Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, and Elton John lead call for AI transparency as UK House of Lords backs amendment
Over 400 creatives urge action on AI copyright as UK lawmakers clash on transparency in data bill.
Creative industry demands AI transparency
Last week, over 400 creatives in the UK music industry signed an open letter urging lawmakers to support changes to the UK Data (Use and Access) Bill. The letter was signed by household names such as Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, Elton John, Coldplay, and other media organizations, all calling for one thing: transparency from AI companies on what content they use to train their models. It joins previous calls from the industry, including major labels and a silent album protest from 1,000 artists.
The letter was organized by Baroness Kidron and calls for transparency to be put at the “heart of the copyright regime”. AI companies have been accused of using copyrighted material without permission to train their models. Kidron warns that without change, the UK’s £120 billion creative sector could suffer. It states:
“We 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’s position as a creative powerhouse, and any hope that the technology of daily life will embody the values and laws of the United Kingdom.”
Their central demand? To embed transparency into the Data (Use and Access) Bill, allowing artists and rightsholders to understand how and when their work is used in AI development.
House of Lords back the creatives
In a strong show of support, the House of Lords voted 272 to 125 in favor of reinstating the transparency amendment to the bill- the second time they’ve done so after the government previously removed it. This vote now sends the bill back to the House of Commons for further debate.
The decision was welcomed by UK Music CEO Tom Kiehl, who called it a “sensational result”, and urged MPs to seize this “once in a generation chance to stop AI from stealing music”.
So far, the government has resisted these calls. This back-and-forth between the two Houses has left the government frustrated, arguing that the debate is “holding back both the creative and tech sectors”. Instead, they believe copyright and AI should be tackled in separate legislation.
Why the government is holding back
Previously, Baroness Kidron tried to achieve amendments which would achieve two things:
- Ensuring AI platforms marketing their products in the UK comply with British copyright law.
- Transparency from AI companies about what works they’ve used when training their models.
The government rejected these proposals, insisting that it wants to deal with copyright and AI in its own standalone legislation. This comes following a 12-week consultation on the matter undertaken by the government earlier this year, with a reluctance to make copyright changes until they are fully informed by the consultation.
While the government rejected those proposals, Kidron returned with a refined focus solely on transparency. She argues this revised transparency amendment doesn’t change copyright law but is rather a tool to help enforce it. Instead, it simply enables copyright holders to see “who took their work, what was taken, when and why”. This is key information needed for rightsholders to exercise their moral rights as to “whether they wish to have their work used, and if so, on what terms”.
Despite acknowledging support for transparency obligations, the government still prefers to address copyright and AI changes under future legislation. Meanwhile, it is reportedly considering a controversial text and data mining exception that would allow AI to use copyrighted material for this purpose unless rightsholders explicitly opt out. This is a solution that many in the industry argue is both impractical and unworkable.
What this means for artists
While transparency won’t stop AI companies from using copyrighted content without permission, it would give artists visibility which could open opportunities to take legal action. The lack of current transparency leaves creators vulnerable to generative AI platforms that scrape the internet to train their models, including copyrighted material.
The music industry wants transparency and copyright compliance. With the government’s reluctance to change copyright laws surrounding AI, the industry recognizes that these are separate issues, and transparency measures should be implemented now.
The fight is far from over. With the amendment now heading back to the House of Commons, MPs will again decide whether to support creative industries or remove the amendment once again.