More than 400 artists, creative industries workers and executives have signed a letter to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer urging his government to mandate transparency in the training of AI, and to create a licensing marketplace for AI developers and copyright holders.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe will lose an immense growth opportunity if we give our work away at the behest of a handful of powerful overseas tech companies and with it our future income, the UK\u2019s position as a creative powerhouse, and any hope that the technology of daily life will embody the values and laws of the United Kingdom,\u201d stated the letter, which was organized by the Creative Rights in AI Coalition<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n It was signed by such artists as Sir<\/strong>\u00a0Elton John\u00a0<\/strong>and Sir<\/strong>\u00a0Paul McCartney<\/strong>,\u00a0Dua Lipa<\/strong>,\u00a0Coldplay<\/strong>, and\u00a0Shirley Bassey<\/strong>, among others.\u00a0Also signing on to the letter were authors Kazuo Ishiguro<\/strong> and Tom Stoppard<\/strong>, and film\/TV personalities Ian McKellen<\/strong> and Russell T. Davies<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The Creative Rights in AI Coalition includes such organizations as the British Phonographic Industry<\/strong> (BPI<\/strong>), the Association of Independent Music<\/strong>, royalty collectives PPL<\/strong> and PRS for Music<\/strong>, and the Music Publishers Association<\/strong>. It also includes the British Copyright Council<\/strong> and many media and news organizations including Guardian News & Media<\/strong> and the Telegraph Media Group<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The coalition\u2019s letter comes ahead of a vote in the House of Lords on Monday (May 12) on the UK\u2019s Data (Use and Access) Bill<\/strong>, which passed the House of Commons last week.<\/p>\n The bill had initially been slated to loosen copyright laws for AI developers in the UK, but was watered down following widespread opposition from creative industries. The government dropped a proposal to create an \u201copt-out\u201d regime that would allow AI developers to use copyrighted content unless the owner explicitly opted out.<\/p>\n Instead, that proposal, along with others, will be studied by the government for its expected impact on the creative industries.<\/p>\n The Commons bill also stripped out amendments from Baroness Kidron<\/strong>, a crossbench peer, that would have created a marketplace for the licensing of copyrighted content to AI developers, and another that would have required AI developers to be transparent about what materials they used in training their AI. Those issues are also being sent out for further study. Amid the vote, the House of Lords this week will revisit those amendments \u2013 and the letter\u2019s signatories are urging the House to pass the bill with those amendments in place.<\/p>\n For some in the creative industries, the government\u2019s move to further study AI and copyright proposals amounts to an unnecessary delay in efforts to protect rights holders amid the boom in AI technology. Some news reports suggested<\/a> that, with the issues under study, the final rules may not be published until 2029.<\/p>\n “Transparency will protect UK citizens\u2019 property rights against Big Tech and kickstart a highly lucrative UK market for AI training data.\u201d<\/p>\n Lord Black of Brentwood<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cThe Government amendments set us on a timeline that will not see any transparency provisions introduced until the very tail end of this Parliament at the earliest,\u201d said Lord Black of Brentwood<\/strong>, a Conservative Peer.<\/p>\n \u201cOpt-out solutions simply do not exist, and the Government must not rush into a rash decision on copyright law, but transparency is feasible and necessary now. Rather than leaving creative and media businesses defenceless for years to come, transparency will protect UK citizens\u2019 property rights against Big Tech and kickstart a highly lucrative UK market for AI training data.\u201d<\/p>\n Lord Brennan of Canton<\/strong>, a Labour Peer and former Member of Parliament, added: \u201cIf the government cannot accept Baroness Kidron’s amendments, I urge them to introduce provisions which will allow transparency measures to be developed in months, not years. It is never ‘too soon’ to protect millions of workers and defend our national interest.\u201d<\/p>\n For her part, Baroness Kidron stressed that transparency by AI developers is necessary for a licensing marketplace to work.<\/p>\n \u201cThe creative industries welcome the new frontier of creativity offered by advances in AI, but how AI is developed and who it benefits are two of the most important questions of our time,\u201d she said in a statement.<\/p>\n \u201cThe UK creative industries reflect our national stories, drive tourism, create wealth for the nation and provide 2.4 million jobs across our four nations [England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales]. They must not be sacrificed to the interests of a handful of US tech companies.<\/p>\n \u201cThe UK is in a unique position to take its place [as] a global player in the international AI supply chain, but to grasp that opportunity requires the transparency provided for in my amendments, which are essential to create a vibrant licensing market.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe creative industries welcome the new frontier of creativity offered by advances in AI, but how AI is developed and who it benefits are two of the most important questions of our time.”<\/p>\n Baroness Kidron<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The UK government earlier this year floated the idea<\/a> of creating an exemption to the UK\u2019s text and data mining laws that would allow AI developers to scrape copyrighted content, without permission, from the internet to train AI models, unless copyright holders expressly stated that they \u201copt out\u201d of having their materials used this way.<\/p>\n The proposal was met with a chorus of jeers from creative industries. More than 1,000 artists banded together to release a \u201csilent album<\/a>\u201d to protest the proposal. The heads of the three global record majors \u2013 Sony Music Entertainment<\/strong>, Universal Music Group<\/strong> and Warner Music Group<\/strong> \u2013 joined a campaign to stop the proposal<\/a>.<\/p>\n Earlier this month, The Guardian<\/em> reported<\/a> that the Starmer government was backing off that idea in the face of widespread opposition. Instead, the government added amendments to the Data Bill that include commitments to conduct an economic impact assessment of the controversial changes and publish reports on transparency, licensing, and data access for AI developers.<\/p>\n