Tech Explained: Here’s a simplified explanation of the latest technology update around Tech Explained: Actors, musicians and writers welcome UK U-turn on AI copyright | AI (artificial intelligence) in Simple Termsand what it means for users..
Actors, musicians and writers have welcomed the UK government’s decision to backtrack on plans to let AI firms use copyright-protected work without permission.
Technology secretary Liz Kendall said it no longer had a “preferred option” on copyright reform, having previously supported a proposal allowing tech companies to take copyrighted work – unless rights holders opted out of the process.
“We have listened,” said Kendall on Wednesday, “we have engaged extensively with creatives, AI firms, industry bodies, unions, academics and AI adopters, and that engagement has shaped our approach. This is why we can confirm today that the government no longer has a preferred option.”
The proposal had triggered a backlash from Sir Elton John, who called the government “absolute losers” over the plans. Dua Lipa, Abba’s Björn Ulvaeus, the actor Julianne Moore and the Radiohead singer Thom Yorke are among thousands of artists who have voiced their concerns over the potential legal overhaul.
Creative industry organisations welcomed the new government stance. Equity, the actors’ trade union, said the move was “recognition that selling out the UK’s creative industries to benefit US tech companies would’ve been an act of national self-sabotage”.
UK Music, a trade body representing the UK music industry including the Musicians’ Union, said it was “delighted” but urged the government to rule out the proposal altogether.
The Society of Authors said the announcement was a “hard-won” moment for writers and creators, while the News Media Association – whose members include the Guardian – said giving away the UK’s “goldmine” of creative content was not the way to drive economic growth.
Intellectual property has become a key battleground in the development of AI because the technology requires vast amounts of data, including copyright-protected work taken from the open web, to develop tools such as chatbots and image generators.
Ed Newton-Rex, a composer and campaigner for protecting artists’ copyright, said the creative industries should not celebrate too soon. “Virtually everything is still on the table, including the opt-out,” he said. “It’s just kicking the can down the road.”
Kendall’s announcement came as the government published an update on its proposals, including an economic impact assessment – although it did not provide a “monetised” economic cost for each of its four copyright proposals.
Along with the former preferred option, a government consultation is considering: leaving the situation unchanged; forcing AI companies to seek licences for using copyrighted work; or allowing AI firms to use copyrighted work with no opt-out for creative companies and individuals.
Beeban Kidron, a cross-bench peer who led opposition to the proposals in the House of Lords, said there was “nothing but political will” standing in the way of letting artists see how and where their work is being used by AI firms – which would pave the way for them to be compensated.
Kendall also announced: the establishment of a taskforce to examine proposals to label AI content; a consultation on protecting someone’s likeness from being used in deepfakes; a working group to support smaller creative organisations in licensing their content; and a review of how creators can monitor use of their work by AI firms.
Antony Walker, deputy chief executive at techUK, a tech industry trade body, said the announcement must be used as an opportunity to “reset and find a way forward” on copyright.
The economic impact assessments said leaving copyright law unchanged could benefit creative firms by growing the market for licensing content to AI firms, but could prevent the development of cutting-edge AI models in the UK.
Requiring licensing could result in some AI tools being withdrawn from the UK, the government added, although it could be a “net positive” for the creative sector. Waiving copyright for AI firms could put at risk a “globally competitive” creative sector but would lower costs for tech firms, it said, while the controversial opt-out option could affect both sides if it is not implemented efficiently.