During a jam-packed debate in Westminster Hall last week, MPs expressed their concerns passionately on behalf of thousands (including ACID members) who had written to their MPs about the Government’s plans to potentially erode copyright law to allow generative AI to data scrape their work without transparency, attribution or recompense with no practical, workable means of “opting out”.

The message was clear, no-one wants to stand in the way of innovation and transformation to achieve the Government’s ambitious growth plans through the fair and ethical use of AI, but definitely not at the expense of our creative industries (CI), a UK super power, together with many other sectors who create IP content.

James Frith MP (who had galvanised this debate) said, “This is not about resisting that change, but about shaping it, determining what comes next, for what and for whom. The debate grows louder and louder, and more important by the day. Today, I hope that we can begin to mark a landing zone of shared positions. Our creative industries, with their might and strength, remain deeply alarmed. Copyright is the foundation of their creations, our UK industry and livelihoods, across music, films, books, news, investigations, coding, games, paintings, designs and much more. The Government have made strong commitments to our creative industries, but their upcoming industrial strategy for growth will fall well short of the priority placed on those industries if it does not ensure legal peace of mind and action on artificial intelligence for those creating some of life’s greatest experiences”.

The entire debate can be watched: Parliamentlive.tv – Westminster Hall and a link to the Hansard record is here.

Key points

• AI must provide granular transparency and must disclose what they are using for free.
• There must be ethical standards by Big Tech, fairness and the right to be paid.
• Nothing can replace the irascible human spirit behind creativity
• No appetite to discourage AI but left unchecked will lead to an existential threat.
  Big Tech also relies on IP.
• “Opt-Out” utterly unworkable at present.
• The Berne Convention, an international treaty to which many countries are signatories states clearly, if someone uses your work without permission it is against the law.
• The economic damage to the UK would be incalculable and creativity will dry up.
• Copyright should not be downgraded in favour of tech platforms and should instead be strengthened to ensure the regime is robust and enforceable as AI technology develops.
• Creators must have full “granular, enforceable, practical” transparency over how their content is used to train Large Language Models and the Data (Use and Access) Bill provides a vehicle to achieve this.

Sir Chris Bryant said, “We have not adequately considered it yet. We have to consider it more. We were not intending to legislate in the data Bill, and there is no clause in it, on opt-out. There is no such clause. There is no need to take it out, because it does not exist. I am determined to get us to a place where people are properly remunerated, where they are able to enforce their rights, and where AI can flourish in this country and be used by the creative industries and the creative industries are not left by the wayside. In short, to quote the Bible, we will not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage”.

Dids Macdonald, Co-Founder of Anti Copying in Design Ltd (ACID) said, “Let’s hope this Government heeds these wise words and recognise this warning against short-sightedness and misplaced priorities which could erode protection for the jewel in the crown of the UK’s intellectual capital, in the context of the creative industries and other innovative sectors.”

For ACID, contact didsm@acid.uk.com