Jan 30, 2025 5 min read

UK government is “giving away the property rights” of creators, warn Lords as they force AI copyright safeguards into Data Bill

Peers in the House of Lords have rallied together in a cross-party effort to force a number of amendments into the government’s Data (Use And Access) Bill. Those amendments - which still need to pass through the Commons - aim to provide safeguards for copyright owners in the context of AI

UK government is “giving away the property rights” of creators, warn Lords as they force AI copyright safeguards into Data Bill

The House of Lords has voted to protect creators’ rights against AI companies’ use of copyright protected works with peers warning that the government is “giving away the property rights” of artists, musicians and other creators. 

In a surprise defeat for the government, the Lords backed amendments to the proposed Data (Use And Access) Bill that would introduce new laws relating to AI and copyright, saying that they want AI companies to be forced to be transparent about their use of copyright protected materials. 

Cross-party support in the House of Lords for the amendment - which was effectively snuck in through the back door via a bigger bill - has been driven by concerns about the impact the government’s current position on copyright and AI might have on the UK’s creative industries.

The debate concluded a week that saw high-profile music industry figures including Elton John, Paul McCartney and Kate Bush join over 40,000 artists in opposing government proposals that would allow AI companies to use copyright protected works without the explicit permission of copyright owners. 

Elton John warned that “without thorough and robust copyright protection that allows artists to earn hard-fought earnings from their music, the UK’s future place on the world stage as a leader in arts and popular culture is under serious jeopardy. It is the absolute bedrock of artistic prosperity and the country’s future success in the creative industries depends upon it”.

The vote in the Lords comes as the government faces mounting criticism over its approach to AI and copyright law. Although it has opened a wide-ranging consultation on how copyright law should be amended in the context of AI, ministers have already indicated they plan to introduce a new text and data mining - or ‘TDM’ - exception to benefit AI companies, albeit with an opt out for copyright owners.  

But peers highlighted that no economic impact assessment has been conducted into the government’s preferred copyright policy, despite the creative industries’ combined contribution of £126 billion to the UK economy annually

The government has repeatedly claimed that copyright reform, such as the proposed TDM exception, is needed because of uncertainty around how existing copyright law applies to AI. 

Baroness Kidron challenged this directly, telling the House, “Ministers choosing to mirror the tech lobbyist language of uncertainty rather than defending the [intellectual] property rights of citizens is bewildering. They are not quoting the law or the experts”. She then added, “They point at the number of court cases as proof of lack of clarity. But I am at a loss, since a person who has had their goods stolen relying on their legal rights seems to be a sign that the law is clear”. 

This argument was confirmed by Baroness Butler-Sloss, who spoke from her experience as a judge. “I tried these cases and they worked perfectly well”, she said. “We never had a problem in coming to a decision on copyright or intellectual property… I am absolutely astonished that the government are setting aside long-established law”. 

Lord Holmes of Richmond, despite describing himself as “pro-innovation, pro-AI and pro-technology”, delivered one of the debate’s most forceful messages to tech companies. 

Addressing the topic of TDM copyright exceptions, he told the House “This is not complex or controversial. There is an extraordinary tedium to the whole question of TDM. Ultimately I could do this in three words when addressing big tech: ‘It’s not yours. Take your audacious hands off other people’s work’”. This, he stressed, comes from “someone who is pro-innovation, pro-AI and pro-technology - but in a way where there is a negotiation and agreed conclusion as to how artists, rightsholders and creatives want to engage with these technologies”.

The amendments proposed by the Lords would require all AI platforms marketing their products in the UK to comply with British copyright law while also forcing transparency about how creative works are being used. The amendments would also give enforcement powers to the Information Commissioner’s Office and allow for private legal action by copyright holders against AI platforms they believed had unlawfully infringed their copyright. 

Quite how realistic any of these proposals are is another matter entirely. The recent attention surrounding Chinese AI platform DeepSeek, which has launched a GPT4-level AI model that it claims to have developed and trained for a fraction of the cost incurred by OpenAI, has not only shaken the AI sector, but demonstrated that the AI genie is well and truly out of the bottle. 

While there are measures that can be implemented to prevent normal consumers accessing these sorts of AI models, developed in countries that choose to ignore the laws of other countries or which pose national security concerns - as we saw in a different context recently when the US blocked access to TikTok via Apple and Google’s app stores - there is little to stop more sophisticated uses of AI technology. Particularly when - as is the case with DeepSeek - open source models are freely available for people to run on their own hardware. 

That aside, the government is adamant that its ongoing consultation on copyright and AI, which closes on 25 Feb, will address industry concerns. Labour minister Lord Vallance acknowledged that “the current situation is unsatisfactory in practice for the creative industries and the AI sector” and that creators and rightsholders have “very strong and legitimate concerns…about how their content is used by the AI sector and how powerless they often feel”.

However, the government opposed immediate action through the Data Bill, with Lord Vallance warning that legislating now would be “premature” and could risk “compressing the time and options available to develop the most effective and appropriate solution”. 

The government’s position remains that more consultation is needed before taking action. “It is obvious that these are complex issues”, he told peers, adding that any new legislation would need to ensure “workable solutions - workable for the creators as well as the AI companies”.

The implications of the government’s approach stretch beyond the music industry to all creative sectors. Lord Black of Brentwood, speaking from his position as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, warned that this was “one of the most crucial debates that we will have in this Parliament”. 

He told peers that without proper copyright protection, the impact of AI on journalism could be devastating. “Without adequate transparency, control and reward, publishers will no longer be able to invest as they have in the creation of the original, high-quality investigative content on which our democracy and the accountability of those in power are based”, he said. “Without that, our democracy will die in the dark at the hands of Silicon Valley”. 

The bill will now head to the House of Commons, where MPs will have to decide whether to accept or reject the Lords’ amendments. In the Commons, the government has more power, given its significant majority. However, as Baroness Stowell of Beeston noted, as this is a “Lords starter” bill that is “yet to go through all the Commons stages”, there is still time for the government to act on the concerns of the Lords by implementing its own amendments before the legislation is finalised.

Great! You’ve successfully signed up.
Welcome back! You've successfully signed in.
You've successfully subscribed to CMU | the music business explained.
Your link has expired.
Success! Check your email for magic link to sign-in.
Success! Your billing info has been updated.
Your billing was not updated.
Privacy Policy