More voices join the silent protest

Although in its early stages, the proposed changes to the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act (1988) are already causing controversy, particularly among those in the music and creative industries. More than 1,000 artists, including huge names such as Kate Bush and Annie Lennox, released a silent album with a tracklist that spells out, “The British Government must not legalize music theft to benefit AI companies.”  

With tensions between artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) bubbling under the surface and other countries planting ideological flags, the UK Government must decide how it faces the technological revolution – does it accept AI advances simply as “the inevitable future” or does it make changes to protect artists and their rights?  

Copyright law currently states that copying someone else’s original work is an infringement of their rights, apart from if it is covered by one of the listed exceptions, for example, parody. The government is proposing that “text and data mining,” including for the purposes of training AI, be made one of these exceptions in an effort to help make good on Keir Starmer’s earlier promise to be a world leader in AI behind the US and China.  

With the new Trump administration making promises to “remove barriers” when it comes to AI and developing a closer relationship with Silicon Valley than previous presidents, there is speculation that advancing technology may be prioritized over copyright protection. If this approach is enshrined into law, then UK-based AI companies may simply move to the US to benefit from the more lenient laws, which the UK Government is keen to avoid.  

On the other hand, many creatives are worried this new proposed exception will give AI companies free rein to use existing music to artificially create new songs that have been “programmed” to be a commercial hit with no compensation, essentially putting their jobs at risk. 

There’s also the concern that AI could stifle creativity altogether.  Computer-generated music that has been created by identifying the markers of a popular song may be drawing from the small pool of commercially successful songs, possibly putting the very existence of more niche genres at risk entirely.  

To ensure artists are protected, part of the government’s proposed plan gives creators the ability to ‘opt-out’ of this exception, meaning that their work cannot be used by AI companies for text and data mining. While this sounds sensible in theory, without much detail about how the process will work, there are concerns that this “opt-out” process will not work in practice.  

Currently, there is no suggestion for any type of centralized database where artists can easily opt out once. Without this, artists may have to notify AI companies individually, a time-consuming task that potentially has a lag between the artist opting out and the companies receiving the notification, where the AI software may have already mined the music anyway. The exact details of the opt-out system must be satisfactorily worked out prior to the law changing, or risk the rights and protections of thousands of UK artists. 

In addition to getting domestic policy in order, the government should begin campaigning for a global agreement about how countries will approach AI and copyright, similar to the current Berne Convention that protects works from copyright infringement for member countries across the world. Without this consistent approach, AI companies will likely be able to get around regulation by processing data in other territories, making any country-based regulation futile.  

For too long, the law has remained the same despite how quickly technology has advanced. The Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act (1988) has been updated slowly and on a piecemeal basis. The prevalence of the internet and the rise of digital replication means that, in many ways, the 1988 Act needs wholesale change to reflect the reality of the modern world.  

When changing these laws, the government must balance competing priorities between AI companies, advancing technology and becoming a world leader in this developing area, and supporting artists and their right to own and be compensated for their work. The opt-out solution could be the answer, as long as it is devised in a way that is simple and easy to use for both the companies and artists, and that detail does not yet seem to have been ironed out.  

← Back to News