Parliamentary deadlock over AI transparency finally ends, but creators' hero warns UK government is now on a 'path of conflict with the law'
Creators praise Baroness Kidron's 'tenacity, integrity and determination' and crown her the 'true champion of the UK's creative industries'
PARLIAMENTARY DEADLOCK over AI transparency came to an end last night as the UK’s upper house retreated from a further attempt to frustrate the passage of a government bill it has been seeking to amend. While the data bill will now become law — without emergency protections for creatives that the Lords had sought to introduce — peers put the government on notice that they would continue their campaign, “and prevail in the end”.
And creators’ champion Baroness Kidron — who inflicted five consecutive defeats on the government as the data bill went back and forth between the Lords and the Commons — warned that by planning “to weaken copyright” the government had set itself on a “path of conflict with the law”.
Since January Baroness Kidron has been seeking to add interim AI transparency protections to the data bill, forcing AI developers to reveal creators’ works used to train generative models. While she received the enthusiastic support of the upper house — where Baroness Kidron, the filmmaker Beeban Kidron, sits as a crossbench peer — the government each time used its commanding majority in the Commons to remove her amendments. To break the impasse ministers this week offered joint industry working parties on AI transparency, licensing and technical standards, a series of reports including an economic impact assessment, and the creation of a cross-party working group of MPs and peers.
Rising to deliver her speech in the Lords last night, Baroness Kidron branded the government’s concessions as “more process and nonsense”. She said she had left “the protection of the property and livelihood of millions of British workers, the UK AI industry and the UK’s creative and IP-rich companies” in ministers’ hands, but once again they had removed transparency protections, “allowing the tech sector to continue to rob the creative industries blind”. “It is as cynical as it is bewildering,” she exclaimed.
While ministers had rowed back from their “ill-fated opt-out preference” they were “unrepentant in their plans to weaken copyright law” and “actively standing in the way of 2.4 million workers” in the creative industries who were “on their knees begging for transparency”.
“Sad, frustrated, and angry does not even begin to express the contents of my in-box in the last 24 hours. It is inexplicable to most that a Labour government would prevent creative workers getting a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labour.” Ministers had chosen to “give away creators’ wages, creators’ sick pay and creators’ pensions — not just to anyone, but to the most capitalised companies in history”.
“By ruthlessly standing in the way of transparency, the government has put a spotlight on its every move. Every favour to the tech sector, every public appointment of a tech bro, every nomination to their working group, every announcement of inward investment with a corresponding tax break will be scrutinised by the UK businesses they have just thrown under the bus.”
Baroness Kidron said the government could have negotiated with UK innovators and creatives but instead “made the extraordinary choice to be bullied by billionaires”. “They will not stop at copyright: those very same companies have their eyes on the NHS, on our security data, on education, on geospatial data,” she warned.
By ignoring the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — a treaty adopted in 1966, protecting the rights of individuals to benefit from their works — the government had set itself on a “path of conflict with the law”. “It may not be parliament, but the courts, who decide the principle of this case; and it may not be the tech companies, but the government, who are responsible for the loss of income to the individuals and companies that make up the creative industry in whose way they have stood.”
Peers expressed their frustration that the government had not taken the opportunity to protect creators. Baroness Benjamin, the actress, broadcaster and author Floella Benjamin, said it felt like “a horror movie, a bad dream in which creators are being victimised”. Lord Dobbs, the author best known for his House of Cards trilogy, said “cross-party determination” had delivered “extraordinary majorities” in favour of the Kidron amendments, but the government had “not listened or budged because the government knows best”. Baroness Harding, the former businesswoman Dido Harding, praised Baroness Kidron’s “extraordinary work” that had achieved “unanimity across all sides of this house”. “We keep being told that AI will change everything, which, I am afraid, means that we will discuss this during debates on every bill,” said Baroness Harding. “There will be an opportunity to do that, and we will prevail in the end.”
Lord Clement-Jones, the renowned intellectual property and AI expert Tim Clement-Jones, said he shared Baroness Kidron’s “profound anger and frustration” and admired her “unwavering determination” to sort an issue “that should have been settled long ago”. The government had “point-blank refused to move”, he charged. “This is not about picking a side between AI and creativity. It is about ensuring that both can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation. We must ensure that the incentive remains for the next generation of creators and innovators. Given how ministers have behaved in the face of the strength of feeling of the creative industries, how can anyone in those industries trust this government and these ministers ever again? In this house we will not forget,” said Lord Clement-Jones, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for science, innovation and technology in the upper house.
Lord Berkeley, the music composer and broadcaster Michael Berkeley, had sought a final attempt to add amendments to the data bill which would have provided transparency measures in the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, forcing AI developers to reveal which copyrighted works were used during model training, and explain how those works were accessed. After listening to the short debate he concluded that “enough probably is enough”. “I do hope the government will listen and improve matters as far as the creatives are concerned. We can only do so much here. I believe we have done it.”
CREATOR GROUPS PRAISE BARONESS KIDRON
Creator groups today expressed their appreciation to Baroness Kidron for her tireless campaigning. Isabelle Doran, CEO of the Association of Photographers and vice-chair of the Creators’ Rights Alliance, said: “A massive thank you from the bottom of our hearts, as photographers up and down the country know of Baroness Kidron’s valiant efforts requesting transparency in AI on behalf of creators. Her tenacity, integrity, determination and persuasive arguments, which brought a significant majority of Lords representatives to stand with her, are hugely admired and appreciated by our creative community. We know this is just the start, but we know we have our champion.”
Sophie Jones, chief strategy officer at the BPI, the voice of UK recorded music, told Charting Gen AI: “Baroness Kidron has shown herself to be a true champion of the UK’s creative industries in her unwavering campaign. Her fierce passion for human artistry, together with a keen understanding of the deep challenges in the government’s plans, have shone through every step of the data bill debate. As the government turns back to its consultation to determine its policy position on copyright and AI, it must hear the clear message from Baroness Kidron, along with members of both houses of parliament and of our world-leading creative sectors: copyright underpins human creativity; it must not be weakened; and transparency obligations can and must be introduced so we can develop new licensing opportunities and robustly defend our rights.”
Anna Ganley, CEO at the Society of Authors, said Baroness Kidron was “the undisputed creators’ champion in this year’s unprecedented battle to uphold copyright and protect creators’ intellectual property.” “While she may not have won this battle, Baroness Kidron has catapulted this issue into public awareness with the likes of Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney backing the Make It Fair campaign. But copyright is the tip of the iceberg. The UK government appears to be working hand in glove with the AI tech bros, and if Big Tech can take it, we know it will. What will be next? And crucially, how can we protect it? The fight is not over, but with Baroness Kidron leading the charge we can at least feel reassured that creators’ interests will be fiercely defended, whatever the outcome.”
HOW WE GOT HERE
Charting Gen AI has followed every twist and turn in the parliamentary battle to decide AI transparency, a battle that commenced in January …
GOVT DEFEAT 1
January 28: Baroness Kidron tables an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill forcing AI developers to observe UK copyright law, reveal the identities and purpose of their scraper bots, and let creatives know if their copyrighted works have been used in generative model training. Peers back her amendments by 145 votes to 126.
March 4: The Kidron amendments are removed during the first sitting of the bill committee. Creative industries minister Sir Chris Bryant says he accepts “the intention behind the amendments” but does not believe the data bill to be “the right vehicle for action” — a phrase he will repeat several times over the coming three months.
May 7: Liberal Democrat MP Victoria Collins seeks to reinsert the Kidron amendments in the Commons but is defeated by 287 votes to 88. Earlier the government committed itself to conducting an impact assessment on its proposed copyright overhaul and producing reports on training data transparency and managing reserved rights. Journalists are briefed that technology secretary Peter Kyle no longer favours a text and data mining exception with an opt-out for creatives.
GOVT DEFEAT 2
May 12: Peers reinsert Baroness Kidron’s transparency amendments forcing AI developers to reveal sources of their model training data by 272 votes to 125. “Let me be clear,” she declares, “We do not need to change copyright law. We need transparency so that we can enforce copyright law, because what you cannot see you cannot enforce.”
May 14: The Commons votes to remove the Kidron protections and invokes financial privilege, meaning Baroness Kidron needs to reword future amendments, saying the government “may” make enforcement provisions rather than “must”.
GOVT DEFEAT 3
May 19: The Lords backs Baroness Kidron’s revised transparency amendments by a decisive 287 votes to 118. “The government has got it wrong. It has been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley which has stolen and continues to steal, every day we take no action, the UK’s extraordinary, beautiful, and valuable creative output,” says Baroness Kidron. She says the hi-techs had also managed to persuade “the government that it is easier for it to redefine theft than make them pay for what they stole”.
May 22: The government again flexes its large majority in the Commons, removing the Kidron amendments after Kyle admits he’d made several mistakes in his approach to overhauling copyright laws. They included not expressing more support for the creative industries; holding a consultation at the same time that the data bill was going through parliament; and supporting a preferred option since “it appeared to some that I had taken a side in the debate before everyone had felt that they had been listened to”.
GOVT DEFEAT 4
June 2: The Lords backs Baroness Kidron once again. By a decisive 242 votes to 116 the UK’s upper house enthusiastically supports her new amendment to the bill that would require the government to report the scale of copyrighted material used to train AI models without rightsholders’ consent. The government would also need to publish a draft bill forcing the hi-techs to reveal which works had been used.
June 3: The Commons again rejects Baroness Kidron’s amendments. MPs accused Bryant of ignoring the plight of rightsholders by refusing to come up with a compromise that would break the parliamentary deadlock. Bryant claims clauses calling for a draft bill on transparency are unconstitutional, a claim that is later disputed.
GOVT DEFEAT 5
June 5: The Lords inflict a fifth consecutive defeat on the government, backing Baroness Kidron’s transparency amendments by 221 votes to 116. By convention the government now has three options: accept the amendments, which would force the government to report the scale of stolen copyrighted material and publish a draft bill forcing the hi-techs to reveal which works had been used; come up with alternative transparency proposals; or ditch the data bill altogether.
June 6: The government decides to ignore parliamentary conventions, removing protections for copyright owners and inserting clauses that peers had earlier dismissed. “In doing so it has shafted the creative industries, and it has proved willing to decimate the UK’s second biggest industrial sector,” Baroness Kidron tells Charting Gen AI: “The government is going to break copyright to benefit Big Tech at the expense of UK AI companies and the creative industries. It is an act of economic self-harm. It is an error that the Labour government will come to regret.”
June 10: The government is accused of “gaslighting” lawmakers as once again it uses its large majority in the House of Commons to remove transparency protections for creators and sends the bill back to the Lords for final approval. Baroness Kidron tells Charting Gen AI she believes the “government intends to weaken copyright law”, adding: “It is sad to see a Labour government bullied by tech billionaires chuck the country’s creatives under the bus.”
June 11: Parliamentary deadlock ends as the Lords retreats from a further attempt to frustrate the passage of the data bill. While it will now become law — without emergency protections for creatives that the Lords had sought to introduce — peers put the government on notice that they will continue the campaign, “and prevail in the end”. And Baroness Kidron warns that by planning “to weaken copyright” the government has set itself on a “path of conflict with the law”.
◾️Further reaction and the key developments that threaten to reshape the global AI regulatory landscape will be in this Friday’s Weekly Newsletter.
👌🏼👏🏼👏🏼
it’s time to come to a conclusion and present the path of least resistance (or other conclusions) following the Government’s AI copyright consultation. Simply repeating that whatever Bill or avenue is before the Commons is not the appropriate one does not give either technology providers or creative content owners a satisfactory answer or an indication of the Government’s intentions of how to address this impasse
Thank you, again...
Continue the good fight!
Love never fails 🌾