The UK government has opened a consultation to explore ways to protect the rights of artists, writers and composers when creative content is used to train AI models. The goal is to give creators control over their copyrighted material while promoting technological innovation.

A proposal was touted to mandate transparency from AI developers, such as OpenAI and Google, about what creative materials they use and how they source them. It will also allow rights holders to refuse their work being used to train models, or to enter into licensing deals if they do consent.

While many licensing deals have already been agreed between tech companies and artists, the government says many creators have been unable to reach agreements under the current copyright regime and need additional support. At the same time, the proposal wants to ensure that technology companies “have access to high-quality material to train leading UK AI models and support innovation across the UK AI sector.”

It suggests creating an exception to the UK laws that currently prohibit the use of copyright material without permission to train commercial models. This change aims to give AI firms greater clarity about what material they can legally use.

“Currently, uncertainty about how copyright law applies to AI is keeping both sectors from reaching their full potential. This can make it difficult for creators to control or get paid for the use of their work, and creates legal risks for AI firms, stifling AI investment, innovation and adoption,” the government said in a press release.

The consultation, which will run until 25 February 2025 and is led by the Intellectual Property Office, will also seek views on copyright protection for AI-generated art and the personality rights of public figures in the context of deepfakes or voice cloning. OpenAI faced criticism in May for using a voice almost identical to Scarlet Johansson’s in its GPT-4o demo without her permission.

SEE: Google to label AI-generated images in search results

Peter Kyle, the UK’s technology minister, said in the press release that the focus “balances strong protections for creators while removing barriers to AI innovation.”

“It is clear that our current AI and copyright framework does not support our creative industries or our AI sectors to compete on the world stage,” he added.

Creative industry unhappy with the proposal

The creative industry did not respond positively to the proposals. The Independent Association of Musicians has “immediate concern” about how the opt-out system for artists will work in practice. The Music Makers Council said this “express permission must always be obtained from music makers,” and licensing deals must result in them being “fairly compensated for their contributions.”

Several high-profile musicians, including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush, and ABBA’s Björn Ulvaeus, have recently expressed concern about how AI companies are using copyrighted works without permission.

Dr Jo Twist, the CEO of the British Phonographic Industry, tells Music week: “We remain convinced that a copyright exception will bring the AI ​​and creative industries closer to agreeing on a functioning licensing model; In fact, we believe it will further discourage tech companies from doing so.”

Publishers Association CEO Dan Conway agreed, saying in a statement that “no objective argument has been made for a new copyright exception, nor has a watertight rights reservation process been laid out around the world.”

Baroness Beeban Kidron, a peer, AI ethics expert and former filmmaker, said The Guardian that she was “very disappointed” with the proposals, as they would allow AI firms to “dodge their responsibilities”.

On the other hand, techUK, the UK’s technology trade association, “welcome(s) the government’s commitment to finding a solution that creates a competitive and supportive environment for both the UK technology and creative sectors,” according to its statement. “It is in everyone’s interest to resolve these issues in a way that supports innovation and growth.”

Coalition launched to urge government to protect copyright laws

The consultation was opened just one day after the launch of the Creative Rights in AI Coalition, a group lobbying the UK government to protect copyright laws and establish a dynamic licensing market. Members include the BPI and bodies representing writers, illustrators, publishers and photographers.

The Creative Rights in AI coalition has three demands from the government, the first being that existing copyright law be upheld so that intellectual property owners have exclusive rights over their work, including control over licensing to AI companies.

SEE: Behind the controversy: why artists hate AI art

“We need to ensure that the onus is on generative AI firms to seek permission and engage with rights holders to agree licenses,” the coalition said. stated on its website. “Just as technology firms are content to pay for the vast amounts of electricity that power their data centers, they should be content to pay for the high-quality copyrighted works essential to training and grounding accurate GAI models.”

It added that clear and robust copyright laws would incentivize AI companies to pay for artists’ content, ensuring that both the original training data and resulting AI-generated work remain of high quality.

The second and third demands are that the government ensure that creators receive transparent information about how their content is used in AI development and support policies that balance the protection of creative rights with the advancement of AI technology.

The Creative Rights in AI coalition is not happy with the legal exception, as it puts the onus to opt out of AI training on the creative rights holder, rather than requiring the AI ​​company to seek consent by default.

In an emailed statement to TechRepublic, the coalition told TechRepublic: “While members are still digesting the details of the consultation, rights holders do not support the proposed new exception to copyright. In fact, rights holders believe the priority should be to ensure that current copyright laws are respected and enforced.

“The only way to guarantee creative control and incentivize a dynamic licensing and generative AI market is for the onus to rest on generative AI developers to seek permission and with
rights holders to agree licenses. We welcome proposals for transparency measures that would allow rights holders to understand how their work has been used, but these should be implemented to make existing copyright law enforceable, rather than being offered as a ‘trade off’ for the weakening of copyright protection.