The UK government's push to adapt copyright law for the AI era has hit a wall, caught between the demands of the burgeoning tech sector and fierce resistance from creative industries, leaving critical legislation hanging in the balance ahead of a parliamentary showdown.
Concessions fall flat: An initial proposal to allow AI companies to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner explicitly opts out has ignited fierce opposition from artists, publishers, and lawmakers concerned about creators' livelihoods. The conflict is coming to a head as amendments are debated for the Data (Use and Access) Bill next week, a piece of legislation that has unexpectedly become the central battleground for the future of AI and copyright in the UK. The government argues changes are necessary to attract AI investment, while critics contend the plans prioritize US tech giants over domestic creative talent.
In an attempt to quell the revolt, ministers recently tabled amendments committing to an economic impact assessment of potential copyright changes and promising reports on complex issues like licensing and technical standards for opt-outs. The plan, outlined around May 1st, was intended to mollify concerns but was swiftly rejected by opponents as insufficient. High-profile figures like Elton John had previously argued, according to The Guardian, that the original reforms rode “roughshod over the traditional copyright laws that protect artists’ livelihoods”.
Transparency remains the sticking point: Central to the creative sector's demands is the issue of transparency – a requirement for AI firms to disclose which copyrighted materials were used to train their models. Proponents argue this is essential to enable fair licensing negotiations and identify potential copyright theft. However, the government's proposed reviews and assessments do not guarantee immediate transparency measures.
This lack of commitment on transparency fuels the ongoing stalemate. While ministers hope technical solutions for tracking data usage might emerge over time, there's acknowledgment that effective mechanisms don't currently exist at scale. AI companies, meanwhile, resist transparency mandates, citing concerns over commercial secrets, competitiveness, and technical feasibility.
With the Data Bill returning to Parliament, opponents are poised to reintroduce amendments demanding stronger copyright protections and immediate transparency, potentially leading to legislative "ping pong" between the factions, with no clear resolution in sight.