A new album featuring 1,000 British musicians – including Kate Bush, Hans Zimmer, Annie Lennox, and Damon Albarn – may promise to be a big release. However, this album, titled ‘Is This What We Want?’ features no music at all.
Instead, each of its 12 tracks contain the ambient sounds of empty recording studios and performance spaces. The silent album is the latest mark of protest by artists and other creatives against the UK government’s proposal to let AI companies use copyright-protected work without permission.
Masterminded by composer and AI developer Ed Newton-Rex, each of the silent album’s 12 tracks are titled with a single word that together form the message: “The British government must not legalize music theft to benefit AI companies.”
Creative industries contribute around £124.6 billion or 5.7 per cent to the UK’s economy and employ over 2.4 million people, according to a report by The Guardian.
“The government’s proposal would hand the life’s work of the country’s musicians to AI companies, for free, letting those companies exploit musicians’ work to outcompete them,” Newton-Rex was quoted as saying.
So, what changes has the UK government proposed to copyright law? Why is the government’s plan controversial? Who is opposing the legal proposal and what are their demands? Take a look.
Why has the UK government proposed changes to the law?
The UK government’s proposed changes to the country’s copyright laws seek to resolve the standoff between AI companies and creative industries. It argues that copyright law is no longer tenable in the AI era due to the proliferation of legal disputes.
Story continues below this ad
AI models are trained on vast amounts of data to generate text, music, images, and videos in response to a user’s prompts. The large datasets used for AI training are gathered by pulling information from all corners of the internet, including newspaper articles, online book archives, Wikipedia content, etc.
However, authors, musicians, artists, newspaper publishers, and other creative professionals have demanded compensation for the use of their work to train and build AI models. They also contend that their work is being used to develop AI tools that generate competing content.
While most companies have been secretive about the data used to train their AI models, others have argued that using copyrighted material for AI training constitutes “fair use”, a legal doctrine that allows use of copyrighted content without seeking the permission of the creator or rights-holder.
“This status quo cannot continue. It risks limiting investment, innovation, and growth in the AI sector, and in the wider economy. It effectively prevents creative industries from exercising their rights,” the government’s proposal reads.
Story continues below this ad
What does the UK government’s proposal say?
As part of its proposal, the UK government has suggested amending copyright legislation to allow for a “text and data mining” exemption. The proposed exemption would allow the use of copyrighted material to train AI models for any purpose, including commercial purposes – unless creative professionals and companies opt out of the process.
The exemption “would apply only where the user has lawful access to the relevant works” and “only where the right holder has not reserved their rights in relation to the work.”
“If a right holder has reserved their rights through an agreed mechanism, a licence would be required for data mining,” the proposal reads.
Under the proposal, creatives would be able to opt out of the data mining process through a “rights reservation” system. It proposes that “rights in works made available online should be reserved using effective and accessible machine-readable formats, which should be standardised as far as possible.”
Story continues below this ad
The consultation paper seeks views on other aspects such as the protocols and standards of the rights reservation system, good licensing practices for AI training, transparency obligations for AI companies, and wider clarification of UK copyright law.
The document also attempts to address the question of whether copyright and other IP rights should apply to the outputs generated by AI.
What are the main criticisms of the UK government’s proposal?
A few critics have pointed out that copyright law in the UK does not need to be amended as it already fulfills the objective of stopping someone’s work from being used without their permission. Others have argued that the proposed opt-out option puts the burden on artists, especially up-and-coming artists who might lack the skills and resources necessary to meet legal requirements.
They further said that keeping track of the distribution of one’s creative content across the internet is impossible. This would allow artistic content to be scraped for endless reuse by companies for AI training, they said.
Story continues below this ad
On the government’s proposed rights reservation system, some have pointed out that there is no evidence of a “water-tight” rights reservation model in any country.
Even if creators do opt out, it is not clear how that data will be identified, labelled, and compensated, or even erased, read a report by researchers at the University of Cambridge.
“Ambitions to strengthen the creative sector, bolster the British economy and spark innovation using GenAI in the UK can be achieved – but we will only get results that benefit all of us if we put people’s needs before tech companies.” Professor Gina Neff, executive director at the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, said.
Other creatives also fear that the rights-reservation mechanism could only benefit the largest rights holders, leaving small and medium-scale creative professionals vulnerable.
Story continues below this ad
Additionally, older contracts didn’t account for AI, meaning some performers’ works are now being used by AI systems in ways they never agreed when they originally signed their contracts.
“The Government ought to commission research that engages directly with creatives, understanding where and how AI is benefiting and harming them, and use it to inform policies for supporting the sector’s workforce,” said Neil Lawrence, DeepMind Professor of Machine Learning and Chair of ai@cam.
The group of Cambridge University researchers also argued against copyright protections for AI-generated outputs as prompting an AI chatbot does not constitute ownership. Instead, the UK government should develop guidelines for compensating those artists whose work and name feature in prompts instructing AI, the researchers said.
Stephen Fry, Dua Lipa, Michael Morpugo, Ed Sheeran, and several of the country’s most famous artists signed a joint letter calling for better protection for creative industries from the threat of AI.
Story continues below this ad
Composer Andrew Lloyd-Webber and his son Alastair wrote a strongly worded opinion piece for The Guardian, stressing that copyright ensures creators “retain control and are fairly compensated.” Paul McCartney of Beatles’ fame and Elton John have also openly criticised the UK government’s proposal.
Major newspapers across the UK such as The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, and the Guardian carried the same bright blue frontpage on Monday, February 25, as part of the ‘Make It Fair’ campaign.
