A Report from the White House’s Inaugural “Creator Economy Conference” (Guest Blog Post)
by guest blogger Franklin Graves
It’s well-established that creators bring valuable content to platforms. Platforms then host and distribute the content to an audience while also bringing in money from the ad tech sector. The advertising revenues may eventually pass through in some portion to creators. Creators, a term which I and many in the creator economy agree includes influencers, is a unique and distinct set of end users that generate content on platforms (or online service providers or social media platforms).
In a work-in-progress paper (an early version of which I presented at the 24th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference), I further distinguish creators from other UGC activity based on the intent behind the content publishing. Creators have an intent to release content for a broad audience, with or without revenue expectations in return. They are also distinguishable from legacy media and entertainment creatives, such as those from the sports, music, film, and television industries.
As I explained during an interview with CNBC, “These events ensure creators are given a voice in D.C. that more traditional entertainment and media groups have had for decades.” However, when it comes to development of law and policy around the creator economy, it’s critical that all stakeholders are brought to the table for discussions. For the creator economy, it’s not just all about creators, and I hope that remains within focus going forward.
It was interesting to attend the White House event as a lawyer that understands many of the nuances of Internet law. During the event, widely supported recommendations were proposed by creators, such as the concept of removing online “anonymity.” It’s easy to understand where creators are coming from in wishing that the often pseudonymous accounts that fill up the comment sections would go away. After all, such repeated exposure to toxic engagement can be detrimental to one’s mental health and longevity of their creator business. However, the conversation could have benefited from a well-rounded educational session on the benefits that come from having an open Internet where age or identity verification aren’t required to engage in valuable discourse that often occurs online, and aren’t manipulated or misused in ways to target marginalized or otherwise threatened groups.
Artificial intelligence dominated a large portion of the conversation, but in a challenging way that recognized the potential for both benefits and harms as the technology continues to find its way into nearly every aspect of the creator economy. In October 2022, the White House published its Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. More recently, the administration secured a set of AI Commitments from major tech players and signed an Executive Order that put in motion a number of agency projects exploring how AI systems can remain safe, secure, and trustworthy.
Dr. Arati Prabhakar, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, highlighted key issues the administration continues to prioritize, including bias, discrimination, data privacy, and worker displacement. She touched on the importance of finding innovative ways to recognize and reward individuals for their contributions to complex model-building, including exploring new approaches to intellectual property rights, specifically noting the USPTO’s work to date on AI-assisted inventions.
I used the opportunity to point out the benefits of ML-powered systems like those that provide auto-captions, content recognition, and algorithmic recommendations on platforms like YouTube and LinkedIn. But, I also pointed to the way in which European regulators are once again (hello, GDPR) leading the way in regulating AI, both under the EU AI Act and the Digital Markets Act, disrupting the traditional gatekeepers of digital markets. Yet, we’re beginning to see the early stages of how such approaches to over-regulation can drive innovation from the market.
Both creators and brands could benefit from transparency around algorithmic decisions that drive content distribution. Additionally, identifying protections and guardrails around how content that is provided to, or generated with the assistance of, platforms can be used and not used would potentially ensure an equal playing field as generative AI technologies find viable use cases in the content industry.
Transparency around disclosing if content is output of generative AI systems, whether wholly or partially synthetic, is becoming a reality through standards such as CP2A and the Content Credentials label. But, creators and brands should be informed of the impact of such metadata on their content reach, specifically if algorithms are adjusted to treat content with generative AI labels in a different manner than content without, and how the labels are presented to other users.
Presently, courts and regulators largely focus their efforts in siloed ways across the creator economy. For example, regulators have passed targeted regulations to address issues with how platforms operate and provide services to consumers, which can impact creators and brands trying to reach those same consumers. Also, the rise of consumer privacy laws have dramatically altered the tracking technologies and ad display methods used by the ad tech industry. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission can take broad, sweeping approaches, such as targeting creators, brands, and platforms with its endorsement guidance that aims to establish liability for everyone involved.
Going forward, I hope to see a more holistic approach from regulators, agencies, and courts when examining the creator economy that tackles the tough job of weaving together the interconnected intricacies of what is an economy still in its infancy. Platforms, and associated digital markets such as mobile operating system developers and payment processors, need to come to the table and tackle burgeoning issues that creators are raising around fair pay and burnout. The economic contribution of creators to the economy is beginning to get noticed by regulators and policymakers, which means now is the chance to strengthen partnerships across the creator economy.
During another one of the sessions, I shared that the creator economy can often seem like a house of cards. When one player in the economy has issues it easily ripples across to others. We’ve witnessed examples of this over the last 2 decades, such as YouTube’s numerous apocalypses—one of which can be linked to the FTC’s settlement in 2019 on capturing data from children. Additionally, shake ups in the ad tech industry with seemingly non-stop consumer data privacy laws and early wins on antitrust claims will continue to bring changes that have broad implications across the economy. I encouraged the White House to carefully examine the ripple effects of any new legislation that is passed or policy that is adopted because it ultimately impacts the revenue that creators receive.
It’s exciting to see the creator economy have its time in the national spotlight, and the White House did a tremendous job with this conference. With future events, I hope the spotlight will be one that casts a complete and robust light on all three areas: creators, brands, and platforms. If not, then the creator economy will continue to be an unbalanced ecosystem that fails to reach its full potential.
Pingback: White House Recaps, Google Still Wants Your Kids, FTC’s Noncompete Ban 💀, Updates on TikTok Ban, and More [Issue 44] – Creator Economy Law()