APB PR

AI has the potential to reshape our lives in extraordinary ways. But as we embrace this progress, we also need to be confront where we must get it right. Copyright is one of those areas. Whether it’s individual creators or the wider creative industries; sectors that form a cornerstone of our national identity and economy - the message is the same: AI must not come at the expense of their rights, their work, or their ability to earn a living from their own creations. Many of us are yet to see an explanation as to why AI companies are held back by copyright other than not wanting to pay for content and refuse to negotiate on fair terms. I hear these concerns loud and clear. Not just from artists, writers and musicians, but also from AI developers here in the UK who are calling for clarity, fairness, and a shared framework that works for everyone. One of the biggest missing pieces right now is transparency. Without it, creators have no way of knowing when their work is used to train AI models or to fuel new tools and systems. There’s no realistic path to asserting their rights, no opportunity for fair participation, and no route to fair remuneration. That’s why I believe we need to bake granular transparency requirements into the framework now. These wouldn’t change enforcement procedures or legal balances but they would empower creators with the knowledge they need to engage in the process. That’s a sound basis while broader technical and legal reviews are settled. There’s growing consensus across the sector that this transparency must extend to the identification of individual works used in AI development, especially in generative and retrieval-based tools. Without this, we’re locking creators out of the conversation entirely, and we’re risking an unfair and unsustainable system taking root. Crucially, this transparency must remain firmly linked to copyright. Any review or technical investigation that detaches the two is likely to miss the point; and miss the chance to build trust. We need to ensure that any use of copyrighted material, whether during training or in deployment, is properly understood and accounted for. And we must be clear: existing licensing routes do exist. If we fail to recognise and protect those paths, and instead allow unregulated scraping to become the norm, we risk undermining not only the rights of creators but also the commercial and legal certainty that underpins the UK’s digital and creative economies. On the question of remuneration, it’s vital that creators aren’t left bearing the burden. Technical reviews, standards, and frameworks must be shaped with rights holders at the table, not simply handed down to them after the fact. We’ve seen the problems that can arise in other countries when this hasn’t been done well. We don’t need to repeat those mistakes. A proper economic impact assessment must look at all the options. This isn’t about slowing AI down. It’s about building AI forward, on a sustainable, ethical, and fair basis. That starts with transparency. And it must end with a system where creators are respected, included, and rewarded.

Several misleading claims by @peterkyle on The Rest Is Politics today to justify his proposed gutting of UK copyright law. 1. “All of the data has already been scraped and used by AI companies because not one of them is domiciled in the UK... so unless you have international copyright attached to your work which is respected in California, then your data has already been subsumed into the AI system” While it's true that many of the big AI companies are based in the US, many people think scraping copyrighted work for commercial gen AI training is illegal under US law, which is why there are 30+ lawsuits in the US on the topic. None are resolved yet. What's more, British creators *do* have 'international copyright', because 180+ countries have signed international agreements on this (including the UK & US), such as the Berne Convention. 2. “The copyright laws are 300 years old” The *first* copyright laws are 300 years old (the 'Statute of Anne'), but they have been updated many times since then, including with the addition of international laws. This is like saying "the murder laws are hundreds of years old, so they're clearly not fit for purpose". 3. “When it comes to China, they have no regard for any copyright anywhere in the world” They do. 4. “What I’m being asked to do is choose between [AI and the creative industries]” He is not. The creative industries simply say AI companies should be required to pay for their training data, just as they pay for engineers and GPUs. There is no indication that only one 'side' can win here. Super disappointing to see the debate framed this way by the person in charge of the UK's consultation on AI & copyright. It's hardly surprising the UK's creators are so angry with the government on this. Suggest giving it a listen: open.spotify.com/episode/0fN… (Starts at ~57 mins)

it would be "impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials." It would also be impossible to build cars without using steel. Doesn't mean steel should be free for car builders... engadget.com/ai/openai-and-g…

"Copyright is not a barrier to innovation; it is the foundation that allows creativity to thrive." ©️ Thank you @JamesFrith for standing up for the songwriter community. 🎶