COMMENT: Enough of the lies, the UK government needs to abandon its deeply flawed approach to AI and copyright
‘Rampant copyright denialism cannot and must not be allowed to continue'
MY RESPONSE to the UK Labour government’s consultation on plans to water down copyright laws in favour of AI developers starts by stating:
This consultation is based on a false premise: that our copyright laws need to be reformed since a “lack of clarity” and “legal uncertainty is undermining investment in and adoption of AI technology”. On the contrary: the UK’s current copyright regime is certain and clear: training generative models on rights holders’ works without consent infringes their copyright. It’s theft, and it has taken place on a massive scale. Not once does the government refer to this historic injustice. It needs to. And the law needs to be enforced with the full encouragement of those who make our laws.
My preamble continues:
The ministerial foreword to the consultation document repeats the falsehoods that UK copyright law is “uncertain”, “disputed”, “difficult to navigate” and lacking “clarity”. The ministerial code says ministers “are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety” while adhering to the ‘Nolan Principles’ of public life which include integrity, openness and honesty. By perpetuating the lie that UK copyright laws are uncertain, unclear, disputed and difficult to navigate ministers are in clear breach of the ministerial code. On this, and their failure to conduct a financial impact assessment, they also appear to be leaving themselves exposed to a potential future judicial review.
I then state:
The government can achieve its aim of “supporting the development of world-leading AI models” by insisting that AI developers act with full transparency and seek licensing deals based on an opt-in. Anything less supports the illegal activities of AI developers such as Open AI which has openly admitted using copyrighted content for generative model training. This rampant copyright denialism cannot and must not be allowed to continue.
And I end the preamble by saying:
So enough of the lies and misleading statements. Now more than at any other time the UK government needs to protect creators against the oppressive might of Big Tech. Standing up to bullies, protecting workers from exploitation: isn’t that what Labour is meant to do? Ministers need to abandon their deeply flawed approach to AI and copyright, and emerge on the right side of history.
My answers to the questions (I didn’t answer all of them, and that’s fine):
Question 1. Do you agree that option 3 is most likely to meet the objectives set out above?
No, absolutely not. Copyright is an automatic right. Creators need to be able to rely on the knowledge that their works are protected rather than having to actively prevent each work from being scraped by unidentifiable crawlers. Option 3 is based on a flawed assumption that rights reservation mechanisms are workable: creators in the EU have not been able to control uses of their work, while a key architect of the EU’s copyright directive says the bloc’s AI Act has left an “irresponsible” legal gap.
Question 2. Which option do you prefer and why?
Option 0. The government has not justified the need for change. Instead, it is merely using misleading terms such as “the current lack of clarity” as it sides with the hi-techs’ demands to access copyrighted works without consent or payment. Yes, “AI developers will continue to face legal risks”, the same risks that anyone intending to violate the intellectual property of others (including, I might add, the hi-techs’ own websites) face.
Question 3. Do you support the introduction of an exception along the lines outlined above?
No. The proposed copyright exception with an opt-out that’s impossible to manage would impact the rights of creators under Protocol 1, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act, protecting the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. It would also contravene the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Does the government really intend to ignore these international laws and treaties?
Question 4. If so, what aspects do you consider to be the most important? If not, what other approach do you propose and how would that achieve the intended balance of objectives?
The consultation implies there is currently an imbalance to the detriment of AI developers. The only imbalance is the behaviour of the copyright denying hi-techs who have scraped rights holders’ content without consent and compensation, and who now rush to governments seeking immunity from lawsuits alleging copyright infringement.
Question 5. What influence, positive or negative, would the introduction of an exception along these lines have on you or your organisation? Please provide quantitative information where possible.
A copyright exception with reserved rights would place an administrative burden on my small business. As a content creator I would somehow need to regularly check if my copyrighted works had been used for generative model training. This is further complicated by the fact that much of my content is published using third party cloud-based publishing platforms (eg Substack) which do not readily provide access to server logs. There is then the additional cost and complexity of protecting digital files using embedded metadata and watermarks.
Questions 6-16.
The government should not introduce a copyright exception with reserved rights, period. Current copyright laws are clear, certain and robust, and need to be enforced. AI developers should abide by those laws and not be given special treatment.
Questions 17-22.
The government should be insisting on 100% transparency: what have the AI developers got to hide? The government should also be supporting Baroness Kidron’s amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill which subject AI companies to UK copyright law regardless of where they are based. In addition the bill forces AI companies to reveal the identity and ownership of web crawlers, and allow copyright owners to know when, where and how their work is used. Are Labour MPs really going to be whipped to vote against these amendments?
Question 29. Should copyright rules relating to AI consider factors such as the purpose of an AI model, or the size of an AI firm?
No. Theft is theft; the size of the thief is irrelevant.
Question 30. Are you in favour of maintaining current protection for computer-generated works? If yes, please explain whether and how you currently rely on this provision.
Yes.
Question 38. Does the current approach to liability in AI-generated outputs allow effective enforcement of copyright?
The lack of transparency on the part of AI providers prevents rights holders from knowing who is illegally scraping their content.
Question 39. What steps should AI providers take to avoid copyright infringing outputs?
Is this even a question? Very, very simply: don’t ignore rights holders’ terms and conditions stating ‘do not scrape and train for generative AI’; don’t ignore and circumvent robots.txt files; seek permission BEFORE scraping; agree licensing terms and abide by them. In other words, act like any other law-abiding person or organisation rather than hiding behind tech exceptionalism and being a copyright denier.
Question 40. Do you agree that generative AI outputs should be labelled as AI generated? If so, what is a proportionate approach, and is regulation required?
Yes, and this would benefit the AI developers too so they can discriminate between AI slop now polluting the web and human-made content. Content ‘transparency labels’ such as those offered by Credtent already exist showing the degree to which content is entirely human-made, AI-assisted or fully AI-created. These need to become mandatory, so yes, regulation is required.
Question 45. Is the legal framework that applies to AI products that interact with copyright works at the point of inference clear? If it is not, what could the government do to make it clearer?
The consultation adds a reference to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as an emerging issue. RAG has long been an integral element of AI-powered search products, augmenting AI-written summaries using content scraped from news websites (sometimes behind a paywall). The government needs to ensure that RAG is part of its overall approach to AI and copyright, and insist that the authorised use of live news data without consent amounts to copyright infringement.
Question 46. What are the implications of the use of synthetic data to train AI models and how could this develop over time, and how should the government respond?
Research suggests that repeatedly training generative models on the synthetic outputs of generative models leads to atrophy and ultimate model collapse. The extent to which this is both a business issue and an area for regulatory intervention is unclear. AI developers should certainly be liable for inaccurate and biased outputs, and outputs that cause harm.
Question 47. What other developments are driving emerging questions for the UK’s copyright framework, and how should the government respond to them?
The biggest development driving questions for the UK’s copyright framework is the UK government’s siding with the AI developers at the expense of our creative industries. As stated above, the government has taken a stance that favours the hi-techs and their desired outcome — a copyright regime that makes it even easier for them to scrape with impunity. The government needs to be aware that not only will its proposed copyright exception prove hugely damaging to the UK’s creative industries it will also harm the AI developers as well since it will result in less human-made content which their generative models crave.
RELATED:
🚨SUBMIT YOUR response by 23:59 GMT on Tuesday, February 25.
Full coverage on the UK government’s controversial stance on AI and copyright and other developments that threaten to reshape the global human-made media landscape in this Friday’s Weekly Newsletter
Graham, I only just now realized this post was published on 2.23.25 and I missed it while on holiday. We've got to keep the steady pressure on our legislators and leaders...and do the better thing for the creative industry professionals and the hobbyists -- for that matter.
Congrats Graham. At least someone is speaking up about protecting our gold-standard creative industries.
Sadly I feel that HMG has already decided to side with the tech bros on AI content scraping with impunity, and this consultation is merely for appearances. The geopolitics of the moment make this all the more likely, and the negative downstream consequences even more serious for our creative companies.
All any of us can do is keep fighting the good fight….