Parliament debated the UK government's plan on AI & copyright, and MPs are not fans of the proposals.

On Monday, a debate on the creative industries in Parliament unsurprisingly tended heavily towards discussion of the government’s proposal to upend copyright law to favour AI companies. Chris Bryant - the Minister for, among other things, the Creative Industries - found himself repeatedly under fire for his party’s planned reforms, which have been universally condemned by the creative industries he represents.

I recommend reading the whole debate - but in case you don’t have time, I’ve pulled out the key themes in the questions about the government’s proposals below. If nothing else, this will give you a sense of which MPs are on the front line fighting for the creative industries to be treated fairly.

1. A lot of MPs are standing up for the creative industries.

Pete Wishart of the SNP was one of the most vocal critics of the goverment’s proposals. He summarised the current situation excellently:

The hon. Gentleman talks about the ecosystem, but he has done something that we have not seen for a long time: he has united every creative sector in opposition to his plans to water down copyright.

Many other MPs stood up for the creative industries throughout the debate. Here are some quotes that stood out (emphasis mine):

By some estimates, the UK creative industry is the second largest globally. It is our gold. Should we give away this valuable asset for free? I hope not, for the sake of our creatives, but also for our new AI industry, in which this Government are rightly investing. The unlicensed and illegal use of copyrighted content for generative AI development has been equated by some with a form of theft. Not only is it unfair to make such acquisition legal via an opt-out system, but it risks creating a future of fool’s gold data as our creative industry loses control of its work and moves elsewhere, or simply gives up.

Dr Allison Gardner (Labour)

In the fight to win the battle for intellectual copyright, surely we must be on the side of the human, not the replicant.

Alison Hume (Labour)

I know that the Government think they have a solution that somehow supports both the AI sector and the creative industries sector, but nobody actually believes that. I am sorry, Minister, but no one could go along with the idea that somehow, opening up the nation’s creative works to be scraped and mined would ever get us to a situation that could possibly be useful for the creative industries.

Pete Wishart (SNP)

2. No one thinks opt-outs work.

The government’s proposal exempts AI training from having to license copyrighted works, unless the rights holder has explicitly opted out their works. But it is widely accepted that not only are opt-outs of this nature clearly unfair to rights holders, but they don’t actually work: many creators simply can’t opt out downstream copies of their works, over which they have no control.

The unworkability of opt-out schemes for generative AI training was thankfully raised by a number of MPs:

Our world-leading creative industries have made it clear that the European Union’s opt-out model, which the Government’s consultation favours, does not work. They say that there is no existing technical protection measure that allows rights holders to easily protect their content from scraping, and web bots take advantage of that unworkable system to copy protected works, bypassing inadequate technology and the unclear copyright exception. Put simply, the EU opt-out system creates an even greyer area.

Dame Caroline Dinenage (Conservative)

Proposals for new, broad exceptions to copyright, and the burden of opting out of having one’s life’s work taken without permission, undermine the very principles of copyright and, frankly, of trade and commerce. The proposals are a threat to the livelihoods of creators, especially smaller rights holders who lack the resources to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. Those smaller, independent creators form the bedrock of our creative ecosystem. Without them, the intricate web that sustains the sector will unravel. The richness of our cultural landscape depends not only on headline acts, but on the countless independent creators who bring diversity and depth to this sharing industry.

James Frith (Labour)

There is an objection in principle to option 3, which is the idea that rights holders have to opt out. It reverses what has long been the case—that people can rely on the protection of their rights unless they choose to give them up. They should not have to ask for their rights to be protected, and that is what an opt-out system entails. There would no longer be automatic protection under an opt-out system, and it would put a huge burden on many small rights holders. There is a suggestion that photographers might have to seek an opt-out for every picture they have ever taken. Now, I hope that is not the case, but a lot of uncertainty has been created.

Sir John Whittingdale (Conservative)

The opt-out model the Government are championing on AI and copyright has been shown, through its European equivalent, not to work.

Zoë Franklin (Liberal Democrat)

In some good news, Bryant was as explicit as I’ve heard him be that robots.txt will not be considered as a solution. (Robots.txt is a protocol that lets website owners indicate their preferences regarding which web crawlers to accept or reject, and is the most widely-used form of generative AI opt-out by a long way; but it is almost totally ineffective, and in reality gives rights holders virtually no control whatsoever.) Here is the exchange:

However, the fact that he is still advocating for the government’s proposal, given that there is not even a hypothetical opt-out scheme that would address the many inadequacies of robots.txt, is concerning.

3. The government is doubling down on the misrepresentation that there is ‘uncertainty’ over current UK law.

Members of this government, and their advisors, have repeatedly pointed to apparent uncertainty over how current UK law applies to AI training, using this as an excuse to suggest the law needs to change. Bryant doubled down on this:

“There is such legal uncertainty that the matter is being contested in different court cases around the world. This afternoon, I met Getty Images, which has brought one such case. We cannot simply wait for the court cases to resolve the matter for us somehow.”

“Doing nothing is not an option for us, as that would simply mean that we would have to wait for the courts to do their work. In truth, several court cases are already going on. Some of them have come to mutually contradictory views in different jurisdictions, and they do not necessarily provide the clarity of precedent that we might want.”

It’s disappointing to see this “uncertainty” line continue to be rolled out, despite the fact that the government hasn’t pointed to anyone who thinks it’s actually uncertain, and it is in fact widely accepted that commercial generative AI training on copyrighted work in the UK is illegal. (There is, quite simply, no copyright exception in UK law for commercial text data mining.)

But I also think it is odd that Bryant seeks to justify uncertainty by citing court cases around the world. While there are more than 30 court cases pertaining to generative AI around the world, only one of these is in the UK. And in this case - Getty Images vs. Stability AI - the main defence put forward by Stability AI was that they didn’t train their models in the UK. They mention ‘fair dealing’, but I challenge you to find a single independent party who thinks ‘fair dealing’ would cover commercial generative AI training on copyrighted work in the UK. Again - it is broadly agreed that UK law is clear on this point.

This was called out by a number of MPs:

“Lastly, we have heard a few myths, including the idea that there is somehow unclarity about the laws that embed our copyright regime. That is just nonsense—nobody actually believes that. I do not think that even AI companies would say that there is any question about the legality of the copyright regime; it is just something that Ministers trawl out to try to create uncertainty in the sector, and it does not work.”

Pete Wishart (SNP)

“The Minister says that there is legal uncertainty, but the fact that intellectual property rights owners are defending their rights by going to court does not mean that the law is wrong. They are using the law, but that does not necessarily mean that the law is not perfectly clear.”

Sir John Whittingdale (Conservative)

The Government’s consultation paper says there is a “lack of clarity” in the regime, but the people I speak to tell me that the situation is perfectly clear, and that the large Al developers cannot legally use it to their advantage. Instead, the Government’s proposals move the onus on to creators to protect their work, rather than Al developers having to seek permission to use it.

Dame Caroline Dinenage (Conservative)

4. Accusations the government is refusing to meet with the creative industries.

Two MPs questioned whether the government are devoting adequate time to listening to the creative industries:

The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has claimed that I do not understand the idea of consultations, and the Minister has claimed that I do not understand the detail of this consultation. I am beginning to feel a bit gaslit by it all, but I know that the Science Secretary is not saying the same thing to the creative industries, because I am told that he is refusing to meet them at all. I wonder whether the Minister is telling the creative industries that they do not understand the detail—because everyone I have spoken to in the sector seems to understand the detail perfectly, and they do not like it

Dame Caroline Dinenage (Conservative)

Given the magnitude of the potential changes to copyright and AI, one would think that the Minister would have allocated significant time for creative industry sectors to raise their views. Instead, during the Christmas break, he rolled out a consultation that finishes just next month. He left the creative industries scrambling to raise their concerns with a Government who refuse to listen.

The Minister also works in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, so can he tell me why, as my hon. Friend for Gosport mentioned, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has refused to meet representatives from the creative sector?

Saqib Bhatti (Conservative)

Is the government’s mind made up?

Sir John Whittingdale reiterated what many outside Parliament have noted: that the government’s response to Matt Clifford’s AI Opportunities Action Plan indicated that they have made up their mind to reform copyright, as Clifford suggested. (Indeed, Clifford himself announced that the government had agreed to take forward all of his proposals.) Bryant responded firmly, saying “we have not decided; we are consulting.” This is encouraging. As Pete Wishart said:

I really did think that the Government had made up their mind; I thought that they were going to go down the opt-out route without qualification. All the things they have said up to this point certainly seemed to confirm that, and the Minister’s grumpy tone during the statement on these issues did not help matters much, particularly when he had a go at the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It is good to have that reassurance, but what we now have to do—I am looking at colleagues who have contributed to the debate and expressed their concerns—is encourage the Minister gently, through persuasion. He knows the view of the industry and the sector, and I think he knows that it is overwhelmingly negative. He will not be able to find anybody in any creative sector who is telling him that what he proposes with the opt-out will work or is good for the creative industries or even for AI.

There was more that was encouraging in some of Bryant’s statements. This in particular stood out:

I do not believe for a single instant that the legislation that we will eventually put to the House will undermine or water down our copyright regime in this country.

This is a big statement, as the government’s proposal would unquestionably water down the UK’s copyright regime. Bryant appears to be saying that the proposal tabled by the government will not in fact be what the final proposed legislation looks like. This is good news.

Bryant’s conclusion to the debate is also worth noting. He wrapped up with four points:

• “Intellectual property is central to the viability of the creative industries”.

• “Many creative industries of course use AI”.

• “Good generative AI needs good quality data, and that means licensing—paying for and getting permission for good quality data that is embodied in creative intellectual property”.

• “We seek more licensing—in other words, more remuneration—greater control of rights, and legal clarity for all, and we are seeking to achieve those three things combined”.

This conclusion is notable because, clearly, there is no way someone could hold these views and simultaneously back the government’s existing proposal. The proposal would, quite obviously, decrease the amount of licensing happening, diminish rights holder control, and do nothing for legal clarity (which is not currently lacking). I sincerely hope Bryant means what he says here, and the government are held to this statement.

It’s worth ending with another quote from Bryant:

“I am determined to keep on listening to the debate, and to try to find a solution that delivers for the creative industries and for artificial intelligence. It cannot be beyond the wit of humanity to be able to deliver that.”

He is right - this is certainly not beyond the wit of humanity to deliver. In fact, the solution already exists. It is licensing.