like me who did not realise this consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence was happening
The consultation ends on Tuesday 25th February i.e.
YOU HAVE TWO DAYS LEFT TO COMMENT. You have two days left if you have a view on how this might impact your career or your income. (I may update this post)
-
You can access the consultation
here. Responses are by way of a survey of questions. (https://ipoconsultations.citizenspace.com/ipo/consultation-on-copyright-and-ai/) - respond to the questions in the survey
- say how it would affect you
- or send a letter saying what you want to say via an email
-
You can also submit your response by email to:
[email protected] - The deadline to respond is 11:59pm on Tuesday 25 February 2025.
The consultation arises because of what has been characterised as
pressure to amend the UK’s copyright laws to make it easier for
predominantly American tech companies to train their AI models on
other people’s creative work without permission, acknowledgment or
payment. Creative industries are among the UK’s crown jewels – and AI is out to
steal them | The Guardian
Below you can read about
- what the government has said
- how to respond – according to DACS and AOI
- places where you can find out what others are saying
What I RECOMMEND YOU DO is read carefully the recommendations of how
to respond from both
-
DACS (a “not for profit” set up to maximise and collect copyright
income) and the - Association of Illustrators (AOI)
What the Government has said
-
Open consultation: Copyright and Artificial Intelligence –
Published 17 December 2024
This government firmly believes that our musicians, writers,
artists and other creatives should have the ability to know and
control how their content is used by AI firms and be able to seek
licensing deals and fair payment. Achieving this, and ensuring
legal certainty, will help our creative and AI sectors grow and
innovate together in partnership.
Currently, developers are subject to copyright law when using
large data sets to train artificial intelligence (AI) models. In
December 2024, the government published proposals to change the
way in which this material could be used. This included the
establishment of a copyright exemption for AI developers and a new
rights reservation model whereby copyright holders would need to
opt-out from having their material used for training AI.
This includes the following in
3. Initial responses to AI and copyright consultation
The Creative Rights in AI Coalition is a campaign group formed in
December 2024 by organisations including the Society of Authors,
the Publishers Association, the Association of Illustrators and
the Association of Photographers.[16]
It has criticised the proposal to introduce a rights reservation
model, arguing AI developers should only be able to use
copywritten material with the express permission of the rights
holder.[17]
Instead, it said the government should prioritise enforcement of
the existing copyright laws to protect copyright holders from
their work being used for training AI systems without their
permission. However, the Creative Rights in AI Coalition welcomed
the proposals to increase transparency of how copyrighted work is
being used when training AI models.
Responding to the consultation, the chair of the House of
Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Dame Caroline
Dinenage, issued a statement noting “widespread concerns” within
the creative industries regarding the use of their material to
train AI models without their consent.[18]
She said the government needed to ensure that its final proposals
would protect creator’s rights.
proposing as….
the Government’s preferred option is to adopt a new
text-and-data mining (TDM) exception to copyright in the UK that will allow AI companies to mine copyright protected
works for AI training purposes provided the rightsholder has not “reserved their rights”
(or “opted-out”), underpinned by transparency measures to enable rightsholders to understand and manage the
use of their works.
How to respond – by various Arts Bodies
The general consensus is that artists should opt for Option 1. This provides the best protection and should achieve a favourable outcome for creators
‘Strengthen copyright requiring licensing in all cases’
Creative Rights in AI Coalition
This is an activist organisation specifically aiming to protect artists’ rights
The UK creative industries generate well over £100 billion annually. We have, quite literally, earned the right to have our voice heard. The key to that success, and future growth, is copyright law.
Retaining the UK’s gold standard copyright protections – and ensuring the law is enforceable and respected in the face of the challenges posed by GAI – will create incentives for GAI developers to enter into licence agreements with rights holders, ensuring a steady flow of quality, human-authored works for GAI training. Without proper control and remuneration for creators, investment in high-quality content will fall. GAI innovation will inevitably stall, and value will drain from both the tech and creative industries which contribute so much to the UK economy and quality of life.
DACS (The Design and Artists Copyright Society)
DACS is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to championing,
protecting, and managing the rights of artists and maximising their
royalties.
For further information on the consultation, see our summary of
what visual artists and rightsholders need to know.
The Government’s approach puts UK creativity and human expression at
risk. The idea that UK artists could have their entire output copied
then badly mimicked by AI algorithms, which then compete with them for
their livelihoods, is a deeply dystopian one. The Government should
not be supportive of this.
This is what DACS recommends you say.
Association of Illustrators (AOI)
for paid illustrators in the UK. Some extracts from its comments
The Copyright and Artificial Intelligence consultation proposes an exception to your copyright that would
allow commercial use of text and data mining –
the ‘scraping’ of your work from the internet to train
generative AI by AI developers – for no payment. (AOI)
the AOI urges all illustrators to respond to the consultation
directly and share their views. This isn’t just another policy
paper – it’s a pivotal moment that could reshape how creators
protect and control their work. (AOI)
This is what their survey of illustrators says
This is what AOI recommends you say:A striking 92.65% of illustrators say attempting to opt out of scraping would be practically impossible without damaging their business. The task would be too time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially considering they don’t control ‘downstream copies’ such as images on client websites – directly challenging the government’s proposed Option 3 approach.
it’s essential for individual creators to make their voices heard too.
Artists’ Union England
This is what AUE says
The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has implications for AUE members whose will be directly affected by the increasingly sophisticated way that AI systems generate visual materials. These systems have been trained on vast quantities of copyrighted information without any permission sought from the creators. This constitutes an asset stripping of individual artists and the wider cultural sector, to enrich a very small number of technology companies. Whilst AI can be a useful tool in making art, AUE feels it poses a very real risk to artists’ livelihoods in the way the technology is currently being developed.
The AUE Executive, in line with other Creative Unions, are recommending to our members we should support Option 1 which states ‘Strengthen copyright requiring licensing in all cases’ as the best approach to achieve a favourable outcome for creators. (Question 5)
Where you can find out more about what others are saying
- UK copyright law consultation ‘fixed’ in favour of AI firms, peer says | The Guardian
Kidron’s amendments aim to tackle the unauthorised use of copyrighted material to train the AI models that underpin products such as chatbots and image generators.
The amendments, which can be removed by the government in the Commons, subject AI companies to UK copyright law wherever they are based and allow copyright owners to know when, where and how their work is used in AI systems. It also requires the naming of web crawlers that are used to scrape copyrighted data for use in AI models.
There are decades when nothing happens (as Lenin is – wrongly –
supposed to have said) and weeks when decades happen. We’ve just
lived through a few weeks
We have produced a briefing on how to respond to the consultation and the key points that need to be made. Read the briefing.Please send your responses in a personal capacity and explain how they will affect you as an individual creator.
You do not need to answer every question of the consultation and can just write a letter explaining your concerns if you prefer.
