International

UK copyright bill for AI training faces major amendments after creator backlash

Wednesday, 14 May 2025 12:12AM UTC

Following widespread opposition from artists and industry leaders, the UK government has been forced to amend its proposed AI copyright legislation, introducing stricter transparency and permission requirements for training AI on protected works.

The ongoing debate surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright in the UK has reached a critical juncture, marked by significant opposition to the government’s proposed "opt-out" model for generative AI training. This approach would have permitted AI developers to utilise protected works without explicit permission, leaving it to rights holders to proactively decline such use. However, following rigorous pushback from the creative community, the bill has encountered substantial amendments, which have been called a “heavy defeat” for the government, according to various media reports.

The initial legislation aimed to establish a regulatory framework that the government touted as a means to "turbocharge AI" in the UK. Critics, including musicians, authors, and industry representatives, perceive it differently. They argue that the bill, as originally constructed, would facilitate the mass appropriation of creative content, undermining the livelihoods and rights of artists. This sentiment was echoed by Sir Paul McCartney and Elton John, among over 400 prominent figures in the UK’s creative sector, who signed a letter advocating for stronger copyright protections against unauthorised AI usage.

The amended version of the bill, influenced by a significant campaign featuring op-eds and public protests, now compels AI developers to disclose the specific copyrighted materials used during the training of their models. Furthermore, it mandates that these developers provide an effective mechanism for copyright owners to identify which of their works are involved, ensuring that permissions must be obtained before any training can commence. This proposed shift represents a crucial step towards improving transparency and accountability in the burgeoning AI landscape.

Beeban Kidron, a film director and politician, has been vocal in her criticism of the original bill, labeling it a means for tech giants to commandeer protected content while offering little to no compensation to creators. Observers note that changes to copyright laws are not merely an issue of legal semantics; they are fundamentally about the economic survival of creative industries, which contribute significantly to the UK’s GDP and global cultural influence.

Internationally, the discourse around AI training is heated, with parallels drawn to the situation unfolding in the UK. In the United States, the clash over copyright in relation to AI has prompted various legal challenges and legislative proposals aimed at ensuring a balance between fostering technological advancement and safeguarding creator rights. In the UK, the amended AI bill is moving to the House of Commons for further debate, indicating that this conversation is far from over.

Moreover, organisations such as Comic Book UK have emerged to address similar concerns within niche sectors like comic publishing, highlighting the potential repercussions of relaxed copyright laws. They argue that such changes could jeopardise the integrity of comic content, affecting not only the artists involved but also the cultural fabric of the industry as a whole.

Though the UK government continues to advocate for a balanced approach, the overwhelming consensus among creators is that any legislation must unequivocally protect their rights to ensure that they can fairly control their work. Advocacy groups and prominent industry figures are adamant that the government must not allow AI companies to profit from creative works without equitable compensation. The fear remains that without robust protections, the creative sector could face irreversible damage, dampening innovation and ultimately compromising the UK’s position as a leader in both the artistic and technological realms.

As the debate progresses, the outcome of these discussions will have enduring implications not only for UK creators but also for the global landscape of AI development and copyright law. The necessity for a framework that respects and protects artistic integrity is clear, as the technology continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace.

The journey towards establishing fair AI training practices is fraught with complexities, but with concerted efforts from the creative community and attentive lawmakers, there is hope for a resolution that values the contributions of artists while embracing the opportunities presented by AI.

Reference Map

Paragraph 1: ^[1]
Paragraph 2: ^[2]
Paragraph 3: ^[3]
Paragraph 4: ^[4]
Paragraph 5: ^[5]
Paragraph 6: ^[6]
Paragraph 7: ^[7]

Source: Noah Wire Services

More on this

https://www.newsbreak.com/digital-music-news-296091106/4005877410974-uk-s-opt-out-ai-training-bill-suffers-amendment-setback-following-ample-music-space-criticism - Please view link - unable to able to access data
https://www.ft.com/content/5a6601f7-a9c9-4f3b-a205-b4f8fe3e688d - Over 400 leading UK musicians, artists, and media executives, including Sir Paul McCartney, Elton John, Dua Lipa, and Richard Curtis, have signed a letter urging Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to support stronger copyright protections against unauthorized AI usage. They advocate for an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, proposed by Baroness Beeban Kidron, which would require AI developers to disclose which specific copyrighted materials—such as music, books, and films—have been used to train their models. The amendment aims to ensure transparency and prevent what is described as the mass theft of creative works by AI firms. Although the amendment was recently defeated in the House of Commons, it faces another vote in the House of Lords. While the government has proposed its own amendments and insists that all options remain on the table, many creators fear that without explicit legislation, tech companies will bypass copyright protections. The letter cautions that neglecting creators’ rights could undermine the UK’s global standing in the creative sector and damage long-term economic prospects. Advocates argue that the proposed measures are vital to foster a robust licensing market and maintain the UK’s leadership in both creative and AI industries.
https://apnews.com/article/b260a4c6f0fdf732fb4994cdeb1710a4 - Paul McCartney has expressed concerns over potential changes to UK copyright laws that may allow artificial intelligence (AI) companies to use copyrighted materials unless creators opt out. McCartney argues this could lead to artists losing control of their work and damage Britain’s creative industries. The UK government is consulting on new copyright laws intended to balance creators’ control and compensation for AI use of their works, while supporting AI development. McCartney insists that the government should protect artists’ rights to their creations, preventing tech companies from profiting unfairly. Many organizations, including The Associated Press, support maintaining strong copyright protections under the Creative Rights in AI Coalition.
https://www.ft.com/content/9a4d4c46-cda6-4c49-aca1-dae3d67f8938 - Leading UK comic book companies, from Dennis the Menace's publishers to Judge Dredd creators, have formed Comic Book UK to combat the threat posed by AI-generated copycats. This trade association unites entities such as DC Thomson, Rebellion Entertainment, The Phoenix Comic, Avery Hill Publishing, and Fable to lobby for recognition and support as an important export industry. A pressing issue is the UK government's consideration of relaxing copyright laws to allow AI model training using commercial content, which could impact comic books' future. Comic Book UK emphasizes the invaluable nature of comic content for AI training and argues that the proposed copyright exemptions would undermine the control and financial rights of content creators, inhibiting the industry’s growth. Mark Fuller, the association's CEO, aims for comics to be a crucial part of the UK's upcoming 10-year industrial strategy, underscoring the sector’s significant global impact and untapped potential.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/dont-let-ai-rip-off-artists-beatles-star-mccartney-warns-uk-government-2025-01-26/ - Paul McCartney has cautioned that artificial intelligence (AI) could exploit artists and urged the UK government to ensure copyright reforms protect the creative industries. He expressed concerns that AI models could produce content based on popular works without compensating the original creators. In December, Britain proposed a way for artists to license their work for AI training but suggested an exception for large-scale use where rights aren't reserved. McCartney emphasized that proper copyright protection is essential for creative people, warning that only tech giants might benefit otherwise. He cited his own experience using AI to recreate John Lennon's voice, illustrating the risk of artists losing control over their work. The government is reviewing copyright laws, seeking to clarify legal ambiguities to support AI investment while protecting creators' rights.
https://apnews.com/article/dc80620c1c226a816048b87fb30309c4 - A silent album titled 'Is This What We Want?' has been released by over 1,000 British musicians, including notable artists like Kate Bush and Elton John, to protest proposed changes to U.K. AI laws that could allow tech firms to use copyrighted material to train AI models without creators' consent. The album's 12 tracks are recordings of empty studios symbolizing the potential loss of creative control. The protest aims to protect the interests of musicians and preserve the integrity of Britain's creative industries. Profits from the album will support the charity Help Musicians. The consultation on these law changes closes on Tuesday, with strong opposition from artists and media companies. The UK government insists the new approach will favor both AI developers and right holders.
https://ai.cam.ac.uk/news/government-s-proposed-opt-out-model-for-training-ai-goes-against-the-spirit-of-copyright-law-asserts-new-report-from-cambridge-researchers - The UK government’s proposed ‘rights reservation’ model for AI data mining tells British artists, musicians, and writers that 'tech industry profitability is more valuable than their creations' say leading academics. The UK government should resist allowing AI companies to scrape all copyrighted works unless the holder has actively ‘opted out’, as it puts an unfair burden on up-and-coming creative talents who lack the skills and resources to meet legal requirements. This is according to a new report from University of Cambridge experts in economics, policy and machine learning, who also argue the UK government should clearly state that only a human author can hold copyright – even when AI has been heavily involved. A collaboration between three Cambridge initiatives – the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, the Bennett Institute for Public Policy, and ai@cam – the report argues that unregulated use of generative AI will not guarantee economic growth, and risks damaging the UK’s thriving creative sector. If the UK adopts the proposed ‘rights reservation’ for AI data mining, rather than maintaining the legal foundation that automatically safeguards copyright, it will compromise the livelihoods of many in the sector, particularly those just starting out, say researchers. They argue that it risks allowing artistic content produced in the UK to be scraped for endless reuse by offshore companies. 'Going the way of an opt-out model is telling Britain’s artists, musicians, and writers that tech industry profitability is more valuable than their creations,' said Prof Gina Neff, Executive Director at the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy. 'Ambitions to strengthen the creative sector, bolster the British economy and spark innovation using GenAI in the UK can be achieved – but we will only get results that benefit all of us if we put people’s needs before tech companies.'

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score: 9

Notes: The narrative references recent developments in AI legislation and copyright debates in the UK, indicating a recent timeline. However, the article does not specify exact dates for these events, which could slightly reduce its freshness score.

Quotes check

Score: 8

Notes: The text does not contain direct quotes with specific dates, but it mentions statements from prominent figures like Sir Paul McCartney and Elton John. Without specific dates for these statements, it's difficult to verify their original source.

Source reliability

Score: 6

Notes: The narrative originates from NewsBreak, a platform that aggregates news. While the content seems well-informed, NewsBreak is not considered a primary news source, which affects the reliability score.

Plausability check

Score: 9

Notes: The claims about the UK's AI bill amendments and their implications are plausible and align with ongoing debates in the tech and creative sectors. The narrative provides a coherent and logical explanation of the situation.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary: The narrative is generally plausible and discusses recent developments in AI legislation. However, the lack of specific dates and quotes with verified sources reduces confidence. The source is not a primary news outlet, which also affects the overall reliability.

Artificial Intelligence
Copyright
UK government
Creative industries
Legislation