Further calls have been made by leading figures in the UK’s creative industries for the Government to rethink its plans for reforming copyright law as it relates to artificial intelligence.

We have discussed this topic on multiple occasions (see, for example, here and here). Ever since the Government signalled that it was committed to finding a way to resolve the challenge of how to protect the rights of copyright holders whilst simultaneously allowing AI developers to train their models on copyright-protected works, there has been widespread concern among the creative industries that any proposed solution that means a watering down of their rights will pose an existential threat.

Those concerns only grew when the Government published its consultation into AI and copyright at the end of last year (on which we commented here). It offered a preferred solution of introducing an opt-out system – similar to that in the EU DSM Copyright Directive – whereby the data mining exception under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 would be expanded to permit data mining on copyright-protected works for commercial purposes, but allow right holders to opt out by expressly reserving their rights.

The consultation ended last month amid a wave of calls by those in the creative industries for the Government to reconsider its plans. We await the Government’s response to see if these calls will prove successful. However, in the meantime, moves have already been made in Parliament to protect copyright holders, such as amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill which were proposed by Baroness Kidron and passed in the House of Lords (which we discussed here). These included a series of measures that protected the rights of copyright holders and imposed further transparency requirements on AI developers.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Baroness Kidron’s amendments have now been voted down by the House of Commons. In response, the Chief Executive of UK Music, Tom Kiehl, has said “it is hugely disappointing that Baroness Kidron’s crucial amendments – which command widespread support across the creative industries – were blocked. These proposed changes would have helped stop AI firms ripping off UK music creators by stealing their music without permission or payment. The amendments would also have increased transparency and ensured the enforcement of our existing copyright rules which help prevent creators being exploited by AI firms – something which is already happening on an industrial scale and must be stopped. We are urging the government to rethink these deeply damaging plans and help the creative industries play a key part in growing our economy and boosting the exports of UK music, which are such an important part of our soft power across the world. We are also urging MPs to reintroduce these amendments at the next stage of the Parliamentary process”.

UK Music was one of a number of organisations from the creative industries that recently attended a meeting with the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, in which they reiterated their concerns about the Government’s proposals to make copyright laws “more permissive and [put] the growth of the creative industries at risk”.

These comments have been echoed by 35 performing arts leaders in the UK – including the heads of the National Theatre, Royal Shakespeare Company, and Royal Albert Hall – who last week signed a statement in which they expressed their “concern about the government’s plans to diminish creative copyright by giving an exemption to AI companies”.

At the third sitting of the Committee Stage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, Sir Chris Bryant, responded to some of the criticisms of the Government’s approach and outlined its position as follows:

“We received more than 11,000 detailed and heartfelt responses to our public consultation on AI and copyright. Many set out specific views on transparency, technical standards and a range of the questions that we asked in the consultation. We are taking care to read each response. Although we believe that action needs to be taken on transparency and web crawlers, as well as other issues relating to AI and copyright, it is only right that we carefully consider all the viewpoints and evidence before acting. We have heard loud and clear the message that stakeholders do not want us to rush to legislate on this topic, and we intend to heed this message… I have already stated our intention to create working groups to move the conversation forward, including on technical solutions. Industry often comes up with the best ideas, so I want to harness that, whether it is greater transparency about AI training or standards on web crawlers, metadata and watermarking. Whatever the solution, we want to be confident in its efficacy and, critically, in its simplicity and accessibility. We have said repeatedly that we will not move forward in this sphere unless we are confident we can give rights holders greater control over the use of their works. Once we have analysed the responses to the consultation, we will publish proposals”.