Creators, artists and copyright owners have raised the alarm about a proposal in front of UK lawmakers that would see copyright protections loosened to help the country create a more competitive artificial intelligence industry.
Among the initiatives included in a 50-point AI Opportunities Action Plan is one that would allow Britain’s tech companies to use copyrighted materials to train their AI models without permission unless copyright holders themselves “opt-out” of having their materials used.
That proposal has now reportedly become the UK government’s “preferred option.”
But the proposal has run into widespread opposition from the creator community. Artists including Damon Albarn, Kate Bush, and Annie Lennox released a “silent album” in February – a reflection of their fears that loosening copyright laws could silence the music community.
Meanwhile, the heads of the three music majors – Sony Music Group Chairman Rob Stringer, Universal Music Group Chairman and CEO Sir Lucian Grainge, and Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl – joined a Daily Mail campaign in opposition to the proposed change.
Now, it appears that AI developers don’t much like the idea either – though, not surprisingly, for the opposite reason: They see the “opt-out” plan as being too restrictive.
In submissions to the UK Parliament’s Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Google and OpenAI – two of the world’s leading AI developers – criticized the opt-out proposal, making it clear they want an all-out exemption to copyright laws.
“We believe the most effective way for the UK Government to achieve its stated goals of unlocking and leveraging the broad benefits of AI for its citizens is through a broad text and data mining exception (TDM), as described in Option Two of the consultation proposal,” OpenAI said in a summary of its submission.
“Innovation and investments in AI infrastructure are only possible in jurisdictions where laws clearly support technological research and development. The UK must create a clear, predictable regulatory environment that sets it apart from other jurisdictions in order to boost its competitiveness.”
Google took a similar stance. “We believe training on the open web must be free,” the company said in its submission, as quoted by Politico.
Google also opposed a proposal for the UK to implement a rule requiring AI developers to be transparent about the materials used in AI training – a key ask of some copyright holders, as in some circumstances only transparency could reveal that copyrighted materials were ingested for training.
“Excessive transparency requirements… could hinder AI development and impact the UK’s competitiveness in this space,” Google reportedly stated.
“We believe training on the open web must be free.”
In general, these do seem to be the stances around which AI companies have coalesced, both in the UK and elsewhere. In the US, generative AI companies facing copyright lawsuits, including Anthropic, Suno, and Udio have argued in court that using copyrighted materials should be given a “fair use” exemption to copyright law.
The “fair use” exemption has traditionally been used to carve out limited situations where copyrighted materials can be used without permission or compensation – for instance, for the purposes of education or parody. Copyright holders argue that applying fair use to cover the development of commercial AI applications amounts to a massive expansion of the principle, one that threatens copyright owners and the broader (human) creative community.
In its submission, OpenAI also argued that an “opt-out” regime – which the European Union is implementing as part of its comprehensive AI Act – could be difficult to implement.
“In the EU, the lack of clear and scalable technical standards has created uncertainty about what opt-out methods are workable and valid, causing uncertainty for both AI companies and rightsholders,” OpenAI stated.
While the specifics of how the EU’s AI Act will be implemented are still being worked on, some rightsholders aren’t taking any chances. Both Sony Music Group and Warner Music Group last year sent letters to AI developers notifying them that the music companies are opting out of having their content used to train AI, in an apparent response to Europe’s “opt-out” principle.
In opposing the proposed copyright loosening, UMG’s Sir Lucian Grainge previously suggested that the UK stands to lose influence on the world stage if it undermines its creative industries.
“The UK stands at a decisive crossroads because what is ‘Made in Britain’ and exported to the world is not limited to physical products, but also intellectual property and copyright including music, visual art, life sciences and more,” said Grainge.
“This is the source of the UK’s tremendous soft power that resonates on a global scale,” the executive added.
Sony Music’s Stringer argued for the importance of fair compensation.
“AI is going to change the world… however, there can be no question that creators must be rewarded for being part of this technological revolution. Safeguarding the existing UK copyright model ensures AI developers and content owners can innovate whilst also recognizing the value of the works on which their products are based.”
A spokesperson for the UK’s Department of Science, Technology and Innovation told Politico that no final decisions have yet been made on the proposed AI policies.
“We are carefully considering the consultation responses and continue to engage with tech companies, the creative industries, and Parliament to inform our approach,” the spokesperson said.Music Business Worldwide
