The sweeping changes to the US federal government since Donald Trump’s second administration began are so numerous it is almost impossible to keep up with them. Between rapid fire executive orders and Trump’s government efficiency attack dog Elon Musk and his DOGE goons storming into government agencies all over the place, it is understandable that a lot of the attention has focused on alarming situations like scuttling the US Agency for International Development (USAid) based on evidenceless claims of corruption, DOGE’s access to sensitive data from the US Treasury’s payment system, targeting the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Justice and at least 12 other government agencies. It is hard not to see a cynical pattern of targeted, systematic dismantling of government agencies that have or could hold Musk and Trump’s businesses to account or that don’t align with their personal political ideology. We will wait to see what if any of the Congressional, legislative and judicial interventions that have been initiated in response to DOGE stick.

Amidst the Trump tumult the arts in the US has also been hit, albeit less dramatically. On Friday Tump announced his intention to remove the Chair and Board of Trustees of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and appoint himself Chair. Trump is clearing the decks of those he sees as not sharing his “Vision for a Golden Age in Arts and Culture”. The day before the National Endowment for the Arts changed its guidelines to encourage projects that celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and they cancelled a round of Challenge America funding, a program for underserved communities.

The first executive order issued by Trump took aim at DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives) in the US federal government by revoked a number of Biden administration orders. National institutions have had to comply with the directive to end DEI programs. Also within that extensive list or revocations was the order that had re-established the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. The Committee was established under President Ronald Reagan’s administration in 1982 and continued until Trump’s first administration when he abolished it. Biden brought it back in 2022.

It makes you wonder what havoc Dutton’s government efficiency push could have on the arts if we see a Coalition win at the upcoming federal election. Will Revive survive? Indeed, will Creative Australia survive?

What’s worth reading on Trump and the arts:

Trump says he will appoint himself chair of Kennedy Center

Dara Kerr – Saturday 8 February 2025

The Guardian

Trump Disbands President’s Committee on Arts and Humanities

Rhea Nayyar – Monday 3 February 2025

Hyperallergic

Museums Scramble to Grasp Impact of Trump’s DEI Mandate

Maya Pontone and Isa Farfan – Friday 31 January 2025

Hyperallergic

So much Spotify! This week they announced their first full year of profit, prompting a share surge for the music streamer. Last week they were touting a new deal with Universal Music, and this week they have inked a similar one with Warner Music Group. That’s two of the ‘Big Three’ record labels in on whatever it is Spotify is planning next. It’s unclear what that is, but there is speculation that could include a subscription option above premium that includes lossless audio playback.

The subscription bundling thing continues with company announcing partnerships with Crooked Lane, Alcove Press and Podium Entertainment to expand the list of audiobook titles available for Premium subscribers to listen to. Their ambitions for more audiobooks is so big both announcements were made on the same day. As the ink dries on these new agreements Spotify does not seem to be worried about the impact bundling of audiobooks into its plans is having on mechanical royalties. The music industry has hit back with the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) undertaking a coordinated notice-and-takedown campaign against Spotify for unlicensed music in podcasts on the platform. Sadly, I doubt it will do much but what other plays are there?

What’s else is worth reading on Spotify’s recent behaviour:

Spotify Posts First Full-Year Profit for 2024, CEO Says Streamer Will ‘Double Down’ on Music in 2025

Todd Spangler – Friday 4 February 2025

Variety

Music Publishers Begin ‘Extensive’ Spotify Podcast Takedowns Over Licensing Violations

Jem Aswad – Friday 4 February 2025

Variety

NMPA Announces Extensive Podcast Takedown Action Against Spotify

Friday 4 February 2025

National Music Publishers’ Association

Warner Music Group and Spotify Announce a New Multi-Year Agreement

Thursday 6 Febraury 2025

Spotify

Spotify signs Warner Music deal heralding new subscription tiers

Jess Weatherbed – Friday 7 Febraury 2025

The Verge

Spotify to grow its Sci-Fi and Fantasy offering through new publisher partnerships

Melina Spanoudi – Friday 7 Febraury 2025

The Bookseller

Spotify Partners With Crooked Lane and Alcove Press To Bring More Mystery and Crime Audiobooks

Thursday 6 February 2025

For the Record, Spotify

Spotify Listeners Gain Even More Great Stories With Audiobooks From Podium

Thursday 6 Febraury 2025

For the Record, Spotify

It will probably be months before we have any data to show what the impact of Meta’s backflip on fact-checking and other actions has had on Facebook, Instagram and Threads’ user base and active user numbers, as well as advertising spend on the platforms. Bluesky had seen a bump in new registrations since Musk took over X and, at least in my experience, another post the Meta changes. I don’t have anything concrete to basis it on, but it feels like trust in the social media platforms is in free fall.

BTN High have interviewed young Australians about their level of trust in social media in the wake of changes. It is easy to be pessimistic at the moment but the comments by young people are telling. Australia may be pushing for a social media ban for under 16s, but the responses BTN tell me that (some) young people (at least) are thinking critically about the social media platforms they inhabit. Have a read — it will fill you with hope, too.

What’s worth reading on changes in trust of social media:

Do young Australians still trust social media?

Neelima Choahan and Michelle Wakim – Thursday 6 February 2025

ABC News and BTN High, Australian Broadcasing Corporation

Trust in Social Media

Michelle Wakim – Tuesday 4 February 2025

BTN High, BTN, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

A US court case has concluded that rights reversion under US law applies to the entire scope of an assignment under copyright law. The background is this: Cyril Vetter and Don Smith wrote ‘Double Shot (of My Baby’s Love)’ in 1962. Despite its success, they pair had assigned the compsoition to a music publishing company for one dollar. Under the US copyright law an author of copyright material can terminate an assignment after a given period of time. In many cases that period is 35 years, but it is 56 years for situations that occurred before 1978.

In 2022, Vetter used the termination right to end the prior assignment. The current copyright owner, Resnik Music Group, honoured the termination, but claimed the termination only applied in the United States. The company continued to assert rights in other territories. Vetter took the matter to court to arguing the termination applied to the entire assignment. The court agreed.

The music publishing industry has pushed back hard.

As the litigants who took on Vetter’s case said:

To be clear, many publishers and labels in the music industry support Resnik’s position — after all, it grants them perpetual control over valuable assets. But the laws of copyright recapture were designed to benefit creators and their heirs, not corporate owners. Some in the industry have accused Judge Dick’s ruling of sowing “chaos” in the international music business. In our view, this is both hyperbolic and speculative. But to the extent that the decision has a financially disruptive effect on the industry, perhaps companies have become too comfortable retaining rights that Congress clearly believed should be returned.

They went on to say:

At a time when so many in the music industry publicly claim to put artists and songwriters first, this ruling presents an opportunity to prove it. Rather than continuing to fight against authors’ interests, the industry should wholeheartedly embrace their efforts to get a true second chance to fully benefit from their works. We certainly do.

I agree it would be amazing to see the music industry be more artist-centric.

What’s worth reading on Vetter v Resnik and rights reversion:

Songwriters Who Unknowingly Signed Away Their Rights Finally Get a Real Second Chance: The Promise of Vetter v. Resnik (Guest Column)

Tim Kappel and Loren Wells – Thursday 6 February 2025

Variety

How A Louisiana Copyright Ruling Could Stir Up The Global Music Biz

Bill Hochberg – Tuesday 6 August 2025

Forbes

Open Futures have published a new white paper looking at the notion of open source AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → and what role data plays in it. To me there are two fundamental questions is reaises: Should open source AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → have to rely on open data? And is open data in its current form appropriate given it fails to protect non-copyright interests in data? In particular, it challenges the looseness of current attempts to define open AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → which leave the reliance on open data to train open AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → a desirable but non-compulsory requirement.

However, even if open data were make more prominent in open AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  →, questions arise as to the amount of open data available and suitable for training AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  →, but also to the longstanding modus operandi of open data: ‘to release as much data as possible, as openly as possible’. That approach has failed to adequately address legitimate reasons why some data should not or cannot be made freely available without any restrictions on use. This is particularly relevant to other data considerations beyond copyright, such as privacy and respectful engagement with First Nations knowledge.

In response, the white paper proposes two key paradigm shifts are needed to take open AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → forward. First, it advocates a maturing of data governance with respect to open data from basic notions of ‘open’ to a more sophisticated ‘data commons’ approach that can accommodate a range of stakeholder interests and data governance practices. Considering the needs and perspectives of all stakeholders involved in the data-sharing process is the second paradigm shift. While the paper doesn’t address Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) and Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDSov) specifically, such an approach leaves room for these community-based ideas and others.

Within these paradigms, the white paper also suggests six pivotal focus areas. These are:

1. standards for how data is prepared,
2. accommodation of opt-out preference siginaling,
3. respect for diverse notions of data stewardship,
4. taking responsiblity for the environmental impact of AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  →,
5. encouraging benefit sharing and reciprocity, especially for marginalised communities, and
6. advocacy for public polcies that make data transparency mandatory, that incentivise data sharing and support the creation of open data.

Overall, I am supportive of the white paper’s suggestions. To me it is part of a wider maturing of the open community and their understanding of what they are trying to achieve by being open. If you are interested, I wrote a more detailed overview of the white paper.

Data Governance in Open Source AI: Enabling Responsible and Systemic Access

Alek Tarkowski – February 2025

Open Future

Google published a blog post on Tuesday about updating its AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → Principles. It reads pretty self-contratulatory; boasting about year-on-year AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → transparency reportings and about bring the first organisation to publish AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → Principles, which Google has had in place since 2018. It also cites the rapid pace of AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → technology development and the debate around it as the basis for changes to Google’s AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → principles.

There are some telling statements. Google talks up the “numerous beneficial uses for society and people around the world” and the shift of AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → from “niche research topic in the lab to a technology that is becoming as pervasive as mobile phones and the internet itself”. The post also recognises organisational, international and governmental efforts to regulate AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  →.

Alongside the crowing there is also thinly veiled cautioning as well. The blog post says:

There’s a global competition taking place for AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → leadership within an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape. We believe democracies should lead in AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → development, guided by core values like freedom, equality, and respect for human rights. And we believe that companies, governments, and organizations sharing these values should work together to create AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → that protects people, promotes global growth, and supports national security.

This is pretty obviously a shot at DeepSeek and other China-based AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → technologies.

Even with all the loaded statements, there is also an important ommission. While the blog post authors note changes to Google’s AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → Principles it doesn’t mention that the updated AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → Principles webpage has removed a number of statements committing to not use their AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → technology to create weapons or cause injury. When you look at the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine capture of the page on the last day of January Google said they would not design or deploy AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → in applications areas, including:

• “Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm”,
• “Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people”,
• “Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms”, and
• “Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.”

The change casts a concerning shadow over the notion of safe and responsible AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  →.

What’s worth reading on Google’s updated AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → Principles:

Google scraps promise not to develop AI weapons

Jess Weatherbed – Wednesday 5 February 2025

The Verge

Responsible AI: Our 2024 report and ongoing work

James Manyika and Demis Hassabis – Tuesday 4 February 2025

The Keyboard, Google

Responsible AI Progress Report [PDF]

February 2025

Google

Updating the Frontier Safety Framework

Tuesday 4 February 2025

Google DeepMind blog, Google