Bjorn Ulvaeus, a member of the iconic Swedish band ABBA, has publicly called for stronger regulatory measures to protect artists' copyrights from profit-driven artificial intelligence (AI) companies. His appeal comes amid ongoing debates in the UK about government proposals which could permit tech firms to use creative works to train AI models unless the creators explicitly choose to opt out.
The controversy centres on government plans, currently being considered as part of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which may grant Big Tech an exception allowing them to utilise artists’ material for AI training without direct compensation, unless the artist objects. This stands in contrast to existing copyright laws that automatically protect artists and mandate compensation when their work is used. A landmark court ruling in the United States earlier this year affirmed that AI companies should pay for using such content in their models.
Ulvaeus criticised the plans, stating in an interview with The Times, “Unfortunately, there is an alternative and dangerous view, driven by profit-seeking tech companies. AI training must be subject to clear transparency rules.” He emphasised that “copyright is the oxygen” creators rely upon to sustain their livelihoods. He, alongside other creative industry voices, argue that the proposed opt-out system is impractical and undermines the protections traditionally afforded to artists.
The UK’s creative sector is a significant contributor to the economy, valued at around £126 billion and supporting approximately 2.4 million jobs. Industry experts warn that the government’s proposed changes could impair this vital sector by enabling unrestricted exploitation of creative content, while offering minimal benefits in critical areas where AI advancements are most needed, such as defence, health, and scientific research.
In addition to Ulvaeus, high-profile figures such as Sir Elton John and Sir Brian May have backed a campaign opposing the government’s proposed AI copyright exception. Baroness Kidron, a filmmaker and crossbench peer, highlighted the opportunity for the UK to lead globally by offering high-quality creative content as a valuable commodity to AI companies. However, she underlined that meaningful transparency is essential to ensure creators can hold AI firms accountable for copyright violations.
Parliamentary voices have also joined the discussion. Samantha Niblett, a Labour MP and co-chair of the parliamentary internet, communications and technology forum, expressed cautious optimism about AI, noting its potential to transform the economy positively. Nevertheless, she warned, “this will not happen if AI is built on content stolen from UK citizens, with a regulatory environment that favours Big Tech monopolies.” Niblett urged the government to incorporate transparency requirements into the Data Bill to promote a fair licensing market for the data essential to AI.
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle stated the government’s aim is “to provide a solution allowing both sectors to thrive,” reflecting attempts to balance the interests of the creative industries and technology companies.
Caroline Dinenage, the Conservative chairman of the culture, media and sport committee, supported strong copyright protections combined with transparency measures to ensure that creators can continue producing work essential to developing safe and reliable generative AI models.
As the Data (Use and Access) Bill progresses towards its report stage on 7 May, stakeholders across the cultural and technological landscape await the government’s final stance on the delicate balance between innovation in AI and the preservation of artists’ rights. The debate highlights the ongoing challenge of integrating emerging technologies with established intellectual property frameworks.
Source: Noah Wire Services