Max Richter yesterday told MPs that he “strongly opposes the erosion of copyright” proposed by the current UK government in the context of AI. Artists, he said, “must have the right to determine whether to opt in” to any AI model that is being trained on existing music and, where they do, “to be properly rewarded for that process”.
The musician spoke at a session on copyright and AI held by Parliament’s culture and technology select committees. The session comes amid the government’s ongoing consultation on copyright and AI, in which ministers have proposed introducing a new text and data mining copyright exception into UK law.
That would mean AI companies could use existing content to train their models without getting permission, except where rightsholders have formally reserved their rights through a process yet to be determined.
However, Richter explained, even with the option for rightsholders to opt out by reserving their rights, the new exception is unacceptable. The “effects of scale” make the opt out “unfair and unworkable”, he continued, adding, “The default assumption should be that artists work cannot be used to train AIs unless they choose to opt in”.
In a statement, Richter began by insisting he is not “anti-AI”, and that he recognises “there are many areas of life, especially in scientific and technical fields, where it’s obvious there are huge benefits to the use of this technology”. However, he added, “when it comes to creative work, the situation is more complex”.
“Music is one of the defining human characteristics”, he noted. “All the really important things in life have music woven into them. We have music for getting married, for celebrating a birthday, for learning the alphabet, for graduating school or university, for resisting oppression. From national anthems to lullabies, music is in any place in our lives that matters to us”.
“But all of this will fade into history unless we support creators’ rights”, he then stated, because a strong copyright regime is what allows creators to make a living from their creativity.
“Think of your favourite artist; the artist that first got you into music when you were a kid”, he went on. “Without copyright, the chances are that most of the music you love by them would not exist, because without a mechanism that rewarded them for their work, they would not have been able to devote their time to making it”.
Turning his attention to the AI sector, Richter observed that “the tech companies pay their researchers and coders salaries. They pay for their buildings, their computers and server farms, but none of these mean a thing without access to good training data, so why is the government proposing that the tech companies should not pay for the training data too?”
“The UK music industry is a conspicuous British success story and growth area”, he concluded. “The UK is the second biggest exporter of music in the world, after the US, and the music business contributed £7.6 billion to the UK economy last year, directly employing over 200,000 people”.
“Keeping this dynamic and thriving ecosystem alive rests on a robust and reliable legal structure”, he told lawmakers. “Copyright is the cornerstone of that structure”.
The creative industries have criticised the government for opening a consultation in which the new copyright exception is one proposed option, inviting interested parties to comment on that proposal, and then publishing a report while the consultation is still ongoing that basically says that ministers are already committed to the new exception.
Individuals and organisations from across the creative and copyright industries will oppose the new exception in their submissions to the consultation, and there is support for their position in Parliament. However, it remains to be seen what conclusions the government ultimately reaches.