The UK government, based on a proposal presented in December 2024, is conducting a consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence that will run until 25 February this year.
The proposed copyright reform, in its current form, would allow AI companies to train on British copyrighted works without a license, and copyright holders or creators would have an opt-out option to prevent this.
Consultation means that the UK government is considering different approaches to the topic and there’s still time for affected groups to voice their opinions and concerns—of which there are plenty out there.
There are generative AI systems already in place today that are trained using the works of creators all over the world, from musicians to writers, from artists to actors, which then directly compete against those creators in their related markets.
Consequently, many creators are protesting this copyright reform in the UK (we’ll detail their exact concerns below). The good news is, however, that UK-based creators can be part of the decision-making process and even those not from the UK can help spread the word about how their creative fellows fight for their rights. We’ll share options for that in this article, too.
- What does the UK’s current copyright law say about AI?
- What would change with the new UK copyright law regarding AI?
- Why do creators protest against the new AI copyright proposal?
- How can creators voice their opinions on the UK’s AI copyright proposal?
What does the UK’s current copyright law say about AI?
Based on the present UK copyright law creators cannot prevent AI models from using their work, meaning that it can happen without permission, and they also have no means of defense. They cannot tell if the unauthorized use of their work happens, and they are in no position to be compensated for it either.
“… while their IP rights are protected in theory, they need greater transparency from AI developers on their training datasets so that they can monitor and enforce their IP rights in practice.”
Paul Joseph, intellectual property lawyer & Kathy Berry, TMT/IP counsel (Linklaters)
This is not the first time the UK government is trying to propose a copyright reform in relation to AI technology. A proposal in 2022 wanted to “introduce a broad exception to allow commercial text and data mining (with no opportunity for rightsholders to opt out)”—luckily, the following backlash was so intense, the idea was never implemented into law.
The US and the EU have been more active in this area, leaving the UK behind as a market that hasn’t carved out its approach to copyright in response to the newest development of AI technology yet. From this point of view, legislation work and consultation are steps to welcome, but we’ll need to see if the related parties can find common ground, ultimately resulting in a copyright law that holds the best interest of all parties involved—if that is possible at all.
What would change with the new UK copyright law regarding AI?
The proposal points out that right now, copyright holders, or creators, cannot find a truly good way to control how AI models use their work and (at the very least) wish to be compensated for it if it happens but there’s no framework for that either. On the other hand, developers of these AI models find it complicated to follow the current copyright law without facing legal challenges.
The new proposal aims to handle both of these, but also highlights that the current situation is a “legal uncertainty [that] is undermining investment in and adoption of AI technology”. This rounds the goals of the reform into three:
1. “Supporting right holders’ control of their content and ability to be remunerated for its use.”
2. “Supporting the development of world-leading AI models in the UK by ensuring wide and lawful access to high-quality data.”
3. “Promoting greater trust and transparency between the sectors.”
The proposal essentially wants the best of both worlds, protecting the rights of creators but also making sure that technological advancements like AI are not hindered in the UK market, navigated by the keywords “control, access, transparency”.
The economic context of AI “Since 1947, U.S. GDP growth has averaged about 3 percent annually, with productivity growth at about 2 percent annually,” says MIT News. Pointing out a significant difference, in August 2024, Nobel-prize winner and economist Daron Acemoglu estimated in his paper that “over the next decade, AI will produce a “modest increase” in GDP between 1.1 to 1.6 percent over the next 10 years, with a roughly 0.05 percent annual gain in productivity.” At the same time, AI will affect almost 40 percent of jobs around the world, replacing some and complementing others, which is why the IMF calls for a “careful balance of policies to tap its potential”— something like what the current AI-related copyright proposal aims for in the UK. |
The UK government has so far considered four options to change its policies:
👉 “Option 0: Do nothing: Copyright and related laws remain as they are.”
This option would uphold the current situation that is labeled as “legal uncertainty” in the proposal, summarized as creators having trouble with reserving their rights and earning compensation, and AI developers facing legal risks in an uncontrolled, not transparent market.
👉 “Option 1: Strengthen copyright requiring licensing in all cases”
“This option would mean AI models could only be trained on copyright works in the UK if they have an express license to do so,” and “it would also provide a clear route to remuneration for creators”.
The proposal says that this option would result in a copyright law that is more restrictive regarding AI development than in other countries and would make the UK less competitive compared to those markets. For instance, “some of the most capable AI models would not be available in the UK [which] would significantly limit innovation, consumer choice and wider benefits of AI adoptions across the UK economy.”
In short, this option would favour creators but not AI developers and the UK’s AI sector.
👉 “Option 2: A broad data mining exception”
This is the option that creators wouldn’t want under any circumstances. In this option, AI training would be allowed on copyrighted works without the rights holders’ permission, also allowing commercial use of those works.
Understandably, this option would favour AI developers a lot more, while not meeting the needs of creators at all who couldn’t control how their work is used or how they get compensated for it, if at all, with the only exception falling under the subject of fair use.
This option could do a lot for the AI sector but heavily damage the creative industry of the UK.
👉“Option 3: A data mining exception which allows right holders to reserve their rights, underpinned by supporting measures on transparency”
This option would give “lawful access” to material AI models can train on, “but only to the extent that right holders had not expressly reserved their rights”. This way, developers would have enough material to work with and without legal risks, and right holders, or creators, would have a form of control over their work and could seek payment for any use of it via licensing agreements.
For this framework to succeed, AI companies would need to ensure a higher level of transparency about how their models work and the proposal says that “robust measures” are needed to ensure this.
Writers of the proposal believe that this approach, option 3, “has the potential to support AI innovation” and would also “help safeguard the economic viability of the creative and media industries, ensuring right holders can control how their high-quality data contributes to AI innovation.”
However, many claim that despite the government’s suggestion, this option is not balanced at all, favouring AI companies and harming creators.
Why do creators protest against the new AI copyright proposal?
“Critics view [the proposal] as a fundamental betrayal of creators’ rights, posing a significant threat to the UK’s creative industries, which contribute over £126 billion annually to the economy.”
Virgine Berger, Chief Business Development and Rights Officer at Matchtune, an AI-powered music copyright infringement detection tool (Forbes)
Creators are worried on several accounts regarding the new proposal, the three main ones being the following:
- A permit to AI companies to use creative works as a default: Creators claim that an opt-in system would be better than an opt-out one. Opt-in would mean better protection because they would mark their works that could be used for AI training purposes, also giving them the option to mark none of them. In the currently proposed opt-put system all of their works could be used for AI training unless they signal otherwise.
“Central to the controversy is the introduction of an opt-out system for copyright holders, which would permit AI companies to use copyrighted material by default unless rights holders explicitly request to opt out.”
Virgine Berger, Chief Business Development and Rights Officer at Matchtune, an AI-powered music copyright infringement detection tool (Forbes)
- The opt-out system would be a huge administrative burden: Creators argue that it would be unfair to shift this responsibility to them, instead of AI companies who should get “opt-in” permission instead. Creators could also miss their chance to opt-put because it’s already hard, if not impossible, to keep track of digital copies of their works. In fact, currently, “nearly 90% of creators are unaware they even have the ability to opt out, leaving their work vulnerable to exploitation.”
- Being at the mercy of larger companies upon legal controversies: Creators with small businesses are worried that if the new proposal gets through and there are any misunderstandings between them and AI companies much larger in size and with more significant resources at their hands, creators could never win a legal case against them. Big creative companies and agencies may stand a chance, but not small creative businesses.
How can creators voice their opinions on the UK’s AI copyright proposal?
There are a number of things creators living in the UK can do to share their views on the proposal.
- Respond to the proposal in which you can see 47 questions raised with the purpose of starting a discussion. By answering these or even a few of them, you’ll help inform the UK government about which route they should take when it comes to the subject of AI and copyright.
Questions include:
- “Does current practice relating to the licensing of copyright works for AI training meet the needs of creators and performers?”
- “What steps should AI providers take to avoid copyright infringing outputs?”
- “Could you share your experience or evidence of AI and digital replicas to date?”
👉 Option 1: Email your response to [email protected].
It’s best to write down your own thoughts and experience with as many details as possible, but you can also use this template to respond to the consultation too, prepared by Ed Newton-Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, a non-profit that certifies generative AI companies for training data practices that respect creators’ rights. He’s also a professionally trained composer from the UK and held high positions at major tech companies before noticing that generative AI can be used to treat creators unfairly.
To help you gather your ideas to answer the questions laid out in the proposal, Ed also shared his responses to each of them here.
👉 Option 2: Fill out this online survey, provided by the Intellectual Property Office of the UK, as part of the consultation process.
- Find your local MP (Member of Parliament) and write to them, sharing what you think about the proposal. You can use this template when contacting your MP, courtesy of Ed Newton-Rex, as well.
- If you’re a creator who is connected to an organization or entity representing you, email them. This can be a publisher, record label, union, or association of any kind, depending on your creative field. Here’s another template letter you can use to contact your representative, also from Ed Newton-Rex.
For instance, The Association of Illustrators (AOI) is gathering crucial feedback with a survey to inform their united response to the consultation. You can fill out the survey here.
What can you do if you’re a creator outside the UK?
- Share this article, any related social posts and threads, and the template documents with as many people as you can, to make sure that creators are aware of these possible policy changes in the UK and that they also know where to turn to if they wish to state their opinion in the matter.
Final notes
🛑 Remember: The consultation will end on February 25, 2025.
Send your responses to the proposal by this date, which, at the time of writing this article, is still a month away. That is plenty of time to voice your concerns and follow at least one of the action points above to get and keep everyone involved.
Meanwhile, try to keep in mind that even if you don’t find this proposal ideal in its current form, you’ve been given an opportunity to do your part—and that is to join in on the discussion so all concerned parties can find a common ground in the end and change this proposal for the better.
Featured image by Cash Macanaya
Leave a Reply