UK creative industries launch campaign against AI tech firms' content use
The UK 's creative industries have launched a new campaign to fight back against their content being used for free by global tech AI firms.
Campaigners have warned that the arts face an 'existential threat' from AI models which scrape creative content from the internet without permission or payment.
It comes at the end of a government consultation which will determine whether to let tech companies use content without permission unless the creators specifically say 'no'.
Those affected could include artists, authors, journalists, illustrators, photographers, filmmakers, scriptwriters, singers and songwriters, who argue that they will now have to police their work.
The campaign has stressed that if the government legitimises this use of content, the impact will be devastating on an industry which collectively brings in £120bn per year to the UK economy.
Throughout the next week, media outlets will run the 'Make It Fair' campaign with the message: 'The government wants to change the UK's laws to favour big tech platforms so they can use British creative content to power their AI models without our permission or payment. Let's protect the creative industries – it's only fair.'
Launching the campaign today, Owen Meredith, CEO of News Media Association, said: 'We already have gold-standard copyright laws in the UK. They have underpinned growth and job creation in the creative economy across the UK – supporting some of the world's greatest creators – artists, authors, journalists, scriptwriters, singers and songwriters to name but a few.
'And for a healthy democratic society, copyright is fundamental to publishers' ability to invest in trusted quality journalism.
'The only thing which needs affirming is that these laws also apply to AI, and transparency requirements should be introduced to allow creators to understand when their content is being used. Instead, the government proposes to weaken the law and essentially make it legal to steal content.
'There will be no AI innovation without the high-quality content that is the essential fuel for AI models. We're appealing to the great British public to get behind our 'Make It Fair' campaign and call on the government to guarantee creatives are able to secure proper financial reward from AI firms to ensure a sustainable future for both AI and the creative industries.'
Launching a music industry campaign to coincide with the 'Make It Fair' campaign, choral composer Ed Newton-Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, a non-profit that certifies generative AI companies for training data practices that respect creators' rights, said: 'One thousand UK musicians released a joint album today, recordings of empty studios, calling on the government to change course or risk empty studios becoming the norm.
'The government's proposals would hand the life's work of the UK's talented creators – its musicians, its writers, its artists – to AI companies, for free. The government must change course and make it fair.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Ed Miliband's nuclear golden era could soon become a new dark age
This Government is fond of making grandiose claims for things that are yet to happen. The latest is Ed Miliband's declaration that we are in 'a golden era of nuclear power.' He has made a series of announcements that may or may not come to fruition over the next two decades, including a new nuclear plant at Sizewell with £14 billion of public money behind it. But Mr Miliband is getting well ahead of himself. History shows that few public policies of modern times have been more mishandled. Britain once led the world in nuclear energy and it was very much a cross-party venture. The post-war Attlee government established the Atomic Energy Research Establishment and the first ever commercial nuclear reactor was built at Calder Hall under the Tories in 1956 just as the Suez crisis increased concerns over the supply of oil. British nuclear expertise was second to none and sought around the world. Under both Conservative and Labour administrations, the UK became a leader in nuclear power development, commencing operations on 26 Magnox reactors between 1956 and 1971. The technology chopped and changed, moving from advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) in the 1970s to pressurised water reactors (PWRs) and even a fast-breeder reactor experiment at Dounreay in Scotland, opened amid great fanfare by Margaret Thatcher but which has now closed. Her government set in train a plan for eight new PWRs, only one of which – Sizewell B – was ever built. What happened? One answer is North Sea oil and gas. Fears about fuel scarcity and sky high prices abated as more came ashore. Cheap gas made the cost of nuclear look prohibitive to politicians fixated only on the short term. Meanwhile, across the Channel, the French, with no oil and depleted coal reserves, invested instead in nuclear power. By 1979 they had installed 56 reactors, satisfying their power needs and even exporting electricity to other European countries, including us. The French are even going to be building Sizewell C. They produce 70 per cent of their electricity by nuclear fission, which does not emit CO2, and are not dependent on energy from volatile regions like the Gulf or despotic regimes like Russia. This serendipity was as much a function of force majeure as foresight. As the French said 'no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice'. As a result they have found themselves in a better position than Britain in the switch to low carbon renewables. Because of the apparent bonanza provided by North Sea oil, we neglected the one source of power that would help create self-sufficiency and meet climate change objectives. Only when it was too late and much of the industry's expertise had been lost did the last Labour government try to reactivate the nuclear programme. Ironically, it was Mr Miliband as Environment Secretary who revived the programme 15 years ago in the teeth of objections from Labour 'greens'. Yet only one new reactor at Hinkley Point – using French technology and, to begin with, Chinese finance – has been given the go ahead. It is way behind schedule by at least six years and massively over budget. For all the trumpet-blowing is the new Sizewell announcement just another milestone along a road paved with good intentions and wretched decision-making? We know it will be hugely expensive and the idea of it coming on stream within 10 years is for the birds. Since it is a copy of Hinkley it should benefit by learning from the mistakes made there. But few can have confidence in the project meeting any of its financial targets or the timetable for construction because nothing in this country ever does. Around the world there is a boom in nuclear power building as countries see it as an essential complement to wind and solar, not least because it provides a baseload and is not dependent on the weather. Sixty reactors are being built globally – 30 of them in China, which has also opened a thorium plant, something we could have done years ago since we have plentiful supplies and the process reduces waste. Is there any area in which the UK can press ahead? Tucked away in his Telegraph article this week, Miliband says the Government is ramping up spending on nuclear fusion research, though this seems more a token mention than an enthusiastic embrace. Yet fusion is one area where the British do have a great deal of expertise, with start-up companies well ahead of any European competitors in raising investment. It is always said that fusion is the future that never arrives because it involves replicating the same processes seen on the Sun. About 35 years ago two chemists shocked the world by claiming they had come up with 'cold fusion' obviating the need to produce the excessive temperatures needed. But the science was flawed, even though some adherents still think cold fusion is possible. Fusion technology is advancing rapidly and is likely to accelerate with the help of AI, high temperature superconducting magnets and supercomputers. But those in the business fear the Government is making the same mistakes as its predecessors in failing to measure the long-term in decades, not parliamentary sessions. China, Japan and America are now in the vanguard of a technology in which the UK once led, as it did with nuclear fission. Arguably, the most important aspect of Miliband's plan is the green light for a fleet of small modular reactors (SMRs), though getting planning agreements past local communities will be hard. Even this has been fraught with bureaucracy and delay. A competition to find a developer for SMRs has taken two years before alighting on Rolls Royce. Why has it taken so long? The potential offered by SMRs was identified years ago; yet once again, government dithering has led to everything being done when it is too late to fill the energy gap that will threaten black-outs in a few years' time. This is because the switch to renewables, the ban on new North Sea extraction licences and the demise of coal will make the decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations even more problematic before new ones come on stream. How long before Mr Miliband's golden era turns into a dark age?
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A nuanced approach to ageing, sex and gender
Born in 1976, I am around the same age as Susanna Rustin and the generation of 'middle-aged, gender-critical women' who believe that their biological sex should underpin and define their rights (Why is there such a generational divide in views on sex and gender in Britain?, 5 June). I am not one of those people. Forty-nine years' experience of living in a female body in a world deformed by class, caste and economic and racial inequality – never mind environmental destruction – has only made me wonder quite why it matters so much to some people. A truly progressive society should be moving towards seeing the person first, both beyond and in profound recognition of their politicised identities. One can see biological sex as both fundamental and immaterial at the same time. As I approach 50, it's clear to me that it's possible to hold both these thoughts simultaneously. My menopausal womanhood matters as it gets in the way of things I want to do in life. But there's no way it matters to me above all else, and there's no chance it gets in the way to a greater degree than the various effects of social and economic inequality. It is a fallacy to suggest that trans inclusivity is more compatible with capitalism than with collective liberation. If the Progress Pride flag is flown from a corporate building – a rare sight in my experience compared with the rainbow Pride flag – it's not because it 'suits them', in Rustin's words, to shift attention away from class politics towards individual expression. Perhaps younger people better understand that corporate interests don't engage with class politics anyway, so how's a flag going to hurt anyone? I was born with breasts and ovaries, and still have them; I have given birth twice. These facts have had undeniable effects on my life – but so has the disadvantage of my class of birth and the continuing advantage of my whiteness. If I were to look at every aspect of my life through the prism of my reproductive organs, I would be limiting the possibilities of looking at the multiple effects of all those factors in the whole – the effects of which can only lead one to conclude that they are human, a person, first. It's called intersectionality, and that term was come up with by Kimberlé Crenshaw, who was born in 1959. Lynsey HanleyLiverpool Susanna Rustin lists several possibilities for why gen Z are more likely to advocate for the inclusion of transgender women in single-sex spaces. One thing she did not mention is that it may be due to the personal relationships that this demographic is more likely to have with transgender individuals, and how much more easily it is to sympathise with the struggles of those we know. As an older member of gen Z, I have had two openly trans peers in my cohort during my time at university, my former neighbour was transgender, and now in my workplace I have a transgender colleague. This resembles the norm – a Guardian article from June 2022 suggests that 50% of British gen Zers said they knew at least one transgender person. I would argue that gen Z more openly fights for the inclusion and protections of transgender women because we're more likely to see them as truly women, rather than 'self-identifying' individuals, due to our personal connections with them. To me, my trans female colleague would intrude on my bodily privacy the same amount as my cis female colleague would. As always, I implore others to seek out the voices and stories of transgender people if knowing them personally may be outside your generational demographic, so we can better empathise with this often scapegoated BarkerCamelford, Cornwall Thank you for such a well-written and clearly argued article by Susanna Rustin. I am pleased to see the Guardian publishing this piece. It is very important to be able to speak openly about these important issues and engage in frank but respectful debate. I completely agree with the author and would also add that with age comes experience, a certain weariness, a generally more nuanced outlook on life and a deep understanding of how embodied our experiences are but also anger – anger that hard-won women's rights, protections, dignity and safety can be so easily dismissed by so-called and address supplied Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The National
16 minutes ago
- The National
Independent Scotland would break ties with Israel, says Stephen Flynn
Speaking to The News Agents podcast, the SNP Westminster leader also said he does not believe it would "wise" for SNP MPs to visit Israel, but he would be "amazed" if they decided to as they are "not daft". He said the UK's position on the atrocities being committed by Israel in Gaza has been "so weak for far too long". Asked if an independent Scotland under the SNP would close embassies in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv and if it would break off diplomatic relations with Israel, Flynn replied "yes" to both questions. On whether he would advise SNP MPs to not visit Israel, Flynn said: "I don't think they'd be wise to visit Israel. READ MORE: UK sanctions Israeli ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich over Gaza "I imagine they would probably get the same response that the couple of Labour MPs did at the airport a few months ago, which was where they got taken aside and turned back home." He went on: "It's up to them to decide what they want to do. I'd be amazed if any of them did, because they're not daft, and they probably know that they would get turned around and stuck on a plane right back out Israel. "Look, I'm deeply, deeply upset and angry about what's happened in Gaza and what continues to happen in Gaza, and the fact that the UK position has been so weak for far too long in respect of this. And I think it's important that you convey your views to people who are rational actors." In April, Labour MPs were denied entry to the occupied West Bank. Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang said they were "astounded at the unprecedented step taken by the Israeli authorities" to refuse British MPs entry. (Image: News Agents) A statement from the pair said they had 'spoken out in Parliament in recent months' on Israel's war on Gaza and parliamentarians "should feel free to speak truthfully in the House of Commons without fear of being targeted'. Flynn's comments come after the UK Government sanctioned two far-right Israeli ministers over their comments about Gaza. Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel's security minister, and Bezalel Smotrich, finance minister, will have their assets frozen and travel bans imposed. Smotrich approved the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He also campaigned against allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza. Ben-Gvir has advocated for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, and said that the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem should be replaced with a synagogue. Later on in the podcast, Flynn was asked about whether he intends to contest the leadership of the SNP in the future. READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla Coalition gives update on Madleen crew detained by Israel While he is going to campaign to become an MSP, he stressed he backs John Swinney as SNP leader and believes he can "make sure we're fighting fit to go on and win the election" at Holyrood next year. Flynn said: "It is my intention to stand for Holyrood, I'm seeking to be a candidate for the Scottish Parliament elections next year, in an area that's probably similar to the seat I hold at Westminster." He went on: "When Humza Yousaf stood down as First Minister, the first person I called to take over was John Swinney. When Nicola Sturgeon, prior to that, announced that she was standing down again, the first person I called to take over was John Swinney. Now that's a wee bit of an insight into my thinking. "And my thinking is very clear that John Swinney is by far the best person for the job. I think he's the best politician in Scotland. I think he displays that in Holyrood with acumen on a weekly basis. "And I'm pretty confident over the course of next 11 months, he can make sure we're fighting fit to go on and win the election. The polls would indicate that we are going to win the election. "But it can't be about polls. It has to be about policies and people. And when the SNP is focused on that and our ultimate goal of independence, we tend to do well."
