Approximate read time: 10 minutes

Main article:

On 30 January 2025, the House of Lords is due to debate the following question for short debate:

Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat) to ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on creators and the creative industries of the rights reservation model proposed in their consultation paper ‘Copyright and Artificial Intelligence’ on 17 December 2024.

1. What are the proposals in the government’s consultation?

On 17 December 2024, the government published a consultation on its proposals to change the way in which UK copyright applies to the development of artificial intelligence (AI) models.[1] The consultation remains open until 25 February 2025.

AI is defined as technology that enables computers and machines to reason, learn and act in a way that would normally require human intelligence.[2] One of the ways in which new AI models are developed is by using large amounts of data to ‘train’ these models to find patterns and connections.[3] This process is referred to as ‘data mining’. The consultation provided the following example of this process:

[…] a model which generates images may be trained on billions of images associated with descriptive keywords. By analysing those images and learning patterns and associations, a model can produce convincing graphical output in response to a text prompt.[4]

Large datasets that can be used for training AI models may include material protected by copyright. The government has argued how copyright law should apply to training AI is “disputed” and the current rules do not meet the needs of either the UK’s creative industries or the AI sector.[5] It has said this uncertainty is limiting investment and innovation in this sector and has made it difficult for rights holders to control how their works are used.

The consultation included proposals to establish an exception to copyright law for text and data mining, including for commercial activities. Currently, only a narrow exception exists for non-commercial research.[6] Under these proposals, copyright holders would also need to reserve their rights in order to prevent their material from being used to train AI models. This approach would be similar to that adopted by the EU where there is an exception for text and data mining but rightsholders are able to expressly reserve their rights.[7]

The government has argued this new approach would enable those developing AI models to gain access to “high-quality material” without the risk of infringing copyright, enabling the UK’s AI sector to compete with other countries, including members of the EU.[8] It has also said this new approach would enhance the ability of rights holders to control their material and be remunerated for its use.

The government argued that for this new system to work, there would need to be an effective technical means by which copyright holders were able to assert their rights. It proposed that AI companies and creative industries would need to collaborate in the creation of “new technical systems to deliver the desired outcome of greater control and licensing of intellectual property”.[9]

The government also said this approach would be “underpinned by supporting measures on transparency” regarding how AI models are trained.[10] Specifically, the government suggested this could include a requirement for AI developers conducting text and data mining to disclose the specific works and datasets they used. The government said it would consider how to support the development of effective transparency tools given the practical challenge of assessing the large quantity of data used by AI developers. It suggested this support might include research and development funding.

2. AI training exemption: 2022 proposals

The establishment of a copyright exemption for training AI models had been proposed during the previous Conservative government. In 2022 the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the government executive agency responsible for intellectual property rights, proposed establishing a copyright exemption for text and data mining.[11] The IPO argued this would support the expansion of the UK’s AI sector. The proposal was subsequently criticised by the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee.[12] It described the establishment of such an exemption as “misguided” and argued it would be harmful to the creative industries.[13] The government confirmed in its response to the committee that it would not be proceeding with the policy proposed by the IPO.[14]

3. Initial responses to AI and copyright consultation

The government’s proposal to create an exemption to copyright law for text and data mining has been criticised by organisations representing the creative industries. It has also been criticised by individual artists such as the authors Richard Osman and Kate Mosse.[15]

The Creative Rights in AI Coalition is a campaign group formed in December 2024 by organisations including the Society of Authors, the Publishers Association, the Association of Illustrators and the Association of Photographers.[16] It has criticised the proposal to introduce a rights reservation model, arguing AI developers should only be able to use copywritten material with the express permission of the rights holder.[17] Instead, it said the government should prioritise enforcement of the existing copyright laws to protect copyright holders from their work being used for training AI systems without their permission. However, the Creative Rights in AI Coalition welcomed the proposals to increase transparency of how copyrighted work is being used when training AI models.

Responding to the consultation, the chair of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Dame Caroline Dinenage, issued a statement noting “widespread concerns” within the creative industries regarding the use of their material to train AI models without their consent.[18] She said the government needed to ensure that its final proposals would protect creator’s rights. The chair of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, Baroness Stowell of Beeston, has argued that, if the government were to adopt a rights reservation model, copyright holders needed more clarity regarding how their material was being used to train AI.[19]

One specific issue regarding the government’s proposals concerns how material might be protected in practice. Ed Newton-Rex, a commentator on AI and intellectual property, has described the government’s proposals for a rights reservation model as being unfair to copyright holders.[20] He has argued that, under these proposals, rights holders would be unable to effectively opt-out of the use of ‘downstream’ copies of copyright material of which they may not have control. He defined this term as follows:

These copies are out in the wild—[the rights holder has] no control over them. A photographer’s image being used in an ad; a journalist’s article being screenshotted and shared online. The creative industries are built on downstream copies.[21]

He has argued the only solution to this issue would be the establishment of an effective automatic content recognition (ACR) system. However, he asserted that no reliable system currently existed. Mr Newton-Rex described the decision by the government to proceed with its consultation without the establishment of such a system as “extremely worrying”.[22] Responding to this criticism, Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism Chris Bryant has said the government would not proceed with the proposals in the consultation before an effective system of rights reservation was in place.[23]

4. AI opportunities action plan

On 13 January 2025, the government published a review of the UK’s AI sector entitled ‘AI opportunities action plan’. This review was commissioned by the government and conducted by Matt Clifford, chair of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency. The review made several recommendations intended to encourage the expansion of the UK’s AI sector, including that the government should seek to increase the amount of data available to AI developers. It recommended the UK should “reform the UK text and data mining regime so that it is at least as competitive as the EU”.[24] The government published its response to the review on the same day.[25] It noted that it had already published its consultation on copyright and AI. On the issue of regulating copyright and AI more generally, the government said:

Ensuring we have the right regulatory regime that addresses risks and actively supports innovation will drive AI trust and adoption across the economy. The government will set out its approach on AI regulation and will act to ensure that we have a competitive copyright regime that supports both our AI sector and the creative industries.[26]

5. Read more


Cover image by Freepik.

References

  1. Intellectual Property Office et al, ‘Open consultation: Copyright and artificial intelligence’, 17 December 2024. Return to text
  2. Google Cloud, ‘What is artificial intelligence?’, accessed 24 January 2025. Return to text
  3. Further information on the different methods for developing AI is provided in the House of Lords Library briefing ‘Artificial intelligence: Development, risks and regulation’ (18 July 2023). Return to text
  4. Intellectual Property Office et al, ‘Open consultation: Copyright and artificial intelligence’, 17 December 2024. Return to text
  5. As above. Return to text
  6. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 29A. Return to text
  7. Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC; and Linklaters, ‘UK government proposes copyright and AI reform mirroring EU approach’, 10 January 2025. Return to text
  8. Intellectual Property Office et al, ‘Open consultation: Copyright and artificial intelligence’, 17 December 2024. Return to text
  9. As above. Return to text
  10. As above. Return to text
  11. Intellectual Property Office, ‘Consultation outcome: Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: Copyright and patents—government response to consultation’, 28 June 2022. Return to text
  12. House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, ‘At risk: Our creative future’, 17 January 2023, HL Paper 125 of session 2022–23, p 16. Return to text
  13. As above. Return to text
  14. Department for Culture, Media and Sport, ‘Government response: House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee report “At risk: Our creative future”’, 18 April 2023, p 2. Return to text
  15. Guardian, ‘British novelists criticise government over AI “theft”’, 14 January 2025. Return to text
  16. Society of Authors, ‘Creative Rights In AI Coalition calls on government to protect copyright as AI policy develops’, 16 December 2025; and Creative Rights in AI Coalition, ‘Our members’, accessed 24 January 2025. Return to text
  17. Creative Rights in AI Coalition, ‘AI and copyright consultation: Creative Rights in AI Coalition urges government to enforce copyright law through transparency without compromising rights’, 20 December 2024. Return to text
  18. House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘AI and copyright: Comment from CMS committee chair Dame Caroline Dinenage MP’, 17 December 2024. Return to text
  19. House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, ‘Official X account’, 18 December 2024. Return to text
  20. Ed Newton-Rex’s official Substack, ‘The UK’s AI and copyright proposals would irreparably harm the country’s creators’, 17 December 2024. Return to text
  21. As above. Return to text
  22. As above. Return to text
  23. HL Hansard, 18 December 2024, cols 360–72. Return to text
  24. Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, ‘AI opportunities action plan’, 13 January 2025. Return to text
  25. Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, ‘AI opportunities action plan: Government response’, 13 January 2025. Return to text
  26. As above. Return to text