The UK government has formally launched its keenly anticipated consultation on copyright and AI. The consultation, which is open for responses from today through to 25 Feb, will consider a “balanced package of proposals” that will “give creators greater control over how their material is used by AI developers”.
Technically the proposed new copyright exception for AI companies that forms the backbone of the government’s proposals will actually give creators less control over how their copyright-protected works are used. However, as a trade off, creators are being promised more clarity and transparency, and possibly more protection for personality rights.
The creative industries, AI companies and anyone else interested in the issue now have just over two months to tell the government why its proposed compromise will or won't work, so that ministers can be fully informed before ignoring everybody and ploughing ahead with their proposals anyway, or doing something else entirely. Who knows?
“This government firmly believes that our musicians, writers, artists and other creatives should have the ability to know and control how their content is used by AI firms and be able to seek licensing deals and fair payment”, insists Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, who adds, “achieving this, and ensuring legal certainty, will help our creative and AI sectors grow and innovate together in partnership”.
The “balanced package of proposals” will, adds Technology Secretary Peter Kyle, “address uncertainty about how copyright law applies to AI so we can drive continued growth in the AI sector and creative industries”. This, he goes on, “is all about partnership: balancing strong protections for creators while removing barriers to AI innovation”.
When a copyright exception for AI companies was originally proposed by the previous UK government in 2022, it did not include any mechanism for copyright owners to opt out. In other words, if that exception had been introduced, all copyright protected content would have been fair game for AI training. This time around, the government is proposing an opt-out, following the lead of the European Union.
So, in theory the copyright exception will mean that AI companies can make use of copyright-protected works when training generative AI models without getting permission from copyright owners. However, if a copyright owner formally ‘reserves their rights’ and opts out of the exception, it will not apply and explicit permission will still be required.
Despite the opt-out, the music industry, and other creative industries, will still oppose the exception. Jo Twist, CEO of record industry trade group BPI, welcomes the government’s plans to improve transparency around what content is being used to train AI models, but says “it remains our firm view that an exception to copyright law for AI training with rights reservation would be hugely damaging to our national interest”.
The government argues that its proposals will provide more clarity regarding the copyright obligations of AI companies using existing content in training datasets, and will therefore facilitate more licensing deals between copyright owners and AI businesses.
However, many in the music industry think that clarity is unnecessary because the law is already clear that AI companies need to get permission before using existing content, adding that the industry is ready to negotiate deals with AI companies that want to license their works.
“The music industry has long embraced the opportunity of AI and supports a strong market for licensing”, Twist continues. However, she adds, “we remain to be convinced that a copyright exception would move the AI and creative industries closer to agreeing a functioning licensing model; in fact, we believe it would further disincentivise tech companies from doing so”.
The wider music community is more or less united on the need for AI companies to get permission from creators and rightsholders before using existing content in training datasets.
And the music industry is also allied with all the other creative and copyright industries on that point, as demonstrated by the launch of the Creative Rights In AI Coalition yesterday, which sees the music, movie, media, literature, journalism, photography and visual arts sectors come together to lobby the government on AI issues.
However, there remain some disagreements within the music community over who can grant permission to AI companies that ask for it. For example, can a record label which owns the copyright in a recording grant permission for that recording to be used for AI training, without first getting the consent of the creators and performers involved in making the recording in the first place?
The government’s consultation also plans to consider how the licensing of rights to AI companies might work, including “the needs of individual creators as part of this”. Music creators are likely to use this part of the consultation to argue that explicit consent is also required from the individuals involved in creating any one recording or song that is utilised by an AI company.
Responding to the consultation, the Council Of Music Makers - which brings together organisations representing music creators and their managers - says the government now has an opportunity to “protect individual creators’ rights”.
“Explicit consent must always be secured from music-makers, by either rightsholders or technology companies, before their music, lyrics, likeness or voice is used and exploited by AI models”, the CMM’s statement adds. And when licensing deals are done between the music industry and AI companies, it says, “all music-makers must be fairly remunerated for their contributions, without which this technology would not be possible”.
The desired outcome of the consultation, the CMM concludes, is a “robust copyright framework” that “enables innovation and powers growth in a way that protects and champions the human creators behind the UK creative industries that generate over £100 billion annually”.