creation, innovation, and the dissemination of information in ways that respect intellectual property rights while encouraging creativity and freedom of expression.
LIST OF BEST LEGAL PRACTICES
» Promote communication that allows for a wide range of viewpoints and expressions, creating an environment where users can freely share their opinions and ideas.
» Clearly communicate content policies and moderation practices to users or audiences.
» Establish a fair and transparent appeals process for users or audiences to contest content or its moderation.
» Develop detailed content policies that address specific harmful behaviors (e.g., harassment, explicit content) without broadly restricting speech.
» Implement measures to protect minors and vulnerable users, such as applying ratings, disclaimers, age verification, and parental controls.
» Educate yourself and your team on the fair use doctrine to create, distribute, and manage content within legal boundaries and always ensure compliance with fair use principles.
» Always obtain proper permissions or licenses before using copyrighted material.
» Credit the original creators and sources appropriately when using their works.
» Stay informed about emerging legal issues and technological advancements to stay ahead of potential legal challenges.
» Continuously review and update content policies to reflect new legal standards.
ETHICAL GUIDELINES
In an era characterized by rapid technological advancements and evolving media landscapes, communication professionals must adhere to high ethical standards to maintain public trust and integrity. These guidelines are based on an analysis of existing ethical frameworks presented by the Institute for Advertising Ethics (IAE), the American Marketing Association (AMA), and the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ).
The following list of principles aims to serve as a comprehensive guide for professionals in public relations, journalism, advertising, and related fields. It ensures that their work upholds the values of truth, transparency, fairness, accountability, and respect.
Commit to Truth and Accuracy
Communication professionals must prioritize truth and accuracy, verify information, use original sources, and never distort facts or context (American Marketing Association, 2021; Society of Professional Journalists, 2014). They should never plagiarize and must always clearly identify their sources (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014). Advertisers should distinguish advertising from news and entertainment,
both online and offline (The Institute for Advertising Ethics, 2020).
Maintain Independence
Communication professionals must avoid conflicts of interest that compromise their objectivity and integrity (American Marketing Association, 2021; Society of Professional Journalists, 2014). They should refuse gifts, favors, and fees and avoid compromising activities, such as political activities. They must deny any favored
treatment to special interests, both internal and external, such as advertisers, donors, and sponsors, and resist any pressure to influence the communicated message (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014).
Uphold Transparency and Full Disclosure
Transparency is essential for maintaining trust. Professionals must be open about their methods, sources, and potential conflicts of interest. Communication
professionals should ensure full transparency by disclosing material conditions affecting endorsements, such as payments or free products, and identifying endorsers in all channels (The Institute for Advertising Ethics, 2020). They should maintain openness, clearly communicate with all stakeholders, accept feedback, disclose relevant information, and recognize contributions from others (American Marketing Association, 2021). Additionally, they must explain ethical decisions and processes to the audience, encourage dialogue about practices, respond to questions on accuracy and fairness, and promptly correct mistakes with clear explanations (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014).
Support an Inclusive Environment and Open Dialogue
Communication professionals should treat all individuals and groups with fairness, respect, and compassion. This includes considering the impact of their work on different audiences. Communication professionals must hold those in power accountable, give voice to the voiceless, and support the open and civil exchange of views, even those they disagree with (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014).
They should build a diverse and inclusive environment by valuing individual, cultural, and ethnic differences (American Marketing Association, 2021). They must treat all audience fairly, avoiding stereotypes and negative depictions of any group (The Institute for Advertising Ethics, 2020).
Promote Collaboration
Communication professionals should privately discuss potential ethical concerns within their teams, ensuring members can express these concerns internally (The Institute for Advertising Ethics, 2020). They should create an environment that encourages both internal and external feedback and free exchange of ideas (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014) and compel all partners to ensure that the trade of ideas and content creation is fair for all participants in the communication ecosystem (American Marketing Association, 2021).
Respect Personal Privacy
Communication professionals must respect the privacy of individuals and ensure that personal data is handled with care and confidentiality. They should never compromise
personal privacy in all communications, ensuring transparency and ease in personal privacy choices (The Institute for Advertising Ethics, 2020). They must recognize that private individuals have greater rights to control their information compared to public figures, carefully weighing the consequences of publishing, or broadcasting personal information (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014). Furthermore, they should strive to exceed industry and legal standards in protecting the private or sensitive information of all stakeholders (American Marketing Association, 2021).
Be Responsible Citizens
Communication professionals must always uphold high ethical standards and adhere to all relevant laws and regulations (The Institute for Advertising Ethics, 2020). They should abide by the same high standards they expect of others (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014). Professionals must recognize their social responsibilities to all stakeholders, considering environmental and societal impact in their decisionmaking. They should always strive to contribute to society’s improvement (American Marketing Association, 2021).
Justification for Inclusion
Commit to Truth and Accuracy
Maintaining truth and accuracy is one of the most crucial elements of ethical practice. In today’s fastpaced digital environment with instant global reach, it is more important than ever to prioritize truthful communication to prevent the spread of misinformation and maintain credibility and trust.
For example, when a communication professional shares information, it is important to verify sources, apply media literacy knowledge, and ensure the accuracy of the message. The content must never mislead, and information should clearly portray the message and intention.
For instance, the audience must easily distinguish between editorial content and advertising. This helps individuals make informed decisions and ultimately promotes a healthy marketplace of ideas.
Maintain Independence
Avoiding conflicts of interest safeguards the objectivity and
integrity of communication professionals.
For example, a professional who refuses gifts and political favors ensures the production of unbiased content, which is crucial in delivering impartial information to the public. This independence helps build a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness (Baran, 2022).
Uphold Transparency and Full Disclosure
Transparency is critical for building and maintaining trust. For example, a communication team should disclose any sponsorships or paid collaborations when promoting events or products. This allows the audience to understand the financial relationships behind the content.
Support an Inclusive Environment and Open Dialogue
In today’s global digital environment, it is important for communication professionals to value cultural and ethnic differences and be respectful to diverse audiences in all communication efforts. Treating all individuals
with fairness and respect is essential for ethical communication.
For instance, marketing materials should avoid stereotypes and negative depictions of groups of people. Furthermore, professionals should promote open dialogue with all stakeholders to ensure that all voices are heard, contributing to a more just society.
Promote Collaboration
Encouraging internal discussions about ethical concerns allows teams to address potential issues proactively. For example, a marketing team that regularly reviews its campaigns for ethical implications can avoid harmful practices before they reach the public.
Collaboration improves efficiency, quality, innovation, engagement, relevancy, and learning, promoting rapid acceptance of new ideas and the development of effective ethical communication strategies (The Importance of Collaboration in the Public Sector, 2017).
Respect Personal Privacy
Respecting privacy is critical in building trust and protecting
individuals’ rights. For example, a digital marketing team should ensure that any personal data collected through online forms, cookies, or tracking tools is securely stored and only used with explicit consent from users. They should provide clear options for users to manage their data preferences and opt-out of data collection if desired.
Recognizing that private individuals have greater rights to their information compared to public figures ensures ethical treatment and responsible communication practices.
Be Responsible Citizens
Communication professionals must adhere to high ethical standards and relevant laws. For instance, a crisis communication team should ensure that all public statements made during a crisis are truthful, transparent, and compliant with legal requirements. They should also focus on the well-being of affected communities by providing accurate information and resources to help them navigate the situation.
This shows their commitment to ethical responsibility and enhances the organization’s trust and credibility.
“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, …holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, 1863).
LIST OF BEST ETHICAL PRACTICES
» Verify information and use original sources.
» Distinguish advertising from editorial content.
» Avoid plagiarism and always identify sources.
» Never deliberately manipulate facts or context.
» Avoid conflicts of interest and refuse gifts or favors.
» Avoid engaging in activities that could compromise integrity.
» Deny any favored treatment to special interests.
» Disclose endorsements and potential conflicts of interest.
» Communicate openly with stakeholders and correct mistakes promptly.
» Treat all groups with fairness, respect, and compassion.
» Consider the impact of communication on different audiences.
» Support the open and civil exchange of views, even those with which you disagree.
» Acknowledge cultural and ethnic differences.
» Avoid stereotypes and negative depictions of any group.
» Protect personal data and ensure transparency in privacy choices.
» Exceed industry standards in data protection.
» Adhere to laws and uphold high ethical standards.
» Consider societal and environmental impacts in decisions.
© CASE STUDY
Current Dilemma of AI (Artificial Intelligence) vs. Copyright
The advent of new technologies has always posed challenges to established legal systems. However, the rapidly advancing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology presents a unique challenge, particularly in its data-sourcing practices.
Many creative individuals believe that AI developers are infringing on their intellectual property rights, leading to several ongoing lawsuits. One notable case is the New York Times v. OpenAI, which is currently setting the stage for a potentially groundbreaking precedent.
In its lawsuit, the New York Times asserts that OpenAI used “millions of articles published by The Times” to train automated chatbots, which now compete with the news outlet as a source of reliable information. The publication claims that OpenAI’s commercial success relies significantly on extensive copyright infringement.
is legal under the fair use principle (OpenAI and Journalism, 2024).
©
One of the key features driving the use and sales of ChatGPT and its associated products is the Large Language Model’s (LLM) ability to produce natural language text in a range of styles. The New York Times asserts that to achieve this, OpenAI made numerous reproductions of copyrighted works owned by The Times during the “training” of the LLM (Grynbaum & Mac, 2023).
Microsoft and OpenAI opposed a lawsuit filed by the New York Times, stating that they disagree with the claim that generative AI poses a threat to journalism. They argued that using copyrighted content as part of a technological process to create new and innovative products
This lawsuit is one of many recent legal actions from artists, musicians, authors, computer coders, and news organizations, all claiming that using copyrighted materials for training generative AI violates federal copyright law (Panettieri, 2024).
Another recent lawsuit filed by The Mercury News and seven other newspapers against OpenAI questions the fairness of using copyrighted newspaper content to build new trillion-dollar enterprises without paying for that content. The lawsuit argues that defendants should obtain the publishers’ consent to use their content and pay fair value for such use (Baron, 2024).
It is evident that current copyright law is not sufficient to address the major challenges posed by AI. In response in early 2023, the Copyright Office initiated a study to assess the impact of AI on copyright and provide recommendations.
The Office will release a report, divided into several sections, that analyzes the impact of AI on copyright and offers recommendations for any necessary legislative or regulatory action (Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office, 2023).
By using copyrighted materials without consent to train AI models, companies like OpenAI risk undermining the financial viability and creative autonomy of content creators. This practice raises ethical concerns about fairness, dignity, transparency, and respect for creators’ rights.
Application of the First Amendment
This controversy revolves around the U.S. Copyright Act, particularly its provisions regarding the protection of intellectual property and the fair use doctrine. Copyright inherently restricts speech by preventing unauthorized reproduction and distribution of creative works, with the intention of granting exclusive rights to creators.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that every copyright grant inherently restricts some expression, but this is a purposeful limitation to protect creators’ rights and is compatible with free speech principles (Cong. Rsch. Serv., n.d.).
Congressional Research Service (CRS) states that copyright law traditionally includes two important built-in accommodations for the First Amendment.
The first is the idea-expression distinction, which ensures that copyright protection does not “extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work” (17 USC 102: Subject Matter of Copyright: In General, 2024).
The second is the fair use doctrine, a copyright law that allows for certain uses of copyrighted material without permission, such as for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, by assessing factors like the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount used, and the economic impact, particularly focusing on whether the use is transformative, meaning it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message” (Cong. Rsch. Serv., n.d.).
While the First Amendment reinforces the defense of free speech and expression, including potentially transformative uses of information, it does not automatically shield commercial enterprises from the implications of copyright law. It is essential to understand that fair use is not a guaranteed right under the First Amendment.
In recent years, the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have often ignored, or dismissed claims of the First Amendment or other Constitutional protection by defendants in fair use cases (Moore et al., 2021). For example, in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), the Supreme Court rejected the First Amendment challenge, stating that the “Copyright Clause and the First Amendment were adopted close in time. This proximity indicates that, in the Framers’ view, copyright’s limited monopolies are compatible with free speech principles” (Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 2003).
Existing Communication Laws
In an interview with Harvard Law Today, Mason Kortz, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, stated that the lawsuit between The New York Times and OpenAI will be a significant test for AI in copyright law. He mentioned that what was once considered “scifi stuff” now has significant implications for AI developers in the U.S.
Kortz summarizes The New York Times’s legal arguments against OpenAI into three main copyright claims: unauthorized copying of content for training data, the trained language model potentially being a derivative work, and the reproduction of verbatim or near-verbatim text from NYT articles when users request information (Reed, 2024).
The Copyright Act of 1976 codified primarily in Title 17 of the U.S. Code. Section 102 of the Act grants copyright protection to original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, covering categories such as literary, musical, and audiovisual works, while excluding ideas, methods, and systems.
Compilations and derivative works are protected only to the extent of the author’s original contributions. Copyright provides exclusive rights to the owner, including reproduction, creation of derivative works, distribution, public performance, and public display, as detailed in Section 106. These rights ensure that copyright holders maintain control over the use and dissemination of their works, promoting creativity and providing economic incentives (Moore et al., 2021).
Mason Kortz explains that OpenAI will likely argue fair use for training data copies, while the idea that a statistical model is a derivative work is novel, and reproducing memorized information might infringe depending on fair use. OpenAI’s motion to dismiss includes arguments on statute of limitations, lack of knowledge about user infringements, automated DMCA claims, and preemption of state law claims. OpenAI may also argue the model is factual, not a derivative work, and blame verbatim reproductions on user misuse (Reed, 2024).
When evaluating whether fair use applies, key factors to consider include the amount of copyrighted material used, the extent to which it is transformed, whether the use is for commercial purposes and the impact of the use on the market for the copyrighted work. The use of fact-based content such as journalism is more likely to qualify as fair use than the use of creative materials such as fiction, as noted by Eric Goldman a Santa Clara University professor and an expert in internet and intellectual property law (Baron, 2024).
Impact of Precedents
In Authors Guild v. Google (2015), Google successfully defended itself against a lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild, which challenged the company’s practice of scanning and digitizing millions of books to create a searchable database, known as Google Books.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Google’s use of copyrighted texts was transformative because it added a new purpose
and character to the original works. By making the texts searchable, Google provided significant public benefits that outweighed any potential harm to the market for the original works (Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., No. 13-4829, 2015).
This precedent could support the use of copyrighted works for training AI models, as it demonstrates that such use can be considered fair use due to its transformative purpose and lack of market harm to the original works, even when conducted by commercial entities. “While a commercial use can sometimes tip the scales in favor of finding a use to not be fair, this can be overcome by a socially beneficial, transformative purpose” (Brooke, 2023).
AI-generated outputs from copyrighted inputs may not be considered infringement if they contribute to societal understanding and do not replace the original works in the market.
In the 2023 case of Andy Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith, the Supreme Court ruled against the Warhol Foundation (Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. V. Goldsmith, 598 U.S., 2023). The court determined that the licensing of Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” portrait to Condé Nast was not considered a transformative use of Lynn Goldsmith’s reference photo, based on the aspect that Goldsmith’s original photograph of Prince, and the Andy Warhol Foundation’s (AWF) copy share substantially the same purpose, and the use is of a commercial nature (Harvard Law Review, 2023).
This could pose challenges for AI-generated works, which often rely on existing copyrighted materials to create new outputs. A stricter interpretation could limit the transformative use defense for AI-generated works, requiring more distinct separation from the original copyrighted material.
APPLICATION OF BEST LEGAL PRACTICES
» Communicate clearly and transparently with stakeholders about how AI tools are used in content creation and moderation. This includes explaining the measures taken to protect intellectual property and ensure that content use is fair and legal.
» Ensure that any AI-generated content adheres to copyright laws and ethical standards.
» Develop detailed generative AI content policies that address copyright without broadly restricting speech.
» Communication teams should be trained on the nuances of fair use and copyright law regarding AI. Regular workshops and updates can help ensure that all team members are aware of legal requirements and ethical considerations when creating or using AI-generated content.
» Always clearly state which AI tool or platform was used in the creation of the content.
» Continuously monitor emerging legal issues and technological advancements in AI and copyright law to stay ahead of potential legal challenges and adopt strategies accordingly.
» Continuously review and update content policies to reflect new legal standards.
Examination of Existing Ethical Codes
The current ethical codes, including the principles of the Society of Professional Journalists, the American Marketing Association, and the Institute for Advertising Ethics emphasize a commitment to accuracy, fairness, accountability, transparency, and social responsibility. These principles apply to the issue of AI versus copyright.
The New York Times lawsuit alleges that OpenAI infringed on its copyrights by copying and using its articles without permission to train its AI models. This includes the unauthorized reproduction of the publication’s content during the data scraping process with responses that closely resemble or directly replicate text from NYT’s articles.
The lawsuit by The Mercury News and seven other newspapers against OpenAI questions the fairness of using copyrighted newspaper content without paying for that content. The current issue highlights the significance of fairness, accountability, and the social responsibility of communication professionals in the age of Artificial
Intelligence.
It also highlights the moral duty to respect the dignity of others. From a deontological standpoint, using copyrighted material without permission violates the moral obligation to respect intellectual property rights.
The New York Times lawsuit addresses “hallucinations” by AI models, which occur when the models generate seemingly realistic but false information. These hallucinations can misattribute content to The Times that it did not publish, causing commercial and competitive injury by spreading misinformation.
For example, Bing Chat fabricated a paragraph from a New York Times article, including quotes that appeared nowhere in the original, and listed hearthealthy foods that the Times article never mentioned (Grynbaum & Mac, 2023).
This demonstrates that relying exclusively on AI-generated responses can lead to inaccuracies and contribute to the spread of misinformation, which can have negative effects on society as a whole.
APPLICATION OF BEST ETHICAL PRACTICES
» Do not rely solely on AI-generated content. Ensure that AIgenerated content is based on verified information and original sources.
» Clearly differentiate between AI-generated advertising and editorial content.
» Always ensure that facts and context are not manipulated intentionally. Be cautious of AI-generated misinformation that distorts facts.
» Communicate openly, if AI-generated content is found to be inaccurate or misleading, companies should take swift action to correct it and inform users of the errors.
» Treat all groups with fairness, respect, and compassion, and consider societal impact. The use of Artificial Intelligence should be evaluated for its potential societal impact, ensuring it contributes positively and does not harm vulnerable groups.
» Protect personal data and ensure transparency in privacy choices. When using AI tools, ask if the models were trained with protected content, review terms and policies, and avoid generative AI tools without proper data licensing (Appel et al., 2023).
Future Application
The relationship between copyright law and emerging technologies has existed since the 15th century with the invention of the Gutenberg Press. New technologies offer new opportunities for creative expression and sharing works, but they also disrupt existing copyright laws.
This has been observed with various innovations such as player pianos, radio, cable television, photocopying, home video cassette recorders, and digital downloading and streaming technology (Thuronyi, 2017).
As modern technologies continue to rapidly advance, they present new challenges for copyright, especially since the current copyright system is based on laws that were established before the era of digital communication.
To ensure that the information we share continues to benefit society positively, we can examine past cases and legislation and continue to evaluate and revise ethical standards.
By adhering to these principles, applying them in context, and considering their broader societal effects, professionals can adapt to navigate the constantly evolving landscape of new technology in digital media.
References:
17 USC 102: Subject matter of copyright: In general, (2024).
American Marketing Association. (2021). AMA statement of ethics. American Marketing Association. https://www. ama.org/ama-statement-of-ethics/
Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. (2023). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia. com/cases/federal/us/598/21-869/#tab-opinion-4742178
Appel, G., Neelbauer, J., & Schweidel, D. A. (2023, April 7). Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem
Aristotle. (1998). Politics (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.)
Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., No. 13-4829. (2015). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellatecourts/ca2/13-4829/13-4829-2015-10-16.html
Baran, S. J. (2022). Introduction to Mass Communication. McGraw Hill LLC.
Baron, E. (2024, April 30). Mercury News and other papers sue Microsoft, OpenAI over the new artificial intelligence. The Mercury News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/30/mercury-news-and-other-paperssue-microsoft-openai-over-the-new-artificial-intelligence/
Brooke, R. (2023, February 24). Fair Use Week 2023: Looking Back at Google Books Eight Years Later. Authors Alliance. https://www.authorsalliance.org/2023/02/24/fair-use-week-2023-looking-back-at-google-bookseight-years-later/
Cong. Rsch. Serv. (n.d.). ArtI.S8.C8.3.3 Copyright and the First Amendment. Constitution Annotated; Congressional Research Service. Retrieved June 23, 2024, from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/ artI-S8-C8-3-3/ALDE_00013065/#ALDF_00018155
Congressional Research Service. (2021). Section 230: An Overview. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R46751
Connors, R. J. (2013). Warren Buffett on Business : Principles from the Sage of Omaha. John Wiley & Sons.
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office. (2023). Www.copyright.gov. https://www.copyright. gov/ai/
Department of Justice. (2020, June 3). Department of Justice’s Review of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Www.justice.gov. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-reviewsection-230-communications-decency-act-1996
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186. (2003). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/537/186/
Grynbaum, M. M., & Mac, R. (2023, December 27). The Times Sues OpenAI and Microsoft Over A.I. Use of Copyrighted Work. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-yorktimes-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html
Harvard Law Review. (2023, November 13). Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. Harvard Law Review. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/andy-warhol-foundation-for-visual-arts-inc-vgoldsmith/#footnote-ref-3
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. In www.earlymoderntexts.com. in the version by Jonathan Bennett.
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump, No. 18-1691. (2019). Justia Law. https://law. justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/18-1691/18-1691-2019-07-09.html
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald J. Trump - Global Freedom of Expression. (2019). Global Freedom of Expression. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/knight-first-amendment-institute-v-donaldj-trump-2/
Metz, C., & Weise, K. (2024, March 5). Microsoft Seeks to Dismiss Parts of Suit Filed by The New York Times. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/technology/microsoft-ai-copyright-lawsuit.html
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Fraser’s Magazine.
Moore, R. L., Murray, M. D., & Youm, K. H. (2021a). Media Law and Ethics. Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781003166870
OpenAI and journalism. (2024). OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/openai-and-journalism/
Panettieri, J. (2024, January 8). Generative AI Lawsuits Timeline: Legal Cases vs. OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic and More. Sustainable Tech Partner for Green IT Service Providers. https://sustainabletechpartner.com/topics/ai/ generative-ai-lawsuit-timeline/
Recent Case: Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump. (2019). Harvard Law Review. https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2019/06/recent-case-knight-first-amendment-institute-at-columbiauniversity-v-trump/
Reed, R. (2024, March 22). Does ChatGPT violate New York Times’ copyrights? Harvard Law School. https://hls. harvard.edu/today/does-chatgpt-violate-new-york-times-copyrights/
Reno v. ACLU. (1997). Global Freedom of Expression. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/ reno-v-aclu-2/
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844. (1997). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/#tabopinion-1960201
Society of Professional Journalists. (2014, September 6). SPJ Code of Ethics. Society of Professional Journalists. https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417. (1984). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/ us/464/417/
The importance of collaboration in the public sector. (2017, June 19). AIM Education & Training. https://www.aim. com.au/blog/the-importance-of-collaboration-the-public-sector
The Institute for Advertising Ethics. (2020). Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics
The White House. (2024). The Constitution. The White House; the white house. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/
Thuronyi, G. (2017, May 22). Copyright Law and New Technologies: A Long and Complex Relationship | Copyright: Creativity at Work. Blogs.loc.gov. https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2017/05/copyright-law-and-newtechnologies-a-long-and-complex-relationship/