What is the latest on copyright and AI?

You may have seen that the House of Lords recently voted in favour of an amendment that would force tech companies to disclose the copyrighted works that they have used to train their models.

Our Chair, Lord Clement-Jones, was a prominent supporter of the amendment tabled by Baroness Kidron. Speaking in the chamber, he said: “Rightsholders, from musicians and authors to journalists and visual artists, are rightly concerned about the use of their copyrighted material to train AI models, often without permission or remuneration. They seek greater control over their content and remuneration when it is used for this purpose, alongside greater transparency.”

We have long maintained that transparency is an essential first step towards any long-term settlement regarding the use of copyrighted works for AI training. This was illustrated by our member survey which showed that while 91% of authors felt they should be asked permission for their works to be used to train AI models, 77% did not know whether their works had been used. We are therefore encouraged by this amendment and hope to see it adopted in the House of Commons.

We now enter what is known as “ping-pong”, where the Bill goes back and forth between the Lords and Commons until a version is agreed by both Houses. The amendment has so far been voted down each time by the Commons, but retained in the Lords, with the majority in the Lords increasing each time, indicating they are unlikely to back down any time soon. It’s not too late to write to your local MP and urge them to support this amendment next time it is voted on in the Commons.

While this amendment ping-pongs between the two chambers, we are still eagerly awaiting the Government’s response to the outcome of its consultation on AI and copyright, after an unprecedented 13,000 submissions.

We are now past the 12-week point at which the Government is expected to respond, according to its good practice guidelines. That they haven’t yet is a testament to the “overwhelming” response from creators and the creative industries, including many ALCS members who submitted their own response or wrote to their local MP through our letter-writing service Writers Write.

We have seen reports that this backlash has caused them to rethink their proposals, with the controversial “opt-out” element no longer their preferred solution. While promising, it’s still not clear what route they intend to go down and we expect this issue to rumble on for a good while yet.

In the meantime, we’ve already seen some very positive news on copyright. Earlier this month, the Government announced that it was keeping the existing copyright exhaustion regime, marking a belated victory for the Save Our Books campaign, which many thousands of ALCS members supported.

Back in 2021, the Intellectual Property Office launched a consultation on the UK’s future copyright exhaustion regime (the rights of copyright holders after a work has been sold) in the wake of our departure from the EU and proposed a significant weakening of the existing rules in place.

This would have likely resulted in many writers having their works imported back into the UK at a lower price than the author agreed when putting that work on the domestic market. Research at the time suggested revenues from UK books could have fallen by a staggering £22.2bn, which would have been catastrophic for UK authors.

It is a huge relief to see the Government confirm that our robust exhaustion regime will remain in place, illustrating what can be achieved when creators come together and make their voices heard.

However, we also received a stark reminder that the principles of copyright are being challenged around the world. Earlier this month, the US President fired the head of the US Copyright Office, Shira Perlmutter, which took place swiftly following the release of a report questioning the practice of AI companies mining ever more copyrighted materials to refine their models.

Since entering office, the current US administration has maintained close ties with tech companies, many of whom see intellectual property laws as merely a nuisance or impediment to technological progress. Elon Musk, a close advisor to the President, recently stated his desire to “delete IP law”, which is emblematic of a dangerous and ill-informed maximalist position, common in certain sectors, that fails to recognise the pivotal role that such laws play in our economy and culture.

While the UK Government has so far adopted a more balanced approach to the needs of tech companies and the creators who sustain their models, questions have also been raised here about the closeness of key Government figures to the tech sector. It is vital that any future policy framework sufficiently accommodates the concerns and needs of creators, without which there cannot be an effective long-term solution to these issues. It is important that all parties come together to find an acceptable solution to the current stand-off.

As ever, we’ll continue standing up for your rights and working closely with our partners to make sure your voice is heard. Thank you to everyone who’s taken the time to engage with these issues, whether by responding to consultations, writing to your MP, or sharing our messages on social media. Your engagement really does make a difference, and we’ll continue to keep you updated as things unfold.

Barbara Hayes

Chief Executive