We had delegates to the recent National Summit on AI and Culture, which  gathered over 300 people from academia, government, cultural industries, the arts and culture sector, and the business and technology sectors. Ministers Evan Solomon and Marc Miller were joined by parliamentary secretaries Madeleine Chinette, David Myles, and Taleed Noormohamed, as well as Senator René Cormier. Representation and organisation from the Department of Canadian Heritage was led by Director General Madonna Radi and her team. See the full report here 

The summit began with some effective tone setting from Shani Gwin, sixth-generation Métis founder and CEO of pipikwan pêhtâkwan, an Indigenous-owned and led communications, public relations and engagement agency. Gwin put current technological developments in AI within Canada’s history of misinformation, resource extraction and Indigenous dispossession and urged for a slow, community-based approach to the development of artificial intelligence technologies. Gwin’s opening keynote was followed by a statement by Björn Ulvaeus on behalf of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers affirming that artists need to be remunerated for the use of their work in all contexts. Ulvaeus argued that Canada is at a crossroads where it needs to decide how it will value human creativity in a world that privileges technological development, and affirmed that innovation and copyright protections can co-exist.

While this initial framing of the Summit suggested a human-first, artist-centred approach, the rest of the event was less aligned. Minister Solomon’s opening remarks focused on the need for speed and leadership in the face of threatened national sovereignty. Members of the tech sector consistently emphasised the pace of development and the risk of Canadian industries being left behind. In contrast, participants from across the cultural sector repeatedly called for a clear federal position on whether and how artistic intellectual property will be protected from exploitation by large language models. No clear answer emerged, and at times it was not evident that participants were working from shared definitions.

“AI” was used to describe a wide range of technologies, from generative systems trained on massive datasets to smaller, assistive tools used within organizational workflows. Without distinguishing between these uses, conversations often stalled. Meaningful discussion depends on separating the use of AI for organizational capacity building from its use in relation to creative works, where questions of authorship, ownership, and compensation are central.

Across these discussions, three areas consistently surfaced.

First, copyright and intellectual property dominated nearly every conversation. Calls from the literature and music sectors were especially consistent: no carve-outs should be made in Canada’s Copyright Act for AI companies. There was also broad recognition that existing laws are not being enforced with consistency or clarity. While Minister Miller indicated that he does not envision changes to current legislation, this did not address the larger concern that current systems are not equipped to manage how these technologies are already operating in practice, particularly given that many models have been trained on artistic and cultural works without attribution or compensation.

Second, there was significant focus on training, adoption, and integration. A number of companies positioned themselves as leaders in helping cultural workers adopt AI tools. However, it remains unclear how much demand there currently is. Research presented by Compétence Culture showed widespread hesitation, driven by lack of understanding, privacy concerns, and broader ethical questions. This reflects a larger tension. While AI has the potential to expand the operational capacity of arts organizations and nonprofit work, much of what is currently available relies on systems developed by large American technology companies using training practices that many in the sector view as unethical.

Third, Canadian sovereignty, both in terms of data and technological development, was a recurring theme. There is interest in building Canadian-based models and infrastructure that reflect Canadian values and cultural diversity, alongside exploration of smaller, locally controlled models that can be trained independently of large multinational platforms. At present, however, there are limited viable alternatives to dominant US-based systems, and Canadian data sovereignty remains unresolved.

The Summit also highlighted examples of artistic and organizational experimentation with AI. Les 7 doigts de la main presented work integrating AI-generated visualizations into performance, and Magnify Digital demonstrated tools for analyzing audience growth across digital platforms. These examples illustrated a more contained and intentional use of AI, where the technology supports human-led creative and administrative processes rather than replacing them.

At the same time, several gaps were notable. There was little sustained discussion of the relationship between AI and the climate crisis. Representation from equity-seeking communities was limited, and several attendees noted that participation often required active advocacy to be included. The absence of voices from communities with longstanding experience using AI tools, including the disability community, was particularly evident.

Taken together, these discussions point to a structural gap. Systems for attribution, consent, and compensation do not currently exist at a scale or level of consistency that would support widespread adoption in the cultural sector. Nor are there broadly implemented standards for tagging or identifying works in ways that would allow artists to control how their work is used. At the same time, the speed of technological development leaves little room to resolve these issues before further adoption occurs.

Despite these concerns, participants also pointed to areas of potential. AI could expand the operational capacity of arts organizations and nonprofit work. If appropriate copyright and compensation systems are established, it could open new revenue streams for artists and rights holders. A Canadian-developed model, grounded in Canadian values and cultural diversity, could provide an alternative to current systems and strengthen national sovereignty in this area. There is also potential for AI to support creative exploration and to contribute to initiatives such as the documentation and revitalization of Indigenous languages and knowledge systems, if developed in collaboration with communities.

The Summit concluded with the announcement of a permanent Arts and Culture advisory committee, with 12 rotating members. While modest relative to the scale of the issues discussed, it provides a potential mechanism for continued engagement between the cultural sector and the federal government.

Overall, the Summit functioned as an early-stage convening rather than a decision-making forum. It brought together sectors that do not often share space and surfaced both areas of alignment and points of tension. The path forward will depend on whether the conversations begun here translate into concrete policy, particularly in relation to intellectual property, data sovereignty, and the role of the cultural sector in shaping how AI develops in Canada.