The Government’s consultation on AI and copyright closed last week, amid a number of high-profile interventions from those in the creative industries and beyond calling for the Government to abandon its proposed plans.

We commented on the consultation when it was first launched here. It explored a number of areas, but its principal focus was on the much-debated question of how UK copyright law should apply to the training of AI models.

A number of possible solutions were advanced, including the Government’s ‘preferred option’ which would see the data mining exception under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 expanded to permit data mining on copyright-protected works for commercial purposes, but allow right holders to opt out by expressly reserving their rights. Alongside – and underpinning – this proposal would be a requirement that AI developers are more transparent about the sources of their training material.

The proposal received widespread criticism in the creative industries. Household names in the worlds of art, publishing, journalism, literature, music, and drama have signed letters, launched petitions, and even released a ‘silent album’ in protest.

In the House of Lords, pushback against the Government’s plans came in the form of a series of amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill (which we discussed here) which sought to bolster the protection of copyright holders against the activities of AI developers and impose greater transparency requirements on those training AI models. These amendments are now to be considered by the House of Commons as the Bill moves to the Committee Stage.

The Science, Innovation, and Technology Committee and Culture, Media, and Sport Committee have also weighed in, writing a joint letter to the relevant Secretaries of State after holding a joint session in early February. In their letter, they stress that “underpinning our recommendations is the principle that everyone should receive fair remuneration for their creative work”. Their recommendations include the Government publishing a full impact assessment for each option set out in the consultation, and introducing practical measures to provide transparency on training data, irrespective of which option is ultimately adopted. As for the Government’s preferred option, the Committees state that it “should not be taken forward without a technical solution that works, is implementable and accessible to all”, pointing to a number of technical challenges that stand in the way.

Some recent reports have suggested that the pressure on the Government from the creative industry is having an effect, and that its proposed plans may well be amended as a result. However, the official line from one government spokesperson is that “no decisions will be taken until we are absolutely confident we have a practical plan that delivers each of our objectives, including increased control for rights holders to help them easily license their content, enabling lawful access to material to train world-leading AI models in the UK, and building greater transparency over material being used”.