UK House of Lords votes to strengthen copyright protections amid AI battle
The UK government’s plans to loosen copyright law for AI companies have hit a major roadblock as the House of Lords votes in favour of stronger protections for artists.
UK lawmakers take a stand
On January 28, the House of Lords voted in favour of amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, reinforcing copyright protections and pushing back against AI companies freely using creative works for training. This decision delivers a significant blow to the UK government’s initial plan to introduce an opt-out system. This plan would have forced artists to actively prevent AI models from using their work, as opposed to requiring AI companies to obtain permission.
For the music industry and wider creative sector, this marks a critical moment in the fight for fair compensation and control over intellectual property.
What was the government’s original plan?
The Labour government’s ‘AI Opportunities Action Plan’, released just a few weeks ago, outlined a vision for making the UK a global leader in AI innovation. A key element of this plan included a shift in copyright law that would have allowed AI companies to train their models on copyrighted content by default, unless creators took action to opt out.
The government argued this approach would attract investment in the UK and boost its economy, citing commitments of £14 billion from major tech firms and the potential creation of over 13,000 new jobs. However, this aim conflicts with the interests of musicians, songwriters, and other creatives as it threatens their livelihoods.
Creative industries fight back
The decision to strengthen copyright protections was championed by Baroness Kidron, a digital rights advocate and crossbench peer, who has been vocal in her opposition to the government’s proposed opt-out system. She criticised it as “complex, costly, and ultimately unworkable,” particularly for independent artists who lack the resources to opt-out from the thousands of AI firms worldwide.
She isn’t entirely against AI use in the UK, economy or the industry, recognising that there is still an opportunity for it to be used:
“There is an opportunity of growth in the combination of AI and creative industries. But this forced marriage, on slave terms, is not it.”
Baroness Kidron, who also serves as an advisor to the Institute of Ethics in AI at Oxford University.
Other key figures in the House of Lords echoed these concerns:
- Baron Berkeley of Knighton argued AI companies’ unauthorised use of copyrighted works is simply stealing the intellectual property of rightsholders- something that is already harming the music industry.
- Baron Arbuthnot of Erdom argued that AI does not need to be trained on copyrighted music or art to function effectively, further reinforcing the case against weakening copyright protections.
At its core, the debate highlights a fundamental issue: weakening copyright laws would effectively allow AI companies to exploit the work of artists without permission or compensation. This shifts the benefits of creativity away from rightsholders and into the hands of major tech companies.
Music icons rally against AI copyright overhaul
A wave of high-profile artists have spoken out against the government’s original proposal, with Paul McCartney, Elton John, Lord Lloyd-Webber, Kate Bush, and over 40,000 other creatives adding their voices to the fight.
McCartney warned that weakening copyright laws could stifle creativity, making it harder for future generations of artists to sustain careers. In December, he joined many others in signing a petition stating that “unlicensed use of creative works of training generative AI is a major, unjust threat” to artists’ livelihoods.
Elton John echoed this sentiment, emphasising that without strong protections, the UK’s status as a global leader in music and the arts is at serious risk.
What’s next?
While the Labour government’s ten-week consultation remains open, the House of Lords’ vote represents the first major legislative pushback against AI companies using copyrighted material without permission.
For now, the victory signals a promising step toward fairer AI regulations in the UK that respect the rights of musicians and creators. But it isn’t over yet.