Latest news with #BeebanKidron
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI
Campaigners have accused ministers of lying to parliament and the creative industries after the government signalled it would not force AI companies to disclose how they train their models. Ministers are holding firm in a standoff with the House of Lords, which has called for artists to be offered immediate copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to the data bill that would force AI firms to be transparent about what copyrighted material they use to train their models. In an amendment tabled on Friday, the government dismissed the Lords' request and reiterated its promise to publish an economic impact assessment and technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation. Beeban Kidron, the cross-bench peer and film director who has campaigned on behalf of the industry, said during Wednesday's debate that she would 'accept anything that the Commons does' after this week. 'I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case,' she said. But the News Media Association (NMA), which represents publishers including the Guardian, said peers could table further amendments to the data bill when it returns to the Lords next Wednesday. Industry figures said the government was acting in bad faith by not addressing the Lords' concerns and called for it to make further amendments of its own before MPs vote on it on Tuesday. Kidron said: 'The government has repeatedly taken all protections for UK copyrights holders out of the data bill. In doing so they have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK's second biggest industrial sector. They have lied to parliament, and they are lying to the sector.' She said the government's action 'adds another sector to the growing number that have an unbridgeable gap of trust with the government'. Owen Meredith, chief executive of the NMA, said: 'the government's refusal to listen to the strong view of the Lords … risks undermining the legislative process. 'There is still time for the government to do the right thing, and take transparency powers in this bill. This would be a key step towards rebuilding trust with a £126bn industry.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion The government's approach to copyright has drawn the ire of major creative artists and organisations including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush and the National Theatre, with Elton John describing the situation as an 'existential issue' this week. Opponents of the plans have warned that even if the attempts to insert clauses into the data bill fail, the government could be challenged in the courts over the proposed changes. The consultation on copyright changes, which is due to produce its findings before the end of the year, contains four options: to let AI companies use copyrighted work without permission, alongside an option for artists to 'opt out' of the process; to leave the situation unchanged; to require AI companies to seek licences for using copyrighted work; and to allow AI firms to use copyrighted work with no opt-out for creative companies and individuals. Kyle has said the copyright-waiver-plus-opt-out scenario is no longer the government's preferred option, but Kidron's amendments have attempted to head off that option by effectively requiring tech companies to seek licensing deals for any content that they use to train their AI models.
The Independent
a day ago
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Why Lords are striking a blow for creative industries over new AI bill
Strange to say but a government with a Commons majority of 156 is somehow in danger of losing one of its more important pieces of legislation. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is commonly called the 'data bill' or ' AI bill' because it is central to the regulation of the new world of artificial intelligence; indeed, it is the first act of parliament specifically designed to deal with it. After breezing its way through the Commons, it has encountered unexpectedly stiff resistance in the House of Lords. Peers have five times rejected parts of the bill, and unless the government is prepared to compromise, the AI bill will have to be abandoned. Why is the AI bill in trouble? There are a lot of complicated parliamentary shenanigans involved, but at issue is the right of artists, creatives, authors – and, indeed, journalists – to own and make a living out of their work. Elton John, Kate Bush, Damon Albarn, Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney are just a few members of a formidable coalition of interests who want to stop AI giants 'scraping' their work, undermining their livelihoods, and potentially killing the whole sector. It's the biggest change to the law in copyright and intellectual property in generations, effectively abolishing royalties, and hasn't really been subjected to the kind of national debate that it merits. The artists, writers and musicians have found a doughty defender in Beeban Kidron, a film director (Bridget Jones) who's been leading the guerrilla warfare in the upper chamber. As a lead character, she's been compelling. What do the Lords rebels want? A relatively modest amendment to the bill that would subject AI companies to copyright rules and make them declare when and what material they are using for their own commercial purposes: a duty of transparency. Thus, copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by whom. How determined are the rebels? Very. In the words of Baroness Kidron: 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the House widespread theft. We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both Houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Why won't the government give way? It has offered concessions, but ministers maintain the new law does not weaken copyright law; creatives, who have the most to lose, beg to differ. Obviously, the government is anxious not to lose a whole piece of legislation that also covers, for example: a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking; and a framework for research into online safety. AI is also an important driver of economic growth. More than that, the government has been trying to tread a middle path between the more restrictive European approach and the American policy of laissez-faire. If Britain annoys the Americans, who lead in the sector, it might spoil the trade deal and relations more widely. Can't the government just force it through? Not easily. The deadlock between the Commons and Lords is such that either the bill gets amended to the satisfaction of both sides, or it cannot go forward for final readings and ultimately royal assent. This resistance by the Lords is exceptional and called 'double insistence', arising from the fact that the bill originated in the Lords rather than the Commons. (It must have been assumed to be less controversial.) But in the end, the government could get its way by invoking the Parliament Act, which trumps anything. The new law would be delayed, but the rebels might lose their cause by refusing to compromise. What is likely to happen? A compromise – but with further Lords reform in the way, the rebel peers may feel they have nothing to lose. By delaying the bill, they would force ministers to think again and allow the campaign by Elton John and his formidable creative forces to regroup and build more momentum – the issue still lacks much salience with the public. Either way, it has been tough on the personable Peter Kyle, secretary of state for science, innovation and technology.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Ministers offer concessions on AI and copyright to avoid fifth Lords defeat
Ministers have offered a series of last-minute concessions on copyright protections in an effort to avoid a fifth defeat in the House of Lords which could threaten the progress of a key bill. The data bill faces the prospect of being shelved amid a tense standoff over plans to allow AI companies to use copyrighted material to train their models. In a letter to all peers late on Tuesday night, the government offered further concessions in an effort to stave off another defeat. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, said the government would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. Jones wrote that ministers intended to move as quickly as possible in this important area and that the amendments would be laid on Wednesday afternoon. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' she said, reiterating that ministers regretted the way they had gone about the changes. Jones stressed that the data bill was expected to generate £10bn of economic benefit by updating data protection law and that it would improve online safety, including by strengthening powers to ask social media companies to preserve data following the death of a child. The bill has been used by Beeban Kidron, the award-winning film director and cross-bench peer, as a vehicle to oppose the government's proposed changes to copyright law. The government's concessions are intended to fulfil changes requested by Kidron. Kidron is preparing to table another amendment to the bill on Wednesday morning. If she puts forward the same amendment which the Commons stripped out of the bill on Tuesday, and the Lords vote for it, it would put parliament in double insistence territory. This means the Commons and Lords cannot reach agreement over legislation. In this scenario, under parliamentary convention, the bill would fall unless ministers accept the rebel amendment. This is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill 1997–98 – and the government could find potential ways to avoid it. Kidron said: 'It is in the gift of the government to accept the amendment, or put something meaningful in its place. They have failed to listen to the Lords, they have failed to listen to the creative sector, they have failed to listen to their own backbenchers. 'I have always been willing to find a route through this, but you have to ask why they feel unable to protect UK interests, and why they are giving away the country's riches and jobs, without ensuring they have the regulatory tools necessary to negotiate a settlement. Ministers keep saying fair: what is not fair is letting one sector steal from another.' Under the government's proposals, AI companies would be allowed to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner opts out. The plans have been fiercely criticised by creators and publishers including high-profile artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard. The Lords dealt a fourth defeat to the government on Monday night, with peers voting 242 to 116 to a change that would introduce transparency requirements to force AI companies to publish how they are training their models. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has said he regretted the decision to launch a consultation on changing copyright law with the opt-out system as the 'preferred option'. Campaigners against the changes believe that there is resistance inside Downing Street to making more substantial concessions.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
The AI copyright standoff continues - with no solution in sight
The fierce battle over artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright - which pits the government against some of the biggest names in the creative industry - returns to the House of Lords on Monday with little sign of a solution in sight. A huge row has kicked off between ministers and peers who back the artists, and shows no sign of abating. It might be about AI but at its heart are very human issues: jobs and creativity. It's highly unusual that neither side has backed down by now or shown any sign of compromise; in fact if anything support for those opposing the government is growing rather than tailing off. This is "unchartered territory", one source in the peers' camp told me. The argument is over how best to balance the demands of two huge industries: the tech and creative sectors. More specifically, it's about the fairest way to allow AI developers access to creative content in order to make better AI tools - without undermining the livelihoods of the people who make that content in the first place. What's sparked it is the uninspiringly-titled Data (Use and Access) Bill. This proposed legislation was broadly expected to finish its long journey through parliament this week and sail off into the law books. Instead, it is currently stuck in limbo, ping-ponging between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The bill states that AI developers should have access to all content unless its individual owners choose to opt out. Nearly 300 members of the House of Lords disagree. They think AI firms should be forced to disclose which copyrighted material they use to train their tools, with a view to licensing it. Sir Nick Clegg, former president of global affairs at Meta, is among those broadly supportive of the bill, arguing that asking permission from all copyright holders would "kill the AI industry in this country". Those against include Baroness Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer and former film director, best known for making films such as Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. She says ministers would be "knowingly throwing UK designers, artists, authors, musicians, media and nascent AI companies under the bus" if they don't move to protect their output from what she describes as "state sanctioned theft" from a UK industry worth £124bn. She's asking for an amendment to the bill which includes Technology Secretary Peter Kyle giving a report to the House of Commons about the impact of the new law on the creative industries, three months after it comes into force, if it doesn't change. Mr Kyle also appears to have changed his views about UK copyright law. He said copyright law was once "very certain", but is now "not fit for purpose". Perhaps to an extent both those things are true. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology say that they're carrying out a wider consultation on these issues and will not consider changes to the Bill unless they're completely satisfied that they work for creators. If the "ping pong" between the two Houses continues, there's a small chance the entire bill could be shelved; I'm told it's unlikely but not impossible. If it does, some other important elements would go along with it, simply because they are part of the same bill. It also includes proposed rules on the rights of bereaved parents to access their children's data if they die, changes to allow NHS trusts to share patient data more easily, and even a 3D underground map of the UK's pipes and cables, aimed at improving the efficiency of roadworks (I told you it was a big bill). There is no easy answer. Here's how it all started. Initially, before AI exploded into our lives, AI developers scraped enormous quantities of content from the internet, arguing that it was in the public domain already and therefore freely available. We are talking about big, mainly US, tech firms here doing the scraping, and not paying for anything they hoovered up. Then, they used that data to train the same AI tools now used by millions to write copy, create pictures and videos in seconds. These tools can also mimic popular musicians, writers, artists. For example, a recent viral trend saw people merrily sharing AI images generated in the style of the Japanese animation firm Studio Ghibli. The founder of that studio meanwhile, had once described the use of AI in animation as "an insult to life itself". Needless to say, he was not a fan. There has been a massive backlash from many content creators and owners including household names like Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa. They have argued that taking their work in this way, without consent, credit or payment, amounted to theft. And that artists are now losing work because AI tools can churn out similar content freely and quickly instead. Sir Elton John didn't hold back in a recent interview with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. He argued that the government was on course to "rob young people of their legacy and their income", and described the current administration as "absolute losers". Others though point out that material made by the likes of Sir Elton is available worldwide. And if you make it too hard for AI companies to access it in the UK they'll simply do it elsewhere instead, taking much needed investment and job opportunities with them. Two opposing positions, no obvious compromise. Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here. Elton John and Dua Lipa seek protection from AI Artists release silent album in protest against AI using their work
STV News
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- STV News
Government defeated for third time in Lords over copyright protection against AI
Peers have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Government for the third time over copyright protections for the creative industries against artificial intelligence (AI). It came as the upper chamber joined artists and musicians, including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, in speaking out against AI companies using copyrighted work without permission. The House of Lords supported by 287 votes to 118, majority 169, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, 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. Peers backed independent crossbencher Baroness Beeban Kidron's transparency amendments at report stage of the Bill, which were later voted down by MPs. The unelected house supported her again during the first round of so-called ping-pong and now again in the second round of ping-pong, with the majority increasing each time. Among the 287 to vote in favour of her amendment on Monday were 18 Labour peers, including former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, now known as Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. PA Media Baroness Beeban Kidron (Joshua Bratt/ PA credit). The Government has said it will address copyright issues as a whole after the more than 11,500 responses to its consultation on the impact of AI have been reviewed, rather than in what it has branded 'piecemeal' legislation. Lady Kidron, who directed the second film in the Bridget Jones series, rounded on the Government, accusing them of being 'turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley'. She said: 'The Government have got it wrong. They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley, who have stolen – and continue to steal every day we take no action – the UK's extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output. 'Silicon Valley have persuaded the Government that it is easier for them to redefine theft than make them pay for what they stole. 'If the Government continues on its current intransigent path, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry, fundamental to country and democracy. It will be a tragedy and it's entirely avoidable.' The online safety campaigner explained that her new amendment accepts that the Government's consultation and report will be the mechanism by which transparency measures will be introduced, and gives the Government free rein on enforcement procedures. However, it does require the Government to ensure clear, relevant and accessible information be provided to copyright holders so they can identify the use of their copyrighted work, and that legislation to be brought forward within six months of the Government's report being published, 18 months from the Bill's passing. Lady Kidron told peers: 'If the Government is not willing to accept a time-limited outcome of its own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling widespread theft of UK copyright into the long grass. 'Because failing to accept a timeline in the real world means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive.' PA Media Baroness Dame Floella Benjamin backed the amendment(Jordan Pettitt/PA). She insisted that UK copyright law as it stands is unenforceable, because 'what you can't see you can't enforce', and that without her amendment it will be years before the issue is legislated on, by which time the creative industry will be 'in tatters'. Former BBC children's TV presenter and Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Floella Benjamin backed the amendment, saying it would 'secure our children's future and not sell them down the river', assuring them that 'their creativity will not be stolen'. In a nod to Sir Elton's comments on the issue, former Labour deputy leader and UK Music chairman Lord Watson said: 'It's a little bit funny this feeling inside that I rise to support Baroness Kidron's amendment today, an amendment that my front bench so clearly opposes. 'But my lords, I'm still standing. I'm still standing because I do not yet believe that ministers have heard the clarion cry from our country's creators that they need more from this Bill.' PA Media Lord Tom Watson echoed the words of Sir Elton John as he supported the amendment (Lucy North/PA). Also backing the amendment was former EastEnders actor and Labour peer Lord Michael Cashman, who recalled character actress Claire Davenport cherishing the royalty cheques she would receive by rubbing them on her 'ample bosom' and saying: 'Now, I can eat'. Responding, technology minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch insisted that transparency 'cannot be considered in isolation' and that the issue of copyright is 'too important a topic to rush'. She said: 'Alongside transparency, we must also consider licensing, the remuneration of rights holders, and the role of technical solutions and any other number of issues relating to copyright and AI. This is why we consulted on all of these topics. 'We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted by the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright, the creative sector and AI development. We cannot ring-fence the UK away from the rest of the world.' PA Media Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said the debate was about 'finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors' (Ian Nicholson/PA). She added: 'This is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others.' The minister told peers: 'We are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI. 'This isn't about Silicon Valley, it's about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors. We have to find a solution that protects both sectors.' Earlier, peers ended their stand-off on two other amendments, one designed to require public authorities to record sex data based on biological sex, and another to change the definition of scientific research, which critics argued gave AI companies a 'powerful exemption' to reuse data without consent. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
