Fresh call for UK copyright law to be updated for AI age

The call to action was issued by Baroness Stowell of Beeston, who chairs the Communications and Digital Committee in the House of Lords. In a letter to Michelle Donelan, the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology, Baroness Stowell described the government’s record on copyright as “inadequate and deteriorating” and said it needs to update the law on copyright amidst the risk that “problematic business models” become “entrenched and normalised”.

The quality of output gen-AI systems produces depends in large part on the quality of the data used for training and developing those systems. As such, AI developers have been seeking access to high-quality datasets. However, representatives from businesses in the creative industries have raised concern about AI developers using their content and the degree to which this engages their intellectual property rights, like copyright. Some content creators – like Getty Images – have brought legal action against AI developers, while others have stepped up their lobbying of policymakers in a bid to achieve legislative change.

Baroness Stowell wrote to Donelan after the government issued its response to a report the Communications and Digital Committee published earlier this year on large language models (LLMs) and gen-AI.

In that report, the committee called on the government to “publish its view on whether copyright law provides sufficient protections to rightsholders, given recent advances in LLMs” and to set out options for legislative reform if it “identifies major uncertainty”. The committee said the government had a “duty to act” and that it should not wait for the courts to develop sufficient case law that answers questions on how AI development interacts with copyright law.

Publication of the committee’s report coincided with news that the government had abandoned plans to broker an industry-led agreement on a new AI copyright code of practice, a voluntary framework the government hoped would strike a balance between AI developers’ desire to access quality data to train their AI models and content creators’ right to control – and commercialise – access to their copyrighted works. The government said at the time that it would “lead a period of engagement with the AI and rights holder sectors, seeking to ensure the workability and effectiveness of an approach that allows the AI and creative sectors to grow together in partnership”. That intention was reiterated by Donelan in sharing the government’s response to the committee’s report.

In its response, the government highlighted emerging industry practices around “data licensing” and the potential for “collective licensing” to provide AI developers with “at-scale access to data” while enabling content creators “to be remunerated for their work”. It also cited ongoing work it is undertaking in relation to AI transparency and, in respect of copyright issues specifically, restated its intention to work with both rights holders and AI companies “to understand what is technically feasible and what is proportionate” in terms of obtaining transparency on what data is used to train AI systems and over the attribution of AI outputs.

However, Baroness Stowell said the response failed to clarify “whether the government is prepared to update legislation to put the matter [of copyright and its application to LLMs] beyond legal doubt”. She said it was “misguided and unconvincing” of the government to suggest it was unable to comment on legal cases before the courts, such as the case of Getty Images v Stability AI, adding that it is “difficult to escape the conclusion that the government is avoiding taking sides on a contentious topic”. She added that the “trajectory is concerning”.

“The issues with copyright are manifesting right now and problematic business models are fast becoming entrenched and normalised,” Baroness Stowell wrote. She welcomed the apparent progress on a transparency mechanism for copyright holders but said the government “should move towards taking action”.

“Ultimately, copyright law needs updating to ensure legal clarity,” Baroness Stowell said. “The government’s reticence to take meaningful action amounts to a de facto endorsement of tech firms’ practices. That reflects poorly on this government’s commitment to British businesses, fair play and the equal application of the law. Copyright catalyses, protects and monetises innovation – as evidenced by the £100 billion success of the UK’s creative industries. There is a major opportunity to establish a compelling legacy on supporting responsible AI. We urge you to take it.”

In a recent report, MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the UK parliament called on the government to set “a definitive deadline” for concluding industry talks pertaining to AI and copyright. It wants the government to follow through on earlier threats to legislate on the question of balancing AI developer and copyright holder rights where it cannot achieve a voluntary solution with industry.