91探花

For months, musicians, writers and performers have said their work was being hijacked by all these AI systems without permission. Now, these detailed reports indicate that Government is taking those complaints seriously.

In its report, “AI, copyright and the creative industries”, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee writes, 鈥淭he UK faces a choice between two futures.鈥�

It continues, 鈥淚n the first, the UK becomes a world leading home for responsible, licensing based artificial intelligence (AI) development, where commercial model developers using UK content obtain permission, pay fair remuneration to rightsholders and can deploy their models without questions of legal liability.鈥�

It then warns of the alternative, 鈥淚n the second scenario, the UK continues to drift towards tacit acceptance of large scale, unlicensed use of creative content and long term dependence on opaque models trained overseas, with most benefits accruing to a small number of US based firms while harms to UK creators grow.鈥�

The committee reminds ministers what is at stake. 鈥淭he UK鈥檚 creative industries are an economic powerhouse that contributed 拢124 billion to the UK economy in 2023, with gross value added expected to reach 拢141 billion by 2030.鈥�

It adds that their success is underpinned by a 鈥済old standard鈥� copyright framework which rewards creativity and supports sustainable business models.

Peers have no doubts about the way generative AI affects creative work. 鈥淕enerative AI systems can now generate imitations of creative material in seconds, but speed is not a substitute for the value of the human creativity, skill and dedication that underpin original work.鈥�

They also write, 鈥淐reators are already losing meaningful control over how their works and identities are used, leading to tangible economic harms, while an influx of AI generated content in the market is replacing human made work and undercutting paid commissions.鈥�

What Has The Government Decided They’re Doing For Creative Work?

The Government鈥檚 formal position appears in the March 2026 Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, presented to Parliament under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

The report explains that its originally preferred consultation proposal was dropped. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 originally preferred consultation proposal – a broad exception with opt out (option 3) – was rejected by most respondents to the consultation.鈥� It then confirms, 鈥淚n light of the strong views from the consultation, the gaps in evidence and the rapidly evolving AI sector and international context, a broad copyright exception with opt out is no longer the government鈥檚 preferred way forward.鈥�

Ministers are cautious about rewriting the law. The report states, 鈥淲e will not introduce reforms to copyright law until we are confident that they will meet our objectives for the economy and UK citizens.鈥� It also says, 鈥淎ny reform must ensure that right holders can be fairly rewarded for the economic value their work creates, and that they are protected against unlawful and unfair use of their work.鈥�

On transparency, the Government accepts the need for more openness. 鈥淲e agree that greater transparency about how AI developers train their models, including the content and data they use, can help right holders assert their rights.鈥� It proposes working with industry to develop best practice on input transparency, which could inform future legislation.

Is Protection Finally Taking Shape?

The report also addresses digital replicas, an issue that has worried performers. It recognises that 鈥淎I makes it easier to create 鈥榙igital replicas鈥� of someone鈥檚 voice or face.鈥�

It adds, 鈥淭here are some legal protections in place today, but these do not cover all situations where a digital replica is made without consent.鈥� The Government concludes, 鈥淲e propose to explore a range of options for addressing these risks, while protecting the potential of this technology to support legitimate innovation.鈥�

Peers want ministers to rule out a new commercial text and data mining exception with an opt out and to close gaps in protection for identity and style. The Government has not committed to legislation yet, but it has paused controversial copyright changes and opened the door to tighter transparency rules and new rights over digital likeness.

The tone is different from a year ago. Whatever happens from here will let us know whether that tone becomes lasting legal protection for the people whose work is being taken by AI systems.

Gregor Pryor, Managing Partner EME At Reed Smith Reacts

鈥淎lthough the UK government does not go so far as recommending wholesale changes to the law in favour of creators, there is much for the creative industries to celebrate. First, the Government has abandoned the broad exception for text and data mining coupled with a rights holder opt-out mechanism. The steady opposition campaign and heavy PR concentration seems to have had the desired effect. Second, there is enthusiasm for greater transparency, with a proposal to work with the AI industry to develop best practices. Although this does not go so far as committing to legislation, combined with rowing back from a broader TDM signals a more rights holder friendly approach.

鈥淭he report recognises that the market for legitimate licensing for AI training data is developing and the Government doesn鈥檛 seem inclined to intervene, which could be a welcome development for both the creative industries and the technology companies that are developing large language models. A healthy and agile licensing climate can benefit all sides.

鈥淎n interesting and highly significant recommendation is the proposed removal of the provisions in UK copyright law which afford copyright protection to computer-generated works. In many respects, the UK has been something of an outlier in affording (albeit limited) copyright protection to works generated by computers.

“This may give rise to the type of questions that are prevalent in the US concerning the extent to which human intervention or efforts are critical when considering whether a work is protected. From a legal perspective, the other major point is the Government鈥檚 recognition that digital replicas and deepfakes can be highly problematic. It proposes a range of options, including (somewhat radically, for UK law at least) a new personality right.

鈥淔inally, the report overall represents more of a free market approach than perhaps expected, where the UK will be inclined to try and let the market develop its own standards, with less intervention and perhaps some time to wait and see how law, regulation and practice develop in other countries.鈥�