The spirit of poetic economics in action

The purpose of poetic economics is to envision different and better ways of approaching economics, thinking about how to share our common limited resources in ways that are good for the ecosystem on which we depend, and optimal (or as close to optimal as we can get) for all of the humans and other species on this planet. The purpose of this post is for links to other sources that provide models or inspirations in this direction.

Clean energy development in partnership with local indigenous communities:  

Moscovitch, P. (May 13, 2025). A more joyful approach:  One Nova Scotia renewable energy company is learning about the power of connection through Indigenous partnerships. Climate Stories Atlantic. https://www.climatestoriesatlantic.ca/stories/a-more-joyful-approach "for the last decade Natural Forces has focused its operations in the Maritimes on wind and solar projects developed and owned in partnership with Indigenous communities". 

 

Canada' Bill C-5 v. Ontario's Bill 5

Update June 16: I am hearing ongoing concern about Bill C-5 from environmental and indigenous groups, and so have done another reading. Following are some reflections. In brief, combining the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act and the Building Canada Act in one bill may be causing some confusion; it would be better to separate them. The Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act has good intentions, but is likely to have limited impact as most the barriers are not federal in nature. The Building Canada Act includes advancing the interests of indigenous peoples, clean energy and meeting Canada's climate change obligations on the list of 5 factors to consider in approving (or removing) National Interest Projects, and factors in consultation with indigenous peoples, provincial and territorial governments that may be adversely impacted by proposed National Interest Projects at the approval stage. My advice to friends in the indigenous and environmental activist communities is to focus on finding and supporting projects that will achieve clean growth and advance the interests of indigenous peoples, and projects proposals that don't. 

• The Bill enables 2 Acts, the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act (henceforth Free Trade..), and the Building Canada Act. Critics have, correctly from my perspective, pointed out that this is confusing - I think this is part of the problem, readers are concerned about the Building Canada Act, thinking that sections from the Free Trade... portion apply. Separating the bills would reduce confusion.

•  The Bill is short (26 pages PDF download including titles etc.), clear, and would accomplish a great deal. This is a good thing. 

• The intention of the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act is that if a good, service, or professional qualification meets the requirements of one province or territory, it is deemed to meet the requirements of any province or territory. However, the federal government can only waive duplicate federal requirements. Most barriers are actually provincial, territorial and/or reflect the regional nature of particular professional associations. For example, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is responsible for registering physicians who wish to practice in Ontario. Ontario, like other provinces and territories, has been struggling with how to recognize internationally trained physicians - and only recently began to recognize U.S.-trained physicians. Some might consider it optimal if physicians recognized by a body like CPSO in one jurisdiction can practice anywhere in Canada. However, the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act wouldn't accomplish this. 

• The 5 factors for consideration of potential national projects include one that focuses on advancing the interests of indigenous peoples and one that emphasizes clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. Following is Section 6 from the Bill (at First Reading) (sections 1 and 4 refer to adding or removing a project from the list of National Interest Projects): 

                Factors

• (6) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1) or (4) in respect of a project, the Governor in Council may consider any factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant, including the extent to which the project can

• (a) strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security;

• (b) provide economic or other benefits to Canada;

• (c) have a high likelihood of successful execution;

• (d) advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and

• (e) contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

• Consultation with provincial, territorial and indigenous peoples that may be adversely affected is required before a potential National Interest Project is added to, or removed from, the list of approved projects. Here is the relevant section from Bill C-27 (first reading):

   (7) Before recommending that an order be made under any of subsections (1), (3) and (4), the Minister must consult with any other federal minister and any provincial or territorial government that the Minister considers appropriate and with Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the project to which the order relates.

   In summary, while extended discussion would be optimal for democratic purposes, the Building Canada Act provides for consultation with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories at the project approval stage, and highlights advancing the interests of indigenous peoples, clean growth and meeting climate change initiatives as key factors in deciding on which projects to support. My advice to indigenous peoples and environmental activists is to focus on finding and supporting projects that will meet these goals, and fighting specific proposals that won't.

    My original post follows: 

There seems to be some confusion between Canada's Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, currently in First Reading, and Ontario's recently passed, highly controversial Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025. The purpose of this post is to highlight some major differences. In brief: the federal act flows from key campaign promises by Carney and the liberal government during a necessary election to address a dysfunctional federal government, while the Ontario act was a surprise by Ford and his government after an unnecessary early election. The framework (preamble) of the Building Canada Act portion of Bill C-5 includes a commitment to respect provincial, territorial, and indigenous governments, and commits to environmental protection. Ontario's Bill 5 has been widely criticized as a threat to democracy, granting the Minister a right to exempt "trusted proponents" from any provincial legislation or municipal or local bylaws. Mention of indigenous rights and knowledge (heavily criticized in the legislation process) are minimal, and environmental protection, particularly for species at risk, is lessened. A few specifics follow.

From the Preamble to the Building Canada Act:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to working in partnership with provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments and Indigenous peoples;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the rights set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to upholding rigorous standards with respect to environmental protection;

A search for the word "indigenous" in Ontario's Bill 5 retrieves a couple of sections acknowledging that indigenous people may have knowledge to contribute (for example, with respect to species at risk), however most sections with this word deal with what to do with artefacts seized during economic activity. 

As for democratic process, here is the brief description in Ontario's Bill 5 of the creation of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025. In brief, this act gives the Minister the ability to unilaterally exempt "trusted proponents or designated projects" from any provincial legislation, municipal or local board. 

SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES ACT, 2025

The Schedule enacts the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to make regulations designating special economic zones and the Minister is authorized to make regulations designating trusted proponents and projects.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to make regulations exempting a trusted proponent or designated project from requirements under an Act, regulation or other instrument under an Act, including by-laws of a municipality or local board, as those requirements would apply in a special economic zone. The Lieutenant Governor in Council is also authorized to make regulations modifying the application of provisions of an Act, regulation or other instrument under an Act, including by-laws of a municipality or local board, as those provisions would apply with respect to a trusted proponent or designated project in a special economic zone.

Certain causes of action are extinguished.

 

  

Consultation on Copyright in the Age of Artificial General Intelligence: my response

This is my response to Industry Canada's Consultation on Copyright in the Age of Artificial General Intelligence. Industry Canada's final report What we heard was published on Feb. 11, 2025.

Technical Evidence

Question*: How do businesses and consumers use AI systems and AI-assisted and AI-generated content in your area of knowledge, work, or organization? 

 My response:

In libraries, machine learning AI in the form of recommender systems ranking results by relevance (like Netflix) is in widespread use. Generative AI is in earlier stages of exploration and/or implementation in libraries and information management as a means of further automating and enriching information resource description and classification. On the other hand, the tendency of popular AI tools such as ChatGPT to invent content is raising concerns about spread of mis- and disinformation, complicating the work of ensuring that the public has access to high quality, accurate information. In academia, AI is in early stages of use for the purposes of accelerating research. AI raises both interest and concern with respect to pedagogy. Noteworthy examples of emerging types of applications include language learning supports for students, brainstorming, and automated translation, noting that results to date are best considered as early drafts. 

 

Text and Data Mining

 

Questions:  

 

If the Government were to amend the Act to clarify the scope of permissible TDM activities, what should be its scope and safeguards? What would be the expected impact of such an exception on your industry and activities?

 

Should there be any obligations on AI developers to keep records of or disclose what copyright-protected content was used in the training of AI systems? 

 

My response:

 

TDM for discovery purposes should be legal across all kinds of materials (e.g. to find songs, films, novels, and stories of interest, not for AGI training). To facilitate the advances AI is making possible in scientific and non-commercial research, TDM for training AGI should be legal for these purposes (follow UK / Switzerland example). One recommended change in copyright law to facilitate AI advances in Canada is to eliminate Section 41 Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information from the Copyright Act. This section prohibits circumvention even for purposes that are legal under the Act while it is unnecessary for purposes that are illegal under the Act. AI developers should be required to track and disclose materials used for training purposes. Legislation to this effect at this time would encourage development of efficient automated processes at an early stage in AI development.

Authorship and ownership of works created by AI

  

Questions:

 

Is the uncertainty surrounding authorship or ownership of AI-assisted and AI-generated works and other subject matter impacting the development and adoption of AI technologies? If so, how?

 

Should the Government propose any clarification or modification of the copyright ownership and authorship regimes in light of AI-assisted or AI-generated works? If so, how? 

 

My response:

Rapid growth of AI-generated content demonstrates that concerns about authorship and ownership are not a significant impediment. A Google search for “Amazon ChatGPT self-publishing” retrieves over 21 million results, with how-to books and publishing services at the top of the list. ChatGPT can produce a story “in the style of” a human author such as Margaret Atwood in seconds. This rapid growth raises two types of concerns 1) for human creators whose works and identity can easily be used with AI training to create new works to compete with the original creator and 2) for increasing production and distribution of mis/disinformation when a tool like ChatGPT (described by AI experts as having a tendency to “hallucinate”) is used to create nonfiction works without the oversight of human experts. 

 

Comments and suggestions

 

My response: 

 

Achieving the potential benefits of AI requires TDM exemptions for scientific and non-commercial research following the UK / Switzerland example and elimination of Section 41 of the Copyright Act Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information. Most potential benefits of AI do not involve the use of others’ copyrighted material – for example, companies and individuals using AI to automate or build on their own work. Encouraging AI users to make use of the copyrighted work of human creators raises two concerns, 1) the possibility of training AI using the work and identity of a human creator to capitalize on their identity and compete with them in the marketplace, and 2) the possibility of increasing creation of mis/dis-information in the case of non-fiction works. Concern about AI identity misuse is broader than traditional copyrighted works, for example use of images of individuals in pornographic works without their knowledge or consent.

 

* The consultation includes more questions - I am only including the questions here that I chose to respond to. 

 

 

 

 

AI and copyright: submission to the U.S. Copyright Office Artificial Intelligence Study

This comment was submitted Oct. 26, 2023 to the U.S. Copyright Office's Artificial Intelligence Study

 Copyright laws internationally do not provide human creators with sufficient moral and related rights (identity and publicity) in the context of artificial intelligence. Significant work is needed at the national and international levels to meet what I would argue is a minimal ethical standard, and this should not be rushed. In the meantime, the remedy that I recommend is to limit copyright on works produced with substantial AI involvement to AI works trained on material in the public domain. For example, AI artists are creating new works based on freely available images from the Mars rover; such works do not raise the ethical questions that are the focus of this submission. To illustrate the problem when works are based on contemporary human creators, note that current AI tools such as Stable Diffusion (images) and ChatGPT allow anyone to create new works "in the style of" a particular creator, and it is clear that this is occuring without any attempt to obtain permission from the creator. With ChatGPT, anyone can quickly verify this by asking ChatGPT to write a story "in the style of" any well-known author. The works of Canadian artists that were not publicly available have been found in a service using Stable Diffusion, along with a tool to create new works "in the style of" these artists. If this is done with the intent of publishing the results, I argue that this is an example of identity theft or fraud, particularly (but not exclusively) if the downstream creation is published with the name of the original creator with commercial benefit to the downstream creator. There are potential reputational and economic harms to original creators. I argue that the potential harms to living human creators far outweigh any benefit from permitting AI to use their works and identity until legal protections can be put into place. As context for this comment, I would like to note that I am excited about the potential of AI to achieve more rapid advances in science, medicine, and everyday productivity in our workplaces and homes. I am an Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa's School of Information Studies, submitting as an individual, and long-time advocate for open access to scholarly publications, a topic on which I have contributed to prior U.S. government publications. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this consultation.

In the style of...AI, identity & reality

In brief

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already being used not only to draw from prior works to create new works, but also to create new works "in the style of" an existing creator. This should be raising questions about the rights of living creators as well as whether we want to live in a world where we can distinguish what is and is not real. These are urgent questions, from my perspective, in the context of the need to regulate AI with respect to creative works. While there are many reasons to rush to implement AI to help solve real-world problems (like developing vaccines to cope with new viruses, other medical and scientific advances, and using AI to increase productivity), I argue that there is no compelling reason to continue to permit people to use AI to usurp the identity of living creators, and plenty of reason to stop this practice. Even when works are out of copyright, there are potential dangers as well as benefits from allowing a proliferation of copies that are variations of original important works - and this practice may be counter to other current trends such as acknowledging traditional knowledge and countering the practice of cultural appropriation.

 Details

In La Presse, Péloquin (2022) reports finding a number of works by Canadian and Québec authors in the AI tool Stable Diffusion, works that were not publicly available, posted there without the knowledge of the authors. Users of Stable Diffusion can create new works "in the style of" living artists. Artists interviewed by Pélonquin expressed concern about the quality of these works (part of author moral rights in copyright) in addition to concern about the works being used for commercial sales.

As of today (Oct. 26, 2023) ChatGPT takes about a minute to write a short story in response to this prompt: "Please write a short story in the style of Margaret Atwood" (or Stephen King). Readers, I encourage you to try this experiment for yourself - but ignore and delete the results, as I have.

From my perspective, these examples of current practice raise questions with profound implications for society:

1. Should human creators be able to claim exclusive rights to their identity and style? This goes beyond author moral rights as covered in existing copyright laws, and is a type of moral right with economic implications. I argue that we urgently need to protect human creators of all kinds in the race to create and implement AI regulation. 
2. Is this "feature" of AI likely to contribute to a postmodern dystopia where it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish what is real from from what is not, accurate information from misinformation? One example of such a postmodern theory is the hyper-reality of simulacra (copies without originals) described by Baudrillard (1995).  Is this necessarily desirable even for works that are not under copyright? With the aid of AI, it is not hard to imagine the world being so inundated with the latest works "in the style of Plato" it becomes harder to locate and verify the authenticity of the original. Is unleashing this aspect of AI compatible with contemporary trends to address traditional knowledge, including cultural expressions, and resistance against cultural appropriation? I don't have the answers, but I think these questions merit serious, thoughtful consideration and is reason to limit the "creativity" of AI in this respect. 

As an author, I do not wish to allow anyone to use AI to create works "in the style of Heather Morrison (or IJPE), particularly not for sharing for commercial or non-commercial reasons. IJPE is open access, free for anyone to read and share as is for noncommercial purposes, but otherwise All Rights Reserved.

Side note: apparently ChatGPT does have some limits (perhaps due to pressure from copyright owners?). In response to the prompt, "Please write a prequel to Margaret Atwood's A Handmaids' Tale", the ChatGPT response is "I'm sorry, but I can't provide verbatim excerpts from copyrighted texts or create derivative works based on copyrighted materials. However, I can offer you a brief summary or discussion of potential themes and ideas for a prequel to Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale." Let me know how you'd like to proceed". 

References

Baudrillard, J. (1995). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press.

Pélonquin, T. (2022, October 10). L’art de copier sans payer. La Presse. https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2022-10-10/intelligence-artificielle/l-art-de-copier-sans-payer.php#

 Comments? Please send via e-mail to my work e-mail address which can be found here, and let me know if you would like your comment posted on this blog.

Housekeeping: change in focus from OA to AI

Since its inception, the focus of The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics (IJPE) has been on open access while my original intention was always the broader topic of poetic economics (radical rethinking of how we can make use of the resources available to us to create a better world). As you may have noticed, my most recent IJPE post on OA is dated 2020. For a more complete set of my research on OA over the past decade, see Sustaining the Knowledge Commons (completed in 2022). As of October 2023, the focus of IJPE, reflecting my current research, is shifting towards information policy and in particular policy-related aspects of artificial intelligence (AI).

Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2020

While many aspects of our lives and activities have slowed down during the COVID pandemic, this has not been the case with open access! The OA initiatives tracked through this series continue to show  strong growth on an annual and quarterly basis. Important milestones are being reached, and others will be coming soon.

Highlights

The Directory of Open Access Journals now lists over 15,000 fully open access, peer reviewed journals, having added 379 journals (> 4 per day) in the past quarter, and now provides searching for over 5 million articles at the article level. 

 A PubMed search for "cancer" limited to literature from the past 5 years now links to full-text for over 50% of the articles.

The Bielefeld Academic Search Engine now cross-searches over 8,000 repositories and will soon surpass the milestone of a quarter billion documents. 

Anyone worried about running out of cultural materials during the pandemic will be relieved to note that the Internet Archive has exceeded a milestone of 6 million movies in addition to over 27 million texts (plus audio, concerts, TV, collections, webpages, and software).

Analysis of quarterly and annual growth for 39 indicators from 10 services reflecting open access publishing and archiving (Internet Archive, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Directory of Open Access Books, bioRxiv, PubMedCentral, PubMed, SCOAP3, Directory of Open Access Journals, RePEC and arXiv) demonstrates ongoing robust growth beyond the baseline growth of scholarly journals and articles of 3 - 3.5 per year. Growth rates for these indicators ranged from 4% - 100% (doubling). 26 indicators had a growth rate of over 10%, 15 had a growth rate of over 20%, and 6 had a growth rate of over 40%. The full list can be found in this table.

Thank you to everyone in the open access movement for continuing the hard work that makes this growth possible.

The open data edition is available here:   

Morrison, Heather, 2020, "Dramatic Growth of Open Access Sept. 30, 2020", https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/AVBOW6, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V2 

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access Series.  

Cite as: Morrison, H. (2020). Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2020. The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics https://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2020/10/dramatic-growth-of-open-access.html

Dramatic Growth of Open Access 2019

 2019 was another great year for open access! Of the 57 macro-level global OA indicators included in The Dramatic Growth of Open Access, 50 (88%) have growth rates that are higher than the long-term trend of background growth of scholarly journals and articles of 3 - 3.5% (Price, 1963; Mabe & Amin, 2001). More than half had growth rates of 10% or more, approximately triple the background growth rate, and 13 (nearly a quarter) had growth rates of over 20%.

Newer services have an advantage when growth rates are measured by percentage, and this is reflected in the over 20% 2019 growth category. The number of books in the Directory of Open Access Books tops the growth chart by nearly doubling (98% growth); bioRxiv follows with 74% growth. A few services showed remarkable growth on top of already substantial numbers. As usual, Internet Archive stands out with a 68% increase in audio recordings, a 58% increase in
collections, and a 48% increase in software. The number of articles searchable through DOAJ grew by over 900,000 in 2019 (25% growth). OpenDOAR is taking off in Asia, the Americas, Africa, and overall, with more than 20% growth in each of these categories, and SCOAP3 also grew by more than 20%.


The only area indicating some cause for concern is PubMedCentral. Although overall growth of free full-text from PubMed is robust. A keyword search for "cancer" yields about 7% - 10% more free full-text than a year ago. However, there was a slight decrease in the number of journals contributing to PMC with "all articles open access", a drop of 138 journals or a 9% decrease. I have double-checked and the 2018 and 2019 PMC journal lists have been posted in the dataverse in case anyone else would like to check (method: sort the "deposit status" column and delete all Predecessor and No New Content journals, then sort the "Open Access" column and count the number of journals that say "All". The number of journals submitting NIH portfolio articles only grew by only 1. Could this be backtracking on the part of publishers or perhaps technical work underway at NIH?

Full data is available in excel and csv format from: Morrison, Heather, 2020, "Dramatic Growth of Open Access Dec. 31, 2019", https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/CHLOKU, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1

References

Price, D. J. de S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

Mabe, M., & Amin, M. (2001). Growth dynamics of scholarly and scientific journals. Scientometrics, 51(1), 147–162.

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access Series. It will be cross-posted to Sustaining the Knowledge Commons.
 Cite as:  Morrison, H. (2019). Dramatic Growth of Open Access 2019. The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics  https://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2020/01/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-2019.html

Dramatic Growth of Open Access October 1, 2019 dataset available

The October 1, 2019 dataset for the Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now available at: Morrison, Heather, 2019, "Dramatic Growth of Open Access October 1, 2019", https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/EZQ1OK, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1


The dataset is in excel format and is easy to manipulate to create custom growth charts or to calculate growth rates for particular services. For example, the number of texts (books) in the Internet Archive as of October 1, 2019 is 21,521,063, up from 21,070,269 on June 30. That's a growth rate of over 450,000 free books in just one quarter! If you divide this amount by 92 (the number of days in one quarter), that's a growth rate of 4,900 books per day (or close to 5,000 books per day).

If anyone is using this data in a creative way and would like to share with others, please let me know in the comments or via e-mail.