Skip to content 
An overwhelming public response to a UK government consultation rejected proposals that would have made it easier for artificial intelligence companies to use copyrighted material without permission, giving a prominent campaign led by some of the most well-known pop stars in the world a significant boost.
A growing movement to prevent artists’ works from being mined to train AI models without permission or payment has been spearheaded by musicians like Elton John and Dua Lipa. The results of a consultation, in which 95% of participants advocated for either strengthening copyright protections or leaving the current legislation unchanged, have now significantly strengthened their case. The government’s initial, tech-friendly plan, which would have required creators to actively opt out if they did not want their work used by AI systems, was only supported by 3%.
Campaigners have interpreted the size of the response—more than 10,000 submissions—as an unambiguous public mandate. Additionally, it has increased pressure on ministers who, until recently, seemed prepared to put the interests of rapidly expanding AI firms ahead of those of the UK’s creative industries.
The fundamental question at the centre of the conflict is who should pay for the training of AI systems that rely on enormous amounts of pre-existing cultural content. The answer is simple for publishers, writers, and artists. They contend that allowing AI companies to develop incredibly valuable technologies based on human creativity amounts to a mass transfer of wealth from creators to tech companies.
However, many in the technology industry view current copyright regulations as a barrier to innovation. They contend that in order for AI models to operate efficiently, they must have access to sizeable, varied datasets and that obtaining individual licences would be unfeasible, time-consuming, and unaffordable.
At first, it seemed that the UK government agreed with that argument. A new copyright exception that would permit AI companies to scrape copyrighted content for training purposes unless rights holders specifically opted out was its preferred option during the consultation phase. As many creators would not even be aware that their work was being used, let alone know how to stop it, critics quickly characterised this as unfeasible and unfair.
The backlash came quickly and loudly. The Pet Shop Boys, Kate Bush, and Sam Fender were among the artists who publicly opposed any erosion of copyright protections, warning that doing so would jeopardise the financial foundations of artistic endeavours. In a fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying effort, publishers, broadcasters, and collecting societies argued that the plan would jeopardise one of the UK’s most successful export sectors.
Ministers later stopped overtly supporting the opt-out model, but they did not rule out more substantial changes to copyright laws. This ambiguity has increased campaigners’ worries that the interests of large US technology companies continue to unduly influence the government.
These fears have been exacerbated by interventions from across the Atlantic. Donald Trump, the president of the United States, has expressed his opinions on the matter, contending that in order for AI companies to stay competitive, they must be free to use copyrighted content. He has warned governments against enforcing regulations that would make it “impossible” for AI companies to conduct business, saying, “We have to allow AI to use that pool of knowledge without going through the complexity of contract negotiations.”
Such remarks have caused unease in the UK, where decision-makers are eager to establish the nation as a global centre for AI. The economic potential of AI has been emphasised by successive governments, who have promised jobs, increased productivity, and technological leadership. However, the creative industries—which include music, film, television, publishing, and design—already employ millions of people and contribute over £100 billion annually to the UK economy.
Artists are not against AI per se; rather, they are against what they perceive to be its exploitation. By releasing a new recording last month that was nearly entirely silent and only occasionally interrupted by background studio noise, Paul McCartney dramatically emphasised that point. Originally intended as a protest against what he called “copyright theft” by AI companies, the piece soon came to represent the larger movement.
Protesters contend that the outcomes of the consultation show that the general public is aware of the issues involved. Composer and well-known proponent of copyright justice Ed Newton-Rex called the reaction a “total rejection” of the government’s original strategy. “The commonsense position that AI companies should pay for the resources they use is being overwhelmingly supported,” he said. “The idea of giving AI companies the creatives’ work from the UK for free has been overwhelmingly rejected.”
Ministers are currently being urged by Newton-Rex and others to formally rule out any weakening of copyright law. They contend that businesses’ reluctance to commission new work that could be freely harvested by AI systems is already hurting investment in the creative industries.
The CEO of the New Media Association, which advocates for publishers, Owen Meredith, shares that worry. The government should stop what he called a “prolonged process” that has left rights holders in a state of uncertainty, he has urged. He said, “This will send a clear message to AI developers that they must enter into licencing agreements with the UK’s media and creative copyright owners.” He added that these agreements would aid in the creation of “safe, trustworthy AI models.”
As for the government, it says it is paying attention. Despite the striking numbers from the consultation, Liz Kendall, the secretary of state for science, innovation, and technology, told parliament this week that there was “no clear consensus” on how to balance the conflicting interests involved. She pledged to present policy proposals by March 18, 2026, and stated that ministers would “take the time to get this right.”
In order to promote innovation and safeguard the creative industries, Kendall stated that “our approach to copyright and AI must support prosperity for all UK citizens.” She defined those industries as essential to the UK’s national identity and international standing, acknowledging their economic and cultural significance.
Kendall expressed a more accommodating stance towards artists’ concerns last month, implying that she wished to “reset” the discussion. “People rightfully want to be paid for the work that they do,” she stated, adding that it was difficult to find a way for the creative and technological industries to “grow and thrive.”
However, campaigners’ patience is running low. They contend that further delay runs the risk of normalising practices that creators strongly oppose and that the consultation response does, in fact, reflect a clear consensus. Many worry that once AI companies have developed systems trained on unlicensed content, the harm will be irreversible.
The disagreement is part of a larger worldwide conflict over how societies should value creativity in the era of artificial intelligence. The issues of authorship, ownership, and compensation are becoming more pressing as AI systems grow more adept at creating text, music, and images that resemble human labour. Governments, artists, and tech companies worldwide will be closely monitoring the UK’s final decision.
For the time being, the public’s message seems clear. When asked to choose between granting AI companies free access to copyrighted content and protecting creators, the overwhelming majority of respondents chose to support artists. The ethical underpinnings of AI development itself, as well as the future of British creativity, may be shaped by whether or not ministers follow suit.
info@lawdit.co.uk
