Paul McCartney is mad. So are Kate Bush, Elton John and about a thousand other musicians who released a silent album this week — made by recording empty music studios — to protest the UK’s proposed changes to its copyright law. Britain, the country that gave us the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, now wants to make it easier for tech firms to train AI with that creative work, allowing them to use it by default without pay. If creators don’t like it, they must opt out.
Unsurprisingly, artists hate the idea, which reverses a fundamental principle of copyright law: you ask for permission before using someone’s work. Trade groups say the proposed changes would threaten the livelihoods of singers and publishers and lead to the rabid exploitation of work without compensation.
The furor among artists is not a great look for the UK government, nor that it framed its proposals as part of a “consultation” with creative industries when it already appeared ready to bow down to technology firms. But there’s hope for a solution. Maybe even a profitable one. Instead of running headfirst into rewriting the law, the Brits should try experimenting with ways to build a new commercial market for licensing. Focusing on pushing tech firms to be more transparent would be a good start.
Tech giants such as Google, Meta Platforms and OpenAI should, for instance, respond to requests from book publishers or movie studios for disclosure of any content used to train an AI model. Once they answer, both sides can start talking about fair compensation. That would build on some of the ad hoc contracts OpenAI and other tech firms have already established with publishers like News Corp and Axel Springer, worth tens of millions of dollars.
“I appreciate that’s a difficult commercial conversation on all sides,” says Dan Conway, who runs the UK Publishers Association. “That requires some good management.”
Enter Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who will need to push tech firms to cooperate. The UK government can and should capitalise on its good relations with Google, whose AI chief, Demis Hassabis, is British and has been based in London his entire career.
Retroactive
Britain can also work off a template it already has in privacy law. For years, British citizens have been able to make “subject access requests” to any company, which must disclose any private data it holds on that person. UK-based artists could do the same for tech companies that have scraped their work for AI training, and be assured of an answer.
This does involve much fumbling in the dark. There’s virtually no precedent in commercial history — beyond the act of paying for copyrighted work itself — where businesses have been required to pay for resources they’ve already used, retroactively. And the incentives for doing so aren’t great without a nudge from authorities.
Read: ‘It’s stealing’: music industry to battle AI firms in court
It also doesn’t help that since the Labour party entered government last July, its approach to AI has been somewhat muddled. In part, this was a reaction to what came before. Former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a self-declared tech bro who was educated at Stanford University and maintained a California holiday home, sought to position the UK as a global tech police force.
That ambition became sidelined more recently in favour of AI as a driver for growth, and earlier this month, the UK joined the US in declining to sign an agreement issued by a global AI summit, held in Paris, which pledged an “open” and “ethical” approach to AI.
Now with the launch of its copyright consultation, which closed this week and was aimed at addressing the lack of legal certainty around using copyrighted work for AI, no one in government seems to have considered the optics of picking a fight with famous names from Dua Lipa to Ed Sheeran and Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Furious artists have proved a powerful mobilising force, and the opposition has jumped on the bandwagon, with Tory leader Kemi Badenoch describing the proposals as “a mess”. Government insiders meanwhile say it was an error to suggest in the consultation document that the UK preferred its “opt-out” option, and that no final decisions have been made.
One problem is that copyright falls between both the department of culture, led by Lisa Nandy, and the department of science & tech, with Peter Kyle at the helm — some in the creative sphere argue that the former has been putting their case less forcefully than the latter has been promoting big tech.
Get a grip
Let’s hope the noisy protest will spur the UK government to get a grip. Britain shouldn’t rush to rewrite its laws, but focus on the unique opportunity it has in hosting some of the world’s top creative professionals, technology builders and policy makers all in the same place.
It has a chance to build a pioneering licensing market for AI and creative content. It should push tech firms to disclose what works they’ve used, similar to what they already do with personal data. That could help companies exploit high-quality content, too. If the UK can make an experiment like that work, it might turn a mess into an opportunity. — Parmy Olson and Rosa Prince, (c) 2025 Bloomberg LP
Get breaking news from TechCentral on WhatsApp. Sign up here.
