AI & Copyright: Creators Push Back, Dividing Parliament
The controversy surrounding the use of copyrighted content by AI companies has been rekindled by the House of Lords. AI developers would have had to reveal which copyrighted works were used to train their models under a proposed amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Despite opposition from the government, Baroness Kidron’s amendment was approved by the Lords. Its goal was to make AI training techniques more accountable and transparent so that creators could see how their work was being used and possibly object to misuse or seek licensing.
But the government has adopted a completely different position. Using the rarely used procedural tool known as “financial privilege,” ministers swiftly repealed the transparency requirement in the House of Commons, claiming that the proposal would result in public spending. Their stance is unambiguous: copyright reform cannot be affixed to a single bill; rather, it must be a component of a larger, coordinated legislative review.
This has led to annoyance in the creative industry. The message to the government has been the same from publishers to musicians: don’t allow AI developers to mine artistic creations for free. Leading artists signed an open letter urging ministers to impose fair licensing and transparency in place of an opt-out model. Concerns are mounting that AI firms are making money off of content that has been illegally scraped, a practice that could devalue the £120 billion creative economy in the UK.
To date, the government has responded by delaying action. A copyright and AI consultation ended earlier this year, but no report has been released as of yet. AI companies are still bound by the current copyright regulations until then, but there is little clarity in their enforcement and even less transparency regarding the actual use of training data.
The technology industry has also opposed the Lords’ amendment, arguing that requiring disclosure could hinder innovation and put developers under unreasonably high pressure. The government has largely relied on this narrative, highlighting international competition, growth, and innovation—particularly in light of China’s and the US’s rapid advancements in AI.
A revised amendment may be proposed in the next few days when the legislation returns to the House of Lords. It is unclear if the Lords will demand transparency once more or if they will permit the bill to pass without it.
The outcome is still up in the air, but the stakes are obvious. The UK must decide between two priorities: defending creators’ rights or removing obstacles to the quick development of AI.
Lawdit is firmly on the side of the creators or the potential legal ramifications of future regulation and we will continue to keep you informed.
info@lawdit.co.uk
