UK Government Faces Backlash Over AI Copyright Policies: Creatives Demand Protection

Peers demand more protection from AI for creatives

However, there was broad and vociferous support for Baroness Kidron, a film director and digital rights campaigner, who accused ministers of being swayed by the "whisperings of Silicon Valley" asking them to "redefine theft". The Lords rebellion follows condemnation from Sir Elton John, who called the government "losers" over the weekend and said ministers would be "committing theft" if they allowed AI firms to use artists' content without paying. He joins the ranks of high-profile musicians, including Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, and Kate Bush, who are outraged by plans they say would make it easier for AI models to be trained on copyrighted material. Kidron's amendment would force AI companies to disclose what material they were using to develop their programmes, and demand they get permission from copyright holders before they use any of their work. Highlighting the power differential between the big tech giants in the US and creatives in the UK, Kidron branded the government's plans "extraordinary". "There's no industrial sector in the UK that government policy requires to give its property or labour to another sector - which is in direct competition with it - on a compulsory basis, in the name of balance," she said. "The government has got it wrong. "They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley who have stolen - and continue to steal every day we take no action - the UK's extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output. "Silicon Valley has persuaded the government that it's easier for them to redefine theft than make them pay for what they have stolen." Defending her amendment, the crossbench peer said it was "the minimum viable action from the government" to signal that "UK copyright law is indeed the law of the land". Otherwise, Kidron said, the Bill was merely a "political gesture" ignoring "widespread theft" of UK copyright and "starving" the creative industry of "the transparency they need to survive".

We have a chance to prevent AI decimating Britain's creative industries - but it's slipping away | Beeban Kidron

Beeban Kidron is a film director and crossbench peer in the House of Lords For months now, legends of music, literature, product design, the visual arts and more have been sounding the alarm about the British government's plan to undermine copyright law. The fight kicked off when the government launched a consultation into regulating artificial intelligence with its own "preferred" outcome: letting AI companies steal copyrighted work by default unless the owners of that work "opt out". But opting out is impossible to do without AI transparency. The plan is a charter for theft, since creatives would have no idea who is taking what, when and from whom. When the government stoops to a preferred outcome that undermines the moral right to your work and income, you might reasonably be angered. As Elton John said last weekend: "The government have no right to do this to my songs. They have no right to do it to anybody's songs, or anybody's prose." His is just one voice among the thousands of British creators who are crying foul. My colleagues and I from all sides in the House of Lords have acted where the government has refused, adding emergency transparency measures to the legislation - the data (use and access) bill - that is passing through parliament. Our amendment would allow existing copyright law to be enforced: copyright owners would understand when, where and by whom their work was being stolen to train AI. The logic being that if an AI firm has to disclose evidence of theft, it will not steal in the first place. These measures, voted for in ever-increasing numbers by lords from all parties - and notable grandees from the government's own backbenches - were voted down by a government wielding its significant, if reluctant, majority. But the Lords' resistance did finally bring the secretary of state for technology, Peter Kyle, to the dispatch box on Thursday. Here, he bewilderingly admitted that "much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models, usually from other territories and under the current law" - meanwhile taking out the Lords' provisions that would prevent that very theft. He mentioned his love for Kate Bush, one of more than 400 people, along with Paul McCartney and Ian McKellen, who signed a letter to the prime minister asking for a change of policy. But his policy resolutely remained unchanged. No transparency, no timeline and no help for creatives. Again, this week, the government missed its chance to get this right. To support one of our greatest industrial sectors, which provides 2.4m jobs and contributes £126bn and a whole lot of joy to the UK's four nations. Not one MP from any side came to the government's rescue. On the contrary, Kyle was subjected to a barrage of interventions that expressed an emergency he was failing to deal with. As one MP told me afterwards: "One of our greatest industrial sectors is on fire and ministers are having a picnic on the lawn with the arsonists." With its enormous majority, the government will be able to bully its way to victory on any given bill. But a win for the government is a catastrophe for the creative industries and Britain's indigenous AI economy (which, incidentally, has been critical of the government's approach for the way it favours the larger US players). Britain's creative industries embody our history, they hold our shared truth and they tell our national story. A nation that gives away its capacity to tell its own story is a fragile place indeed. But the fight isn't over yet - the data (use and access) bill returns to the Lords on 2 June.

Labour defeated for third time over AI plans that threaten creative industries

"The House of Lords did a vote, and it was more than two to one in our favour, the Government just looked at it as if to say, 'hmmm, well the old people... like me can afford it." Lord Black of Brentwood, the deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, has called for ministers to do more to protect creatives from AI "theft". "For AI businesses to flourish here, they need access to our world-class content, which will only be produced if content creators have effective copyright protection," he said. "This House recognised that on Monday during the passage of the Data Bill and it's deeply disappointing to learn that, rather than act decisively to give creators transparency as we voted for [...] the Government is manipulating parliamentary procedure arrogantly to dismiss our views. "Is it really now the Government's extraordinary position that if it costs money to enforce the law we must just let criminals get away with theft? Crossbench peer Baroness Kidron, who tabled the amendment, rounded on the Government. She said: "The Government have got it wrong. They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley, who have stolen - and continue to steal every day we take no action - the UK's extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output. "Silicon Valley have persuaded the Government that it is easier for them to redefine theft than make them pay for what they stole. "If the Government continues on its current intransigent path, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry, fundamental to country and democracy. It will be a tragedy and it's entirely avoidable." The online safety campaigner explained that her new amendment accepts that the Government's consultation and report will be the mechanism by which transparency measures will be introduced, and gives the Government free rein on enforcement procedures. However, it does require the Government to ensure clear, relevant and accessible information be provided to copyright holders so they can identify the use of their copyrighted work, and that legislation to be brought forward within six months of the Government's report being published, 18 months from the Bill's passing. 'Political gesture' Lady Kidron told peers: "If the Government is not willing to accept a time-limited outcome of its own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling widespread theft of UK copyright into the long grass. "Because failing to accept a timeline in the real world means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive." She insisted that UK copyright law as it stands is unenforceable, because "what you can't see you can't enforce", and that without her amendment it will be years before the issue is legislated on, by which time the creative industry will be "in tatters". Responding, technology minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch insisted that transparency "cannot be considered in isolation" and that the issue of copyright is "too important a topic to rush". She said: "Alongside transparency, we must also consider licensing, the remuneration of rights holders, and the role of technical solutions and any other number of issues relating to copyright and AI. "This is why we consulted on all of these topics. We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted by the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright, the creative sector and AI development. We cannot ring-fence the UK away from the rest of the world." She added: "This is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others. "We are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI. "This isn't about Silicon Valley, it's about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors. We have to find a solution that protects both sectors."