LONDON, United Kingdom — As lawmakers prepare for a pivotal vote on copyright law next week, the U.K. government appears to be reevaluating its approach to the contentious issue, signaling a shift in favor of artists and creators. Sources close to Technology Secretary Peter Kyle revealed that the previously favored opt-out system may no longer be the leading consideration.
The proposed copyright revisions would have enabled artificial intelligence companies to utilize copyrighted material for training their models without explicit consent from the rights holders, unless those creators opted out. This strategy faced significant backlash from a host of creators and publishers, including well-known figures like Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard, who have publicly opposed the changes.
Kyle expressed a commitment to engaging with the public consultation process, emphasizing the need to craft solutions that benefit both the creative sector and the burgeoning AI industry in the U.K. He noted the complexities involved and stated, “We’re determined to get this right. We’re not going back to square one; we’re moving forward.”
Although the government had previously indicated a preference for the opt-out system, recent discussions suggest a broader examination of alternatives. Particular emphasis is being placed on fostering licensing agreements between AI firms and content creators, which aim to ensure that artists receive fair compensation for their work.
Critics, however, worry that the government might revert to a more lenient system that disregards established copyright laws. Officials have argued that revising copyright laws is critical to attracting AI investment in the U.K. while providing creators with control over how their intellectual property is used.
Beeban Kidron, a prominent cross-bench peer and advocate for copyright protection, expressed cautious optimism regarding the government’s recent stance. Still, she insisted that any meaningful change must include concrete assurances to protect copyright holders immediately.
Next week, Members of Parliament will vote on the data bill, a contentious piece of legislation that critics, including Kidron, have used to challenge the proposed opt-out option. In an effort to address concerns, Kyle has introduced amendments to review the economic impacts of potential copyright changes, including both the opt-out system and the licensing proposal.
Further complicating matters, government officials brace for potential political clashes over amendments proposed by opposition parties. Both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives plan to raise issues surrounding minors’ access to social media, an issue that has garnered cross-party support in the past.
In addition, Conservative lawmakers are preparing an amendment related to the digital verification of individuals’ sex at birth, a topic previously addressed by a recent Supreme Court ruling. This amendment has drawn criticism, with one Labour source characterizing it as a divisive issue that should not be reopened.
As the data bill heads to the House of Lords, Kidron intends to reinstate her copyright amendments, while Tim Clement-Jones, a Liberal Democrat spokesperson, suggests the entire bill could face rejection unless concessions on transparency are made regarding AI companies’ use of copyrighted content.
The government promised an economic impact assessment of copyright modifications within a year of the bill’s passage. However, some critics worry that such a timeline may delay necessary changes until the end of the current parliamentary term in 2029.
“The pace of change is rapid, yet the government is lagging behind,” remarked Owen Meredith, CEO of the News Media Association. He emphasized that delays could hinder updates to the existing copyright framework.
Kidron lamented that a possible four-year wait for clarification on AI copyright would leave the creative sector in a precarious position. “The creative industries will be dead on their feet by then,” she warned.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested to be removed, retracted, or corrected by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.