AI & COPYRIGHT: UK’S CREATIVE INDUSTRIES IN LIMBO AFTER LATEST GOVERNMENT REPORT
The government’s approach then was to recommend that creators “opt out” if they did not want AI Big Tech to use their intellectual property (IP) without permission. This attracted furore from all corners of the creative world including Anti Copying In Design (ACID) and you can read our response.
According to Reuters, Secretary of State, the Rt. Hon Liz Kendal, MP., signalled several areas the government will now prioritise instead of the scrapped plan:
- More control for creators over how their work is used.
- Licensing solutions (especially for smaller creators)
- Transparency around AI training data
- Tackling “digital replicas” (AI copying people’s likeness)
- Possible labelling of AI-generated content to combat deepfakes.
The ensuing outrage following the original consultation was palpable, and the short term “good news” is that there has been a significant about turn on AI copyright policy. The government has abandoned its previously favoured proposal to let AI companies use copyright material under a broad “opt-out” system, where creators would have had to actively refuse access. This was unthinkable.
There is to be a pause for any legislative plans, and the government will go back to the drawing board saying it has no preferred model. They will restart conversations with all players and maintaining copyright law is the preferred route, looking at various licensing frameworks, better transparency, and control for creators.
We welcome that government has given a commitment to gather more evidence and consult further in a twelve-month period. But where does this leave creators? What are the downsides? This is a triumph for lobbying but this reset leaves creators in a mixed position. In the short term, it is a win, the government has stepped back from an “opt-out” model many feared would weaken control over their work. Existing copyright law remains in force, so creators retain legal protection and negotiating leverage.
However, the detrimental effect for millions of creators is that it kicks the can down the road, yet again. The lack of clarity makes the future blurred and prolongs uncertainty. This will make it even more difficult for artists, writers, designers and rights holders to plan, license content, or challenge AI use at scale. It is a fact that enforcement remains out of reach for most lone, small and SME creators with an even greater difficulty in monitoring unlawful use of their work.
Dids Macdonald OBE, Co-founder of ACID and Director of Campaigning said,
Whilst we welcome the fact that government listened to reason, Big Tech will be rubbing their hands in glee as they can continue data scraping work with no new restrictions or licensing regime yet in place. They are now in an even better position to hide behind anonymity and regulatory uncertainty. Transparency does not enter their logarithm vocabulary, nor recompense for unlawful use or attribution to IP originators.
Laura Newbold Breen, ACID’s CEO added,
It is reassuring to all to see the opt-out suggestion abandoned; however designers and copyright creators everywhere need to see proactive change to ensure their IP can be protected as AI grows exponentially.
