Yesterday, the UK government held its final consultation on how tech companies can use copyrighted creative works to train AI models. Under the current framework, tech firms can automatically use these works for training purposes – without needing permission or payment – unless creatives explicitly ‘opt out.’
However, this system has faced criticism for making it harder for creatives – including journalists, writers, artists, and music producers – to safeguard their work.
A new campaign called ‘Make It Fair’ launched by The Creative Rights in AI Coalition in response to the consultation, advocating for fair compensation and greater transparency in how creative works are used.
To show support, major UK newspapers ran identical front covers featuring the bold phrase ‘Make It Fair’ on a blue background yesterday, while music artists released a silent album in protest against the loosely regulated use of creative content in AI training.
To explore the wider implications of these developments, FutureWeek spoke with legal and creative industry leaders about what the future holds for AI and the creative sector.
Christopher Gabbitas, commercial lawyer and media partner, Keystone Law
“The UK still has the opportunity to lead as a safe haven for content creators. Our current copyright law provides ample protection for content creators, if only the Government would double down and ensure its proper application and enforcement – together with insisting on a transparent reporting structure on the part of AI companies in terms of where and how they train their models. Currently proposed systems involving “Rights Reservations” (essentially opt-outs) won’t work: they rely on content creators being proactive and having the requisite knowledge to implement their own systems, and in any event it’s next to impossible to know every single location where your content resides online, particularly in relation to downstream copies.”
Howard Wright, executive creative and strategic director EMEA & Canada, Equator Design
“The recent government consultation on AI and the ‘Make It Fair’ campaign is a significant moment for the creative sector. The ‘opt-out’ system, which allows creatives to prevent their work from being used without consent or compensation, can provide important protections for creators.
“While it’s not without challenges, it gives individuals control over how their work is used, ensuring they are not sidelined as AI continues to evolve. This system allows creatives to protect their intellectual property and maintain ownership, which is vital for the continued value of creative work.
“However, we believe that a truly balanced approach would involve AI and tech companies working alongside creatives to complement, not replace, human creativity. The future should see AI as a tool that amplifies human potential, not as a substitute. AI/tech companies should foster a symbiotic relationship with the creative industry, respecting its irreplaceable human aspect while driving innovation forward.”
James O’Connell, law partner, Mayo Wynne Baxter
“The controversy about allowing AI access to the works of your favourite musical artists is being discussed in the dry terms of copyright law, but it’s not really about that at all. It is about artists having the right to own their own look and sound, and their ability to keep publishing new music.
“The copyright issue is quite straightforward. Under the current copyright law, the author of copyrighted work (i.e. most of it) has complete control over who can use it. This allows them to get royalties from selling their songs, from licensing other people to cover their songs, from radio plays and streams of their songs and to also make money from merchandising.
“At first blush what big tech want to do seems harmless – they want AI to improve its musical abilities by learning from the best. If that was the end goal, then this probably wouldn’t be a controversy. But it isn’t the end goal – AI is doing this because it’s owners are looking for things to sell you.
“So once AI has done a deep analysis of, say, Kate Bush’s work, then it will be able to produce “new” work indistinguishable from the real thing . For organisations like Spotify which are constantly looking for ways not to pay royalties to artists, such faux-work may be “good enough” to offer instead of the real thing. Add AI’s increasing ability to create fake visuals, and who needs the original artist at all? No matter that the AI generated work is likely to be a pale, bloodless, soulless, imitation of the original, if the knockoff is cheap enough then someone will buy it.
“The UK government has proposed ripping up a principle that was first enacted over 300 years ago (the Statute of Anne) just to accommodate ‘Big Tech’ – all to the disadvantage of artists, both financially and artistically. Where will the great artists of tomorrow come from if the market is swamped by AI generated cheap knockoff copies as soon as they have a hit? Big Tech will keep all the money having leeched it from artists.
“So don’t be misled about seemingly innocuous, technical discussions about training AI. It’s not about the training, it’s about how large amoral corporations will use AI to everyone’s detriment but theirs – and that should worry us all.”
Manon Dave, chief product officer and music producer, Sound Drive
“The concern over AI and copyright law in the UK is valid – protecting artists, musicians, and creators from having their work used without consent is essential. But rather than seeing AI purely as a threat, we should recognise its potential as a tool that democratises access to creative expression and allows monetisation.
“First of all, AI can enable new voices – those who may not previously have had a chance to showcase their talent – to participate, innovate, and shape the creative landscape. But true innovation in this space should empower artists with rich catalogues of material to monetise their work within AI models and frameworks, creating new revenue streams in an industry that has long struggled to adequately reward its creators. This could lead to more sustainable income for artists. In fact, many artists are already taking matters into their own hands, bypassing traditional industry structures like labels and publishers, and finding new ways to navigate this space and benefit from the opportunities AI offers.”
“The UK has a chance to lead in AI innovation without sacrificing its globally renowned creative sectors. The focus should be on responsible AI governance – ensuring that protections for artists exist while also harnessing AI to amplify representation. AI shouldn’t just benefit tech giants; it should open doors for more people to create, be heard, and contribute to culture in ways that weren’t previously possible.”
