UK Artists Demand Stronger Copyright Rules for AI Training
Public opposition grows as UK artists challenge AI copyright plans that could allow tech firms to train models on creative work without payment.
The struggle over who controls creative work in the age of artificial intelligence has intensified in the UK, after an emphatic public response signalled little appetite for weakening artists’ rights.
A government consultation on how copyrighted material should be treated when used to train AI systems drew more than 10,000 responses. The outcome was striking: an overwhelming majority supported either maintaining existing copyright protections or introducing compulsory licensing so that creators are paid when their work is used. Only a tiny minority endorsed an early government proposal that would have required artists to actively opt out if they did not want their work fed into AI models.
That opt‑out idea provoked a swift backlash from across the creative industries. Musicians, writers and filmmakers warned it would amount to a default transfer of value from creators to technology firms. Prominent artists — including Elton John, Dua Lipa, Kate Bush and Sam Fender — have publicly backed campaigns arguing that innovation should not depend on unlicensed access to decades of creative labour.
Ministers have since dropped the opt‑out proposal, but the policy direction remains unsettled. Liz Kendall, the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology, told parliament that there was “no clear consensus” on how copyright law should evolve alongside AI, and said the government would take further time before setting out proposals in March 2026.
Campaigners dispute that characterisation. They argue the consultation points decisively in one direction: that AI developers should be required to pay for the material on which their systems are trained. From their perspective, anything less would erode the economic foundations of the UK’s creative industries, which contribute billions to the economy and play a central role in national cultural life.
The debate has also become entangled with international pressure. In the United States, political leaders have warned against rules that might slow AI development or complicate access to copyrighted works. Critics in the UK say such arguments privilege the interests of large technology companies over those of individual creators, independent publishers and smaller cultural businesses.
Some artists have responded with symbolic acts of protest. Paul McCartney recently released a recording that is almost entirely silent, intended to draw attention to what he sees as the quiet normalisation of copyright erosion in the digital era.
Media organisations and creative industry bodies are now urging the government to rule out new copyright exceptions altogether and provide clarity to the market. They argue that clear licensing rules would encourage investment, strengthen trust, and support the development of AI systems built on transparent and lawful foundations.
At heart, the dispute reflects a broader global question: how societies balance rapid technological progress with fair compensation, consent and respect for human creativity. For artists and much of the UK public, the message appears unambiguous — innovation should move forward, but not by quietly taking creative work for free.
Based on reporting by The Guardian.
