Concerns from Creators and Artists
The creators, artists, and copyright owners have raised concerns regarding a proposal put forth to British lawmakers. This proposal aims to weaken copyright protection in order to foster a more competitive artificial intelligence industry in the country.
Among the initiatives included in the 50 points Action Action Plan, one would permit British technology firms to utilize materials protected by copyright for training their own models without prior permission, unless copyright owners explicitly “refuse” their use.
This proposal has now emerged as a “preferred option” of the UK government.
However, it has faced significant opposition from the creative community. Artists such as Damon Albarn, Kate Bush, and Annie Lennox released a “quiet album” in February, reflecting their fears that weakening copyright laws may silence the musical community.
Moreover, leaders from three major music companies—Sony Music Group Chairman Rob Stringer, Universal Music Group Chairman and CEO Sir Lucian Grainge, and Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl—joined the Daily Mail campaign against the proposed changes.
Reactions from AI Developers
Interestingly, AI developers also appear to oppose the idea, although for different reasons: they view the concept of “refusal” as too restrictive.
In discussions within the Committee on Science, Innovation and Technologies of the UK Parliament, leading AI developers like Google and OpenAI scrutinized the refusal proposal, stating they seek a complete exemption from copyright laws.
“We believe that the most effective way for the UK government to achieve its stated goals of unlocking and utilizing the broad benefits of AI for its citizens is through a wide exclusion for text and data mining (TDM), as outlined in the second version of the consultation document,” OpenAI mentioned in the summary of their submission.
“Innovations and investments in AI infrastructure can only flourish in jurisdictions where laws clearly support technological research and development. The UK should establish a clear and predictable regulatory environment that sets it apart from other countries, enhancing its competitiveness.”
Google echoed a similar stance, asserting, “We believe that training on open data should be free,” as reported by Politico.
Google further opposed the UK proposal to introduce rules mandating transparency in AI concerning the materials utilized, a crucial aspect for some copyright owners, as transparency may be the only way to prove that copyrighted materials are used for training.
“Excessive transparency requirements may hinder AI development and negatively impact the UK’s competitiveness in this area,” Google stated.
“We believe that training in the open network should be free.”
Overall, these positions seem to unite AI companies both in the UK and abroad. In the United States, generative AI art firms have faced lawsuits, including Anthropic, Suno, and Surprise, arguing that the use of copyrighted materials should be exempted from “fair use” in copyright law.
The exemption from “fair use” has traditionally applied to limited situations where copyrighted materials can be used without permission or compensation—such as for educational purposes or parody. Copyright owners contend that using fair use to justify the development of commercial AI applications is a significant expansion of the principle that threatens copyright holders and the broader creative community.
In its own submission, OpenAI argued that the “refusal” regime being implemented by the European Union within its AI legislation may be challenging to enforce.
“In the EU, the lack of clear and scalable technical standards has resulted in uncertainty regarding which refusal methods are effective and valid, creating confusion for both AI companies and regulators,” OpenAI stated.
Despite the ongoing implementation of AI legislation in the EU, some regulators still face hurdles. Last year, Sony Music Group and Warner Music Group sent letters to AI developers notifying them that music companies would refuse to allow the use of their content for AI training, in direct response to the EU’s principle of “refusal.”
In light of the proposed weakening of copyright protections, Sir Lucian Grainge from UMG previously warned that the UK may risk losing its global influence if it undermines its creative industries.
“The UK stands at a critical junction, as what is ‘made in the UK’ and exported globally encompasses not just physical products, but also intellectual property and copyright, including music, visual arts, life sciences, and much more,” Grainge commented.
“This intellectual property represents a significant source of soft power for Great Britain, resonating on a global scale,” he added.
Sony Music’s Stringer emphasized the need for fair compensation.
“AI is poised to change the world… However, there must be no doubt that creators should be rewarded for their contributions to this technological revolution. Protecting the existing copyright framework in the UK ensures that AI developers can innovate while recognizing the value of the works on which their products rely.”
A representative from the British Department of Science, Technology, and Innovation informed Politico that final decisions regarding the proposed AI policy have yet to be made.
“We are carefully considering the responses to the consultations and continue to engage with technology companies, the creative industries, and parliament to shape our approach,” the representative stated.
