Proposals to protect creatives' copyright from AI rejected by MPs
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle pledged to set up a series of expert working groups to find a 'workable way forward' for both industries, as he urged MPs to reject the Lords' amendment.
Peers attempted to amend the Data (Use and Access) Bill by adding a commitment to introduce transparency requirements, aiming to ensure copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by who.
MPs voted 195 to 124, majority 71, to disagree with Baroness Beeban Kidron's transparency amendment, in a bid to end the so-called ping-pong.
Speaking in the Commons, Mr Kyle said: 'Pitting one against the other is unnecessarily divisive and damages both.
'The truth is that growing Britain's economy needs both sectors to succeed and to prosper. Britain has to be the place where the creative industries, and every bit as much as AI companies, can invest, grow, are confident in their future prosperity, that is assured.
'We have to become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both.'
He added: 'It is time to tone down the unnecessary rhetoric and instead, recognise that the country needs to strike a balance between content and creativity, transparency and training, and recognition and reward.
'That can't be done by well-meaning, but ultimately imperfect amendments to a Bill that was never intended to do such a thing.
'The issue of AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, the involvement, and the experience of both creatives and technologists.
'To that end, I can tell the House that I am now setting up a series of expert working groups to bring together people from both sectors, on transparency, on licensing and other technical standards to chart a workable way forward.'
Intervening, Labour MP James Naish said many of his constituents in Rushcliffe feel 'AI development has already trampled over their rights', adding: 'This is a time-limited issue and action is required.'
Mr Kyle said it is 'the truth that so much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models, usually from other territories and also under the current law'.
Chairwoman of the culture, media and sport committee Dame Caroline Dinenage said: 'What rights holders need is what this amendment says – clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information about the use of their copyright works and the means by which they're assessed.
'That's exactly what it says here, a legislative vehicle in the future, however welcome, is going to be simply too late to protect the livelihoods of so many of the UK's 2.5 million creative workers.'
The Conservative MP for Gosport added: 'Is the Government really committed to proactively enforcing our copyright and if not through this Bill and now, how and when?'
Mr Kyle replied: 'We need to make sure that we can have a domestic legal system that is fit for the digital age.'
He added that he wanted to 'give the certainty in words, but also, most importantly, to give the certainty in legislation in the most rapid fashion possible, so that creatives and the AI sector can move forward together'.
Conservative MP Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) said: 'He talks about delivering certainty, but does he not see that the certainty he is giving is to large, multinational tech companies to get away with scraping original content that is copyrighted.
'But he is going to give them the certainty through this Bill to abuse the rights of creatives.'
Mr Kyle replied: 'I am confused by his intervention. The Bill before us does not mention AI, it does not mention copyright, it has nothing to do with any of those items.'
SNP MP Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) accused the Government of offering creators 'nothing', adding: 'I've looked at this amendment the Lords presented, it seems a reasonable amendment, what is wrong with it as a way forward?'
Mr Kyle said: 'It is my belief, and it is this Government's belief, that there is a better way forward to give the protections that creative sectors and creators need, and that will deliver them the certainties, protections and the ability to see transparency.'
'We need to take these issues in the round, not one part of it,' he added.
Mr Kyle continued: 'Much of the creative content on the internet has already been scraped elsewhere in the world. We cannot turn back time nor should we kid ourselves that we can exercise extraterritorial reach that we simply do not have.
'My determination is to get this absolutely right, not just rush it right now to make ourselves feel better but make no real improvements to the status quo. So let me be absolutely clear to the House – I get it and I will get it right.'
Shadow technology minister Ben Spencer said he welcomed the 'huge benefits' which the Bill would have on the economy and public services, but added: 'I fear this Bill will go down in the Government's record as the Bill of missed opportunities.
'A missed opportunity to fix our flawed public datasets which present a barrier to tracking and tackling inequalities in areas such as women's health, a missed opportunity to commit to a review of protections for children and their use of social media platforms, and to commit to taking action to increase those protections where the evidence shows there's good reason.
'And a missed opportunity to provide much-needed certainty to two of our key growth industries – the creative and AI sectors – over how they can interact to promote their mutual growth and flourishing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
26 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
GOP lawmaker slammed for 'hateful' post about congressional chaplain
"This should have never been allowed to happen," she wrote. "America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it." Initially, Miller misidentified the man, Giani Surinder Singh of the Gurdwara South Jersey Sikh Society, as Muslim. Her X account later edited the post to correctly describe him as Sikh before deleting the comment entirely. Muslims are adherents to Islam. Sikhism is a different religion, the fifth largest in the world. It was founded in the Punjab region of South Asia. There are roughly 750,000 Sikhs in the United States, according to the Sikh Coalition. A spokesperson for Miller did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Miller's remarks swiftly prompted backlash from Democrats and Republicans. "A Sikh prayer on the House floor--followed by a Christian prayer one week and a Jewish prayer the next--doesn't violate the Constitution, offend my Catholic faith, or throttle my support for Israel," wrote Rep. Nick LaLota, R-New York, on X. "Live and let live." Rep. David Valadao, R-California, also said he was "troubled" by Miller's post. Democratic leadership denounced Miller's comments, too. "It's deeply troubling that such an ignorant and hateful extremist is serving in the United States Congress," Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote on X. "That would be you, Mary." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
The Herald Scotland
26 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Republican infighting fuels concern about Trump tax bill's chances
With Republicans holding the slimmest of majorities in both chambers of Congress and with Democrats showing no sign of wanting to help Trump notch a major win to begin his new administration, lawmakers from Trump's own party are sounding apprehensive about threading the needle before their self-imposed July 4 deadline to get something to the president's desk for signature into law. More: Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill "We're anxious to get to work on it," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters earlier in the week as Republicans and Musk started publicly airing their complaints about the effort. Adding to the challenge: Some of the very House GOP members who last month voted in favor of their 1,100-page version of Trump's tax and policy plan started finding faults of their own that they say meant they'd probably have been a 'no' if they had the chance to do it again. Presidents often aim high to start terms Presidents often try in their first year to build on the momentum of their elections to get major legislation approved. For Joe Biden, it was an infrastructure bill. For Barack Obama, it was overhauling healthcare insurance. For George W. Bush, it was overhauling public education. Trump leapt into action in 2025 with an unprecedented pace of executive orders: 157 through May 23. When he turned to legislation, he persuaded Republican congressional leaders to package all his priorities into one bill, rather than splitting taxes and border security into two different bills, to complete the debate in one fell swoop. More: Everything's an 'emergency': How Trump's executive order record pace is testing the courts Lawmakers often shy away from piling too much into one bill because each contentious provision spurs its own opposition. But faced with the prospect of unanimous Democratic opposition, Trump opted for a strategy that focuses on GOP priorities such as tax relief and border security while personally lobbying reluctant Republicans to stay in line. "Americans have given us a mandate for bold and profound change," Trump told Congress in a speech March 4. "I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY," he added in a social media post about three months later, on June 2. Musk opposition makes waves Trump's efforts worked in the Republican-led House, which after several days of negotiations and an all-night floor debate voted 215-214 in favor of a plan that had the full backing of the White House. Getting the measure through the Senate - even with the GOP in charge needing just a simple majority of 51 votes - is proving to be its own elusive challenge. Musk, the former head of Trump's bureaucracy-slashing Department of Government Efficiency, spent this past week unloading on the House-passed bill for spending too much money. He called the legislation "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination," and urged lawmakers to "KILL the BILL." More: The post-fight fallout from Trump-Musk battle could get even uglier While Musk's barrage ignited a war with Trump and left many Republicans cringing, deficit hawks in the GOP said they appreciated the world's richest man also pushing for deeper spending cuts from the U.S. government. "I welcome people like Elon Musk that try to hold our feet to the fire," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Missouri. "We often disappoint our voters when we don't do the cuts that we campaign on, when we're not fiscally responsible." But Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, who served in the Air Force for 30 years, said the division between Trump and Musk wasn't a good look for his party, especially when it's trying to advance the primary piece of legislation on the president's agenda. "It's just not helpful," Bacon said. "When you have division, divided teams don't perform as well." 'The opposite of conservative': Sen. Paul on bill Several pockets of Republican senators have voiced concerns about the House-passed legislation. Each group has their issue that they want addressed, and each one presents a hurdle for Trump and GOP leaders like Thune as they try to cobble together a winning 51-vote coalition that can also make it back through the House for another final vote. The Senate factions include one group seeking to cut more spending because the Congressional Budget Office said the House-passed plan would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Others are worried about cutting Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income families. And another handful of senators say they are worried about the House-passed bill rolling back renewable energy tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. "There are many of us who recognize that what came out of the House was pretty aggressive in how it seeks to wind down or phase out many of the energy tax credit provisions," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "I happen to think that we've got tax policies that are working to help advance our energy initiatives around the country, as diverse and as varied as they are. Wouldn't we want to continue those investments? "This bill is the opposite of conservative, and we should not pass it," added Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in a June 4 social media post that raised concerns about the nation's debt limit. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is one of the outspoken Republicans taking issue with the House-passed bill's provisions that would cut nearly $800 billion during the next decade from Medicaid and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost 7.8 million people their health insurance. "I don't want to see rural hospitals close and I don't want to see any benefits cut in my state," Hawley said. Trump and his allies contend spending cuts of $1.6 trillion are the most ever approved in a House bill and that the tax cuts will spur economic growth to offset the costs. Trump got personal this week in calling Paul's ideas "crazy" in a social media post and said the people of Kentucky "can't stand him." More: Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters June 4 that few people are going to like everything in an 1,100-page bill. But the Louisiana Republican said the measure he helped craft in the House was carefully calibrated to gain wide support. "I hope everybody will evaluate that - in both parties, and everybody - and recognize, 'Wow, the benefits of this far outweigh anything that I don't like out it,'" Johnson said. Senate dropping local tax deductions would be 'radioactive': Rep. Lalota Any changes made by the Senate will force another vote in the House before the bill can become law - and that's where the math can get tricky. Republican senators are talking about tinkering with a key compromise that Trump and Johnson signed off on in the House that raised the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 for people earning less than $500,000 per year. That provision is important to GOP lawmakers from high-tax states such as California, New York and New Jersey who supported the House bill that passed through the 435-seat chamber by only a one-vote margin. More: Senate Republicans plan to amend SALT tax deduction in Trump's sweeping bill The Senate aims to cut back that provision. But Rep. Nick Lalota, R-New York, told reporters on June 4 that revisiting the tax issue "would be like digging up safely-buried radioactive waste." House members scouring through the bill they voted on weeks ago are also finding unfamiliar provisions in the version that they say they would have opposed. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said in a social media post June 3 that the Senate needs to strip out language she hadn't noticed earlier that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said he opposed a section that aims to hinder federal judges from enforcing their court orders. Trump sought the provision to prevent judges from blocking policies largely spelled out via his executive orders. Senate could drop contentious provisions House members risked supporting Even though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the Senate could drop or fail to approve contentious parts that GOP House colleagues in competitive districts already went out on a limb to support. It's happened many times before - with sizable political consequences. The concept even has a name: Getting BTU'd. That refers to a 1993 House vote on a controversial energy tax during the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency based on British thermal units. House Democrats lost 54 seats in the 1994 election - and control of the chamber for the first time in 40 years - in part because of supporting the BTU tax that the Senate never debated. John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, has said a book about such votes could be called "Profiles in Futility." Another example was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill which Obama supported as president that aimed to limit the emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, vehicles and other industrial sources. The Democrat-controlled House narrowly approved the measure 219-212 but the Senate never took it up. Critics said it would raise the cost of energy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit libertarian think tank that opposed the measure, counted 28 House Democrats from coal states who lost their seats in the 2010 mid-term election after voting for the bill. Fast forward to 2025 and Republicans are the ones facing a similar dynamic. Musk, who contributed about $290 million of his personal fortune to help Republicans including Trump win last November, slammed House lawmakers who voted for the president's legislative package."Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," Musk wrote June 3 on social media. But House Republicans who voted for the legislation, including some who also demanded deeper spending cuts when it was in their hands, said they're not worried about the package falling apart and coming back to haunt them. They say that's because they did fight for more budget cuts. "This wasn't a hard vote. It was hard going through the process to get more, and you can always do better," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina. "But look at what Donald Trump's done, the great things that are contributing to cutting the deficit." Rep. David Schweikert, R-Arizona, who represents a competitive toss-up district, noted that he's introduced multiple bills to trim federal spending. "If Mr. Musk wants to be helpful, what he should do is start to understand that those of us in a 50-50 district who have shown up with actual policy solutions that offset every penny of this bill," he said. Leaving Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force Once on June 6 that he wasn't worried about Musk and that he remained confident he'd get "tremendous support" in the Senate to pass the bill. "I don't know of anybody who's going to vote against it," the president said, before adding: "Maybe Rand Paul." For his part, Johnson told reporters June 4 that he wasn't concerned about House Republicans losing seats in 2026. Predicting that the Senate would find the necessary votes on the president's tax bill, the speaker said he expects Americans will see the benefits of Trump's efforts before the next election. "Am I concerned about the effect of this on the midterms? I'm not," Johnson said. "I have no concern whatsoever. I am absolutely convinced that we are going to win the midterms and grow the House majority because we are delivering for the American majority and fulfilling our campaign promises." Contributing: Reuters
The Herald Scotland
26 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump threatens 'serious consequences' if Elon Musk backs GOP rivals
The rupture between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man reaches far beyond their own relationship. Musk contributed nearly $300 million to help Republicans, including Trump, win the 2024 elections. He was a special White House adviser recommending ways to dismantle federal agencies and lay off workers. Trump thanked him repeatedly for his service and presented him with a gold key in the Oval Office on May 30. But in the week after, Musk harshly called the House-passed legislative package of Trump's top priorities a "disgusting abomination" and urged lawmakers to kill it, as the Senate debates the measure. In response, Trump has already threatened to cancel Musk's government subsidies for electric carmaker Tesla and contracts for rocket company SpaceX. Trump said he thought Musk turned on him because the legislation would end subsidies for electric vehicles and because Trump discarded Musk's choice to lead NASA. Musk replied by threatening to shut down the Dragon spacecraft program that helps the U.S. transport astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station. Trump has seemingly tried to temper his public comments about Musk, wishing his companies well. But he told reporters on Air Force One on June 6 that retaliation was possible. "He's got a lot of money. He gets a lot of subsidy, so we'll take a look at that," Trump said. "Only if it's fair for him and for the country, I would certainly think about it. But it has to be fair."
