The British government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan has been met with strong criticism within the music industry.

The UK government’s recently unveiled ‘AI Opportunities Action Plan’ has sparked widespread criticism from the music industry. While the plan aims to position the UK as a leader in AI innovation, industry leaders argue that it could undermine the value of the value of intellectual property and fail to adequately protect rights holders.

The Action Plan at a glance

The government’s action plan outlines strategies to make the UK’s copyright law more “AI-friendly”. Its approach implies that ministers already favour one of the four possible options for dealing with copyright concerns raised by AI. The plan aims to adopt an opt-out model to “reform the UK text and data mining regime” in order to be “at least as competitive as the European Union (EU)”. This would allow AI developers to use copyrighted content to train their models unless rights holders explicitly opt out.

While this approach is modeled on the EU system’s, the first of its kind, it is still currently being tested. Consequently, critics argue that the UK should look to “learn from the EU regime’s shortcomings, not blindly imitate it”.

The other approaches as part of the UK’s ten-week consultation include:

  • Allowing unrestricted use of copyrighted content, with no opt-out option.
  • Strengthening copyright law, requiring AI companies to get licences when using existing content.
  • Maintaining the current copyright framework.

Industry pushback

The opt-out model has been met with widespread criticism from music industry groups like the BPI and the Coalition of companies from across copyright industries. They argue that the proposed reforms could not only undermine the value of intellectual property, while also unfairly putting the onus on copyright owners to enforce their rights against these huge AI tech companies. BPI has insisted that the Government needs to stick to its promise and carefully consider all responses to the consultation in order to “recognise and meaningfully address the grave concerns being raised across the UK’s £125 billion-per-year creative industries”.

One pushback states “it is clear that UK copyright law does not allow text and data mining for commercial purposes without a licence”. BPI boss Dr Jo Twist reinforces this narrative, arguing that this Action Plan “does nothing to explain” why the UK’s copyright system should be upended for the sake of AI companies.

“We remain unclear as to why AI firms should be allowed to plunder the creative industries, taking music for their own profit without authorisation or compensation, or how this would support the public service outcomes the Government is pursuing.”

BPI boss Dr Jo Twist

Ed Newton-Rex, CEO of Fairly Trained (a non-profit promoting ethical AI training) echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the Action Plan’s benefits can still occur without needing to upend copyright law. Instead, he labels the reforms as “terrible news for the creative industries”.

An uneasy balancing act

The UK government’s focus on AI innovation is driven by promises of economic growth, with the plan aiming to attract £14 billion in investment and create over 13,000 jobs. However, critics this should not come at the expense of creators’ rights.

Particularly concerned about the opt-out model, industry leaders advocate for an opt-in system instead. This would mean AI developers would need permission to use copyrighted content. This approach, they argue, would ensure rights holders retain control of their work. 

What’s next?

As the ten-week consultation continues, the music industry is rallying to ensure its concerns are heard. For now, the UK government faces the task of balancing the demands of AI innovation with the need to safeguard the creative industries and rights holders that contribute £125 billion annually to the UK economy.