Senator Introduces Bill to Mandate Transparency from AI Developers, Deno Challenges Oracle’s Trademark on ‘JavaScript’ and US Judge Challenges Google’s Defense in Antitrust Ad Tech Case
Senator Introduces Bill to Mandate Transparency from AI Developers
Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) has introduced a bill aimed at increasing transparency in how generative AI models are trained, giving copyright holders a legal avenue to determine if their work was used without consent. The Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act would allow creators to subpoena AI developers’ training records if they have a “good faith belief” that their work was involved.
The legislation would require AI developers to reveal enough training data to confirm or deny the use of copyrighted material. If developers fail to comply, courts could assume the copyrighted work was used until proven otherwise. Welch emphasized the need for accountability in AI, stating, “If your work is used to train AI, there should be a way for you to determine that it’s been used and get compensated.”
Artists, musicians, and writers have expressed growing alarm about generative AI technologies recreating their work without consent. A viral spreadsheet earlier this year revealed that thousands of creators’ works were used to train AI art generators like MidJourney, heightening these concerns. More than 36,000 creators, including notable names like Julianne Moore and Radiohead’s Thom Yorke, signed an open letter calling for restrictions on using human art for AI training without permission.
The TRAIN Act builds on legal actions already underway. Media outlets like The New York Times and record labels have filed lawsuits against companies like OpenAI, alleging unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Other proposed legislation, such as the bipartisan NO FAKES Act, targets unauthorized digital replications, while the AI CONSENT Act seeks to regulate personal data use in AI training.
The TRAIN Act has gained support from organizations such as SAG-AFTRA, the American Federation of Musicians, and major record labels like Universal Music Group. However, with Congress focused on urgent priorities like averting a government shutdown, Welch has indicated he plans to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session.
As generative AI tools expand, the TRAIN Act could set a precedent for balancing innovation with the rights of creators, addressing a critical gap in current AI regulations.
Deno Challenges Oracle’s Trademark on ‘JavaScript’
Deno, the company behind the Deno runtime, has petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to cancel Oracle’s trademark on the term “JavaScript.” The move aims to free the programming language’s name from legal restrictions that have caused confusion and deterred its use in commercial contexts.
Ryan Dahl, founder of Deno and creator of Node.js, described the trademark as an “outdated legal relic” that stifles the global developer community. In a blog post, Dahl stated, “This filing marks a pivotal step toward freeing the name ‘JavaScript’ from legal entanglements and recognizing it as a public good.”
Deno’s petition argues that “JavaScript” is a generic term and alleges that Oracle committed fraud by submitting misleading evidence when it applied for the trademark. Specifically, the filing claims Oracle used screen captures from the Node.js website—created by Dahl—as proof of its commercial use of the term, despite having no affiliation with the project.
The petition also notes incidents where Oracle issued cease-and-desist letters to organizations using the term “JavaScript,” including one sent to the group Rust for JavaScript Developers. Although the claim was later dropped, such actions have created a chilling effect. Even the organizers of “JSConf” avoided using the full term “JavaScript Conference” to steer clear of legal issues.
Oracle has until January 4, 2025, to respond to the petition. Dahl expressed hope for a resolution, saying, “We sincerely hope Oracle acknowledges that ‘JavaScript’ belongs to its global community, not a single corporation. But if they choose to fight, we are ready.”
US Judge Challenges Google’s Defense in Antitrust Ad Tech Case
A U.S. federal judge cast doubt on one of Google’s primary arguments in an antitrust case alleging the tech giant illegally monopolized advertising technology markets. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of states accuse Google of dominating sell-side tools (ad servers), advertising exchanges, and buy-side tools (ad networks) to stifle competition.
During closing arguments on Monday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema criticized Google’s reliance on a 2018 Supreme Court ruling in an antitrust case involving American Express. The Amex case required courts to evaluate how actions impacted different groups of customers. Google’s lawyer, Karen Dunn, argued that its ad tech tools, like credit cards, facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers, justifying certain practices.
Brinkema disagreed, stating, “We’re dealing with a completely different setup” compared to the Amex case. She expressed skepticism about applying that precedent to Google’s ad tech operations, signaling potential challenges for the company’s defense.
Government’s Case Against Google
DOJ attorney Aaron Teitelbaum argued that Google’s practices harmed website publishers while benefiting advertisers, dividing the markets into three distinct segments. He stated, “Google is once, twice, three times a monopolist,” citing internal company documents as evidence.
Google counters that its ad tech tools function as a unified market connecting publishers and advertisers. Dunn maintained that U.S. antitrust law permits Google to decide how its tools interact with competitors, claiming that forcing interoperability would stifle innovation.
Expert Predictions
Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Justin Teresi, who attended the trial, believes the government is likely to win on claims involving publisher ad servers and tying practices. If successful, the DOJ’s case could result in significant changes to Google’s advertising technology business.
Judge Brinkema has indicated she plans to issue a decision by the end of the year, but no specific timeline has been announced.
And that’s our show for today.
Thanks to our sponsor, CDW and KJ Burke’s CDW Canada Tech Talks. Check it out if you get the chance. You can find it like us on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts.
Reach me at editorial@technewsday.ca
I’m your host Jim Love, have a Wonderful Wednesday
