The U.K. government has opened a consultation to explore ways to protect the rights of artists, writers, and composers when creative content is used to train AI models. The goal is to give creators control over their copyrighted material while fostering technological innovation.
A proposal has been put forward to mandate transparency from AI developers, like OpenAI and Google, on what creative material they use and how they obtain it. It will also allow rights holders to opt out of their work being used to train models, or strike licensing deals if they do consent.
While many licensing deals have already been agreed between tech companies and artists, the government says that many creators have been unable to reach agreements under the current copyright regime and require additional support. At the same time, the proposal wants to ensure tech companies “have access to high-quality material to train leading AI models in the UK and support innovation across the UK AI sector.”
It suggests creating an exception to the U.K. laws that currently prohibit using copyrighted material without permission to train commercial models. This change aims to provide AI firms with greater clarity over what material they can legally use.
“Currently, uncertainty about how copyright law applies to AI is holding back both sectors from reaching their full potential. It can make it difficult for creators to control or seek payment for the use of their work, and creates legal risks for AI firms, stifling AI investment, innovation, and adoption,” the government said in a press release.
The consultation, which will run until Feb. 25, 2025, and be led by the Intellectual Property Office, will also seek views on copyright protection for AI-generated art and the personality rights of public figures in the context of deepfakes or voice cloning. In May, OpenAI faced criticism for using a voice nearly identical to Scarlet Johansson’s in its GPT-4o demo without her consent.
SEE: Google to Label AI-Generated Images in Search Results
Peter Kyle, the U.K.’s technology minister, said in the press release that the focus is “balancing strong protections for creators while removing barriers to AI innovation.”
“It’s clear that our current AI and copyright framework does not support either our creative industries or our AI sectors to compete on the global stage,” he added.
Creative industry unsatisfied with the proposal
The creative industry has not reacted positively to the proposals. The Independent Society of Musicians has “immediate concerns” regarding how the opt-out system will work for artists in practice. The Council of Music Makers said that “explicit consent must always be secured from music-makers,” and licensing deals should result in them being “fairly remunerated for their contributions.”
Several high-profile musicians, including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush, and ABBA’s Björn Ulvaeus, have recently voiced their concerns about how AI companies use copyrighted works without permission.
Dr Jo Twist, the CEO of the British Phonographic Industry, told Music Week: “We remain to be convinced that a copyright exception would move the AI and creative industries closer to agreeing on a functioning licensing model; in fact, we believe it would further disincentivise tech companies from doing so.”
Publishers Association CEO, Dan Conway, agreed, saying in a statement that “there has been no objective case made for a new copyright exception, nor has a water-tight rights-reservation process been outlined anywhere around the globe.”
Baroness Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer, AI ethics expert, and former filmmaker, told The Guardian that she was “very disappointed” with the proposals as they would allow AI firms to “shirk their responsibilities.”
On the other hand, techUK, the UK’s technology trade association, “welcome(s) the Government’s commitment to finding a solution that creates a competitive and supportive environment for both the UK tech and creative sectors,” as per its statement. “It is in everyone’s interests to resolve these issues in a way that supports innovation and growth.”
Coalition launched to urge the government to protect copyright laws
The consultation was opened just one day after the launch of the Creative Rights in AI Coalition, a group advocating for the U.K. government to protect copyright laws and establish a dynamic licensing market. Members include the BPI and bodies representing authors, illustrators, publishers, and photographers.
The Creative Rights in AI Coalition has three demands of the government, the first being that existing copyright law be upheld so that intellectual property owners have exclusive rights over their work, including control over licensing to AI companies.
SEE: Behind the Controversy: Why Artists Hate AI Art
“We must ensure the onus will be on generative AI firms to seek permission and engage with rights holders to agree on licences,” the coalition states on its website. “Just as tech firms are content to pay for the huge quantity of electricity that powers their data centres, they must be content to pay for the high-quality copyright-protected works which are essential to train and ground accurate GAI models.”
It added that clear and robust copyright laws would incentivise AI companies to pay for artists’ content, ensuring that both the original training data and resulting AI-generated work remain of high quality.
The second and third demands are that the government ensures creators receive transparent information about how their content is used in AI development and supports policies that balance the protections of creative rights with the advancement of AI technologies.
The Creative Rights in AI Coalition is not satisfied with the legal exception, as it puts the responsibility of opting out of AI training on the creative rights holder, rather than requiring the AI company to seek consent by default.
The coalition said in an emailed statement to TechRepublic: “Whilst members are still digesting the details of the consultation, rights holders do not support the new exception to copyright proposed. In fact, rights holders consider that the priority should be to ensure that current copyright laws are respected and enforceable.
“The only way to guarantee creative control and spur a dynamic licensing – and generative AI – market is for the onus to be on generative AI developers to seek permission and engage with
rights holders to agree licences. We welcome proposals for transparency measures which will allow rights holders to understand how their work has been used but these should be implemented to make existing copyright law enforceable, rather than being offered as a ‘trade off’ for the degradation of copyright protections.”
