Representative Laurel Lee (R-FL) discussed maintaining the balance between innovation in artificial intelligence (AI), intellectual property (IP) protection, and malicious AI use, such as deepfakes and fraud, in a recent House Judiciary hearing.
Opening Remarks and First Witness Question
Rep. Lee began by noting how "the internet has created extraordinary opportunities for innovation, but it has also made it easier to steal intellectual property and exploit identity through AI-generated content."
"And as Congress considers whether our laws have kept pace, we have a responsibility to protect creators, innovators, and everyday Americans while preserving free expression and ensuring that the United States remains the global leader in AI innovation," she continued.
The Florida congresswoman asked Amblin Entertainment counsel Chris Floyd how federal legislation such as the NO FAKES Act (which governs the use of AI replicas of people) would protect IP without halting AI innovation.
Floyd said that exceptions for biopics, documentaries, and news purposes exist within the NO FAKES Act, which provides a legal standard and balance, "so we know going in what can be used and what cannot be used."
Lee's Question for Second Witness
Lee turned to Screen Actors Guild President and actor Sean Astin, asking about "how protecting an individual's voice and likeness should be a right for all," to which Astin replied that a law should exist where companies must stop the spread of identified deepfakes, lamenting the ease with which AI can be used for nefarious purposes and that such users would ideally be outliers.
"As a policymaker and a parent, I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment," Lee concluded.
Lee on AI
In September, the Florida congresswoman discussed the need for a federal standard on AI rather than regulating it at the state level, as both AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law, Kevin Frazier, and R Street Institute's Senior Technology & Innovation Fellow, Adam Thierer, both argued that a patchwork of state laws would stifle innovation.
