Latest news with #DataBill
Forbes
25-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Transparency Deferred: What The UK's Data Bill Means For Music, AI And Copyright
The government has passed a new law on data used to train AI models, despite backlash from music ... More stars including Elton John After months of political turbulence, the UK's Data (Use and Access) Bill has finally passed Parliament. Marketed as a major update to the country's data infrastructure and digital governance, the bill covers everything from NHS data interoperability to digital ID systems and AI-enabled decision-making. The text is broad in scope, modernizing the UK's GDPR, streamlining data subject access, and enabling more fluid data sharing across public services and smart infrastructure. However, it also weakens restrictions on automated decision-making and sidesteps key copyright issues raised by AI. Although the Data Bill does not legislate on copyright directly, creative industries had hoped it would include minimal safeguards for the use of copyrighted works in AI training. In parallel to the bill, the government has signaled, through its consultation on generative AI conducted by the UK Intellectual Property Office, support for a model that would allow AI developers to mine copyrighted content by default, unless rights holders explicitly opt out. This mirrors the EU's controversial text and data mining (TDM) exception, a proposal that many in the creative industries see as deeply problematic. Attempts to introduce a transparency duty for AI developers were proposed and passed repeatedly in the Lords, but were ultimately rejected in the Commons for the sixth and final time. For the UK's creative sectors, music, publishing, film, and visual arts, which collectively generate over £124 billion annually, the final version of the bill represents a missed opportunity and a potentially dangerous precedent. It leaves songwriters, recording artists, and rights holders unable to determine whether their work has been ingested into AI training datasets, with no clear obligation for companies to provide transparency or seek permission. Training Without Traceability The Lords amendment, proposed by Baroness Beeban Kidron, became the focal point of this battle. Her proposal was straightforward: require AI developers to disclose what datasets and copyrighted material they used to train generative AI systems. The amendment kept passing in the Lords with growing support, only to be killed repeatedly in the Commons. The government refused to accept it, claiming that it would stifle innovation and that copyright would be addressed in a separate AI-specific bill after a public consultation. But as Jane Clementson, a lawyer who advises media and creative businesses on the creation and exploitation of intellectual property, explains, the government had a ready excuse: "The DUA Bill was never intended to address copyright law, so amendments about AI training data were resisted. The Government's view was that this wasn't a copyright bill—wrong vehicle for such a complex issue." This reasoning allowed ministers to sidestep the core issue while promising to address it later in a separate AI bill. The current UK copyright framework under Section 29A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act allows TDM only for non-commercial research purposes. This means AI developers may lawfully copy and analyze copyrighted content only if the use is non-commercial, and even then, only under specific conditions. The Data Bill does not change this legal provision. However, it fails to strengthen copyright protections or clarify enforcement, despite the rapid growth of commercial AI training models. 'Support for innovation shouldn't come at the cost of fairness,' explains Rick Gleaves, a music-tech strategist and founder of Music Foundry. 'The current trajectory risks building AI systems on the backs of unlicensed creative works, music, lyrics, performances, without attribution or compensation. That's not a sustainable model.' Because the law lacks meaningful enforcement and does not mandate dataset disclosure, AI developers can ingest massive libraries of music and argue that their use remains 'non-commercial' as long as they don't sell the original content directly. Instead, they train generative models that create synthetic outputs which compete directly with the original works, often replicating stylistic, lyrical, or sonic elements. And the value extracted at the training stage powers downstream applications and services generating vast profits. 'The refusal to amend the bill weakens the UK's standing as a defender of copyright and the creative industries,' argues Gleaves. 'We've traditionally prided ourselves on striking a fair balance between innovation and rights protection, but this bill tips the scales toward data access and AI development without adequate safeguards for creators.' The asymmetry is stark. Developers gain free rein to mine cultural data while creators remain in the dark. The proposed opt-out mechanism might sound like a compromise, but without mandatory transparency, it becomes meaningless in practice. Rights holders cannot opt out of training datasets they aren't even aware they're part of. Clear Law, Rampant Violations These concerns aren't theoretical. The International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP), the global trade body representing Majors, Indies and 80 different national trade associations across 6 continents has documented clear evidence that commercial AI systems, including Suno, Udio, Gemini, and DeepSeek, have been trained on unlicensed music. When prompted, despite claims of safeguards, these systems can generate synthetic outputs that replicate the sonic and lyrical fingerprints of songs despite no licensing agreements being in place. The legal requirement is clear: AI developers must license copyrighted material when using it for commercial purposes. The problem arises because enforcement has fallen behind and multiple lawsuits show just how blurred the lines have become. Yet the following examples collected by ICMP contradict government claims that enforcement is premature, showing that unlicensed reproduction is already widespread and increasingly sophisticated. - When prompted to analyze the lyrics of "Billie Jean" by Michael Jackson, Google's Gemini model outputs the full lyrics, despite no licensing agreement with rights holders. This directly contradicts claims made by some AI developers and policymakers that generative systems are trained only on "non-consumptive" data or that robust filters are in place to prevent reproduction of copyrighted content. Evidence of Gemini lyrics display of Billie Jean - DeepSeek, a Chinese-developed model, goes even further. It can reproduce full copyrighted lyrics, including recent songs, formatted and tagged with metadata scraped from platforms like Spotify. This suggests an intentional bypass of standard licensing practices and highlights how easily some developers evade rights protections. Lyric access directly on spotify - In Germany, the collection society GEMA has flagged a Suno-generated track for strong similarities to Alphaville's 1984 hit "Big in Japan." According to GEMA, the AI-generated version reproduces the lyrics almost verbatim, with matching phrasing and structure, despite no licensing deal existing between Suno and Alphaville's rights holders. GEMA has filed a lawsuit against Suno for copyright infringement, further alleging that the company has reproduced protected works without permission across jurisdictions. The suit also cites additional tracks allegedly copied from Alphaville (Forever Young), Kristina Bach (Atemlos durch die Nacht), Lou Bega (Mambo No. 5), Frank Farian (Daddy Cool), and Modern Talking (Cheri Cheri Lady). - Similarly, Udio, a fast-growing AI music generator, has been shown to produce songs that closely imitate the Beatles' musical style, lyrical tone, and even vocal timbre. Prompts like 'write a Beatles-style ballad about longing' yield tracks that mirror the harmonic structure, instrumentation, and production techniques of Lennon–McCartney compositions. While not replicating lyrics verbatim, the outputs often share thematic content, rhyming patterns, and arrangements, effectively creating derivative works. Udio has no licensing agreement with Apple Corps, Sony/ATV, or any entity managing the Beatles' catalog, making these outputs clear examples of unlicensed stylistic appropriation. (This example is drawn from the ICMP evidence submission). "It actually doesn't need to work this way," says John Phelan, CEO of ICMP. "Ours is an industry built on exclusive rights, and what that literally means is not so much that we want to restrict use, some other creative sectors are much less willing to license works, but rather that commercial users need prior authorization to be legal." The irony runs deeper. ICMP's analysis of tech company contracts reveals a telling double standard. Google, Microsoft, Meta, OpenAI, Suno, Udio and others all include clauses demanding "no use of our content without express prior written permission." Calling out the contradiction, Phelan says: "We in the music industry should not be reluctant to point out this commercial hypocrisy and demand total respect for our songwriters' property rights.' Effectively, the UK's copyright landscape has no lack of clarity; rights holders already have control and licensing training data for commercial gen AI is required by law. But Science and technology secretary Peter Kyle mentioned several times that his preferred outcome on AI and copyright is a new copyright exception allowing unlicensed training and that UK copyright law is currently uncertain, suggesting protesting artists are just 'people who resist change'. The Politics of AI-First Growth To understand how Britain reached this point, look beyond the legislation to the political backdrop. Labour won a commanding 403 out of 650 MPs but with only 33% of the national vote, strong legislative control built on fragile public support. Desperate for economic wins, the Starmer government has bet heavily on positioning the UK as a global AI hub. The Data Bill serves that agenda: deregulate, incentivize, and let innovation flourish. 'By rejecting the Lords' transparency amendments and deferring copyright enforcement to a vague future bill, the government has effectively given AI developers free fuel in the form of unlicensed cultural content' observes Jake Beaumont Nesbitt, Consulting Artist Manager and advisor on entertainment tech, director of Innovation at International Music Managers Forum. But he also notes that the UK Government just backed the music industry with a £30 million investment package and adds 'One could see this as a bunch of flowers offered to the creative industries after the Government ran off with the Tech Sector.' Ministers frame the bill as a growth engine, freeing NHS staff from admin and energizing fintech services. Copyright, they argue, is too complex to address in legislation aimed at "improving people's lives." But peers openly accused the government of bowing to Big Tech lobbying. New figures obtained by Democracy for Sale reveal that Labour ministers and senior civil servants met with tech industry executives and lobbyists an average of six times a week during the government's first six months in office. Peter Kyle asked Google's head of AI, Demis Hassabis to 'sense check' AI policy and Hassabis is now a formal advisor on the government's AI plan. The Technology Secretary also said he would 'advocate' for Amazon at the UK's competition regulator and their case against Amazon was then dropped. As Baroness Kidron put it: "Silicon Valley has persuaded the government that it's easier to redefine theft than make them pay for what they have stolen.' And Phelan confirmed 'Artificial Intelligence covers a multitude of different services. It's as specific as using the word technology. But suffice to say the music industry has been longstanding adopters of and innovators in AI, from licensing admin to searching song databases, copyright infringement prevention to amazing new visual effects to enhance the concert experience. Any characterisation of AI and the music industry as antiphonal is way wide of the mark." The Promise of Tomorrow Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has promised a "comprehensive" AI bill that will revisit transparency and opt-out mechanisms, potentially arriving by May 2026. The government committed to publishing reports on copyright and AI within nine months, including analysis of economic impacts on creators and developers. Jane Clementson explains: 'The Secretary of State is obliged, within nine months of Royal Assent being given, to publish an impact assessment of the economic impact of each of the four policy options described in the government's recent Copyright & AI consultation paper — including the impact on copyright owners and development users.' 'They must also present a report to Parliament on how copyrighted works are being used to develop AI systems,' she adds. But creative industries worry this delay is strategic. And as Beaumont Nesbitt points out: 'Rather than a well-thought-out long-term strategy, this hands-off approach is a short-term political gamble. The Government believes it's too soon to regulate, and is giving these (mostly ex-UK) companies not only a green light, but free fuel.' Each month of delay invites further ingestion of Britain's cultural catalogue, expanding AI libraries at zero cost while eroding the scarcity on which copyright economics rests. As Nick Breen, Partner at the global law firm Reed Smith LLP, explains, here's what to expect next: 'Now that the government has committed to providing a report, we can expect intense lobbying from both sides—on everything from transparency and copyright exceptions for training, to international interoperability, protection of AI outputs, and image rights. Given the UK's hesitation to legislate prematurely, it now faces pressure to offer clarity and show how it has balanced competing interests. In the meantime, ongoing litigation—such as Getty's case against Stability AI in the High Court—will continue to shape the landscape.' But by the time comprehensive legislation arrives, the market may have already normalized unlicensed training. John Phelan makes clear that: 'To date, I have still not seen any provable pathway to becoming more economically competitive by way of a government reducing copyright standards. There is no credible evidence that if you make that industrial policy choice, an increased influx of foreign direct investment or bolstering of the start-up economy follows suit.' A Cultural Reckoning The Data Bill represents more than policy, it's a cultural turning point. In 1710, Westminster Parliament passed the Statute of Anne, establishing copyright terms that protected authors' rights for 14 years. That principle has served the UK's economy and culture for over 300 years, evolving through numerous updates, including international agreements, and adapting to new technologies while preserving its core spirit. Now, as Beaumont Nesbitt warns, Parliament risks "strangling the new model for creators at birth." In an era where an artist's Name, Image, Likeness, and Voice increasingly drive value, allowing unlicensed use threatens not just revenue but the entire incentive structure for creativity.' The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher UK Music CEO Tom Kiehl described the bill's passage as a "pyrrhic victory at best." The music industry has made its position clear: this isn't just about revenue, but about agency, authorship, and fairness in a rapidly changing technological landscape. The creative sector generates £124 billion annually for the UK economy. The government's gamble is that AI growth will more than compensate for any damage to traditional creative industries. Whether the UK can remain both a world leader in culture and a hub for trustworthy AI depends on closing the transparency gap fast. Without action, Britain risks trading a short-term AI lead for the long-term erosion of its most iconic export: creativity. The Data Bill aimed to modernize infrastructure but instead ignited one of the most urgent cultural fights of the AI age. By rejecting transparency, despite wide support across sectors, the government has given generative AI firms a powerful advantage: access without accountability. The next legislative chapter will define not just the future of British music, but the country's reputation as a place that values creativity in the age of artificial intelligence. The question remains: is the UK willing to sacrifice its own cultural industries for a marginal advantage in the global AI race?
BBC News
12-06-2025
- Entertainment
- BBC News
Data bill opposed by Sir Elton John and Dua Lipa finally passes
A bill which sparked an extraordinary stand-off between some of the UK's most high-profile artists - and their backers in the House of Lords - has finally been wanted an amendment to the drably-titled Data (Use and Access) Bill which would have forced tech companies to declare their use of copyright material when training AI it, they argued, tech firms would be given free rein to help themselves to UK content without paying for it, and then train their AI products to mimic it, putting human artists out of would be "committing theft, thievery on a high scale", Sir Elton John told the BBC. He was one of a number of household names from the UK creative industries, including Sir Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa to oppose the government refused the amendment. It says it is already carrying out a separate consultation around copyright and it wants to wait for the outcome of that. In addition there are plans for a separate AI bill. Critics of the peers' proposal say it would stifle the AI industry and result in the UK getting left behind in this lucrative and booming this left the bill in limbo, pingponging between the Houses of Commons and Lords for a month. But it has now finally been passed, without the amendment, and will become law once royal assent is given."We can only do so much here. I believe we've done it. It's up to the Government and the other place (the Commons) now to listen," said composer and broadcaster Lord government has welcomed the wide-ranging bill passing"This Bill is about using data to grow the economy and improve people's lives, from health to infrastructure and we can now get on with the job of doing that", a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) spokesperson said. More than AI Caught in the crossfire of this row were other useful proposals contained within the bill, including:New rules on the rights of bereaved parents to access their children's data if they dieChanges to allow NHS trusts to share patient data more easilyA 3D underground map of the UK's pipes and cables, aimed at improving the efficiency of roadworks by minimising the possibility of them being accidentally dug up. "So this is good news for NHS workers and the police who will be freed from over a million hours of time spent doing admin, bereaved parents who will be supported to get the answers they deserve, and people who will be kept safer online thanks to new offences for deepfake abuse," DSIT even though the Lords have decided they had made their point on AI, the argument has not gone who fought the battle have not changed their minds. Baroness Kidron, a film maker who led the charge for the amendment, told me the passing of the bill was "a pyrrhic victory at best" for the government, meaning it would lose more than it cost, she argues, is the giving away of UK assets, in the form of creative content, to largely US-based AI are many who remain defiant and they believe strongly that the UK's £124bn creative industry is under threat if the government doesn't actively engage with their demandsOwen Meredith, chief executive of the News Media Association which supported the Lords said the bill sent a "clear message" to the government "that Parliament, and the UK's 2.4 million creative workers, will fight tirelessly to ensure our world-renowned copyright law is enforced"."We keep being told that AI will change everything, which, I'm afraid, means that we will discuss this during debates on every bill," said Baroness Dido Harding in the House of Lords, recorded in Hansard. "We will prevail in the end." Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
Wales Online
11-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Wales Online
Lords' objections to Data Bill over copyright threatens its existence
Lords' objections to Data Bill over copyright threatens its existence – minister Sir Chris Bryant said the continued parliamentary ping-pong, where a bill bounces back and forth between the Lords and the Commons could "imperil" the Bill Protesters in central London in May called on the Government to ditch plans to allow AI tech firms to steal their work without payment or permission (Image: PA Wire/PA Images ) The continued refusal by the House of Lords to pass the Data Bill threatens its existence altogether, a minister has said, as the Commons passed an amendment to head off a challenge from peers. Sir Chris Bryant said the continued parliamentary ping-pong, where a bill bounces back and forth between the Lords and the Commons could "imperil" the Bill. The critical stand-off arose as artists and musicians including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, raised concerns over AI companies using copyrighted work without permission. Baroness Kidron, who directed the second Bridget Jones film, had put forward an amendment aiming to ensure copyright holders could see when their work had been used, which was overwhelmingly passed by the Lords for the second time last week. However this has not won Government backing. In a concession to win around the Lords, the Government has instead said it will give a parliamentary statement six months after the passage of the Bill, where it will update MPs and peers on an economic impact assessment, and a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI. A parliamentary working group will also be established. Article continues below Technology minister Sir Chris said the amendments showed the Government had "unequivocally heard concerns". However Conservative chairwoman of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee Dame Caroline Dinenage said MPs had been "gaslit". MPs voted in favour of the Government's amendment, which replace the changes put forward by Lady Kidron, by 304 votes to 189, majority 115. These will now go back to the Lords for peers to approve. During the last session in the Lords, where Lady Kidron had successfully forward her amendment, she told peers it she would not hold up the Bill further if the Commons chose to disagree with it. MPs heard the Bill will help establish digital verification services, a new national underground asset register which could speed up roadworks, and allow better healthcare and policing. It would also renew UK and EU data protection laws. The current agreement with Brussels will run out in December. Speaking at the start of the Bill, Sir Chris said: "Double insistence would kill the Bill, where ever the Bill has started. I take people at their word when they say that they don't want to kill the Bill." Sir Chris added: "Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses. "Which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu. "And I urge their Lordships not to insist on their amendment, but to agree with us. "It is worth pointing out, that if their Lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill which all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation. "They are also imperilling something else of much greater significance and importance economically; our data adequacy with the European Union." He said he was "mystified" by Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition to the Bill. "These amendments show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions as I have just outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard concerns about timing and accountability." Conservative shadow technology minister Dr Ben Spencer said the creative industries and peers "were not buying" the Government's approach. He said: "They're not buying it because the Government has lost the confidence of their stakeholders that it will bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content." Dame Caroline said Sir Chris and the Government were not engaging with the central issue. She said: "By being cloth-eared to the legitimate concerns of the world-leading creative industries for month after month after month; they have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to this position now, where they bring forward a couple of tiny amendments. "By gaslighting members of all parties at both ends of this building who have attempted to draw attention to this. "By somehow pitting our world-leading creative industries against AI, almost somehow presenting them as luddites, that they are somehow allergic to innovation and technology when actually these are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there; they are using AI every single day to produce world-breaking pieces of creative content." Responding, Sir Chris said: "I would just say to her (Dame Caroline) that she clearly has forgotten that the previous government actually introduced plans which would have brought forward a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for creative industries at all. "That seems to have slipped her mind. Article continues below "We have moved a considerable deal since this Bill started. "We have moved and we have listened to what their lordships and, more importantly, what the creative industries have to say in this."
The Independent
10-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Lords' objections to Data Bill over copyright threatens its existence
The continued refusal by the House of Lords to pass the Data Bill threatens its existence altogether, a minister has said, as the Commons passed an amendment to head off a challenge from peers. Sir Chris Bryant said the continued parliamentary ping-pong, where a bill bounces back and forth between the Lords and the Commons could 'imperil' the Bill. The critical stand-off arose as artists and musicians including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, raised concerns over AI companies using copyrighted work without permission. Baroness Kidron, who directed the second Bridget Jones film, had put forward an amendment aiming to ensure copyright holders could see when their work had been used, which was overwhelmingly passed by the Lords for the second time last week. However this has not won Government backing. In a concession to win around the Lords, the Government has instead said it will give a parliamentary statement six months after the passage of the Bill, where it will update MPs and peers on an economic impact assessment, and a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI. A parliamentary working group will also be established. Technology minister Sir Chris said the amendments showed the Government had 'unequivocally heard concerns'. However Conservative chairwoman of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee Dame Caroline Dinenage said MPs had been 'gaslit'. MPs voted in favour of the Government's amendment, which replace the changes put forward by Lady Kidron, by 304 votes to 189, majority 115. These will now go back to the Lords for peers to approve. During the last session in the Lords, where Lady Kidron had successfully forward her amendment, she told peers it she would not hold up the Bill further if the Commons chose to disagree with it. MPs heard the Bill will help establish digital verification services, a new national underground asset register which could speed up roadworks, and allow better healthcare and policing. It would also renew UK and EU data protection laws. The current agreement with Brussels will run out in December. Speaking at the start of the Bill, Sir Chris said: 'Double insistence would kill the Bill, where ever the Bill has started. I take people at their word when they say that they don't want to kill the Bill.' Sir Chris added: 'Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses. 'Which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu. 'And I urge their Lordships not to insist on their amendment, but to agree with us. 'It is worth pointing out, that if their Lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill which all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation. 'They are also imperilling something else of much greater significance and importance economically; our data adequacy with the European Union.' He said he was 'mystified' by Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition to the Bill. 'These amendments show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions as I have just outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard concerns about timing and accountability.' Conservative shadow technology minister Dr Ben Spencer said the creative industries and peers 'were not buying' the Government's approach. He said: 'They're not buying it because the Government has lost the confidence of their stakeholders that it will bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content.' Dame Caroline said Sir Chris and the Government were not engaging with the central issue. She said: 'By being cloth-eared to the legitimate concerns of the world-leading creative industries for month after month after month; they have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to this position now, where they bring forward a couple of tiny amendments. 'By gaslighting members of all parties at both ends of this building who have attempted to draw attention to this. 'By somehow pitting our world-leading creative industries against AI, almost somehow presenting them as luddites, that they are somehow allergic to innovation and technology when actually these are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there; they are using AI every single day to produce world-breaking pieces of creative content.' Responding, Sir Chris said: 'I would just say to her (Dame Caroline) that she clearly has forgotten that the previous government actually introduced plans which would have brought forward a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for creative industries at all. 'That seems to have slipped her mind. 'We have moved a considerable deal since this Bill started. 'We have moved and we have listened to what their lordships and, more importantly, what the creative industries have to say in this.'
Telegraph
05-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
We must stand against AI theft
Most people would agree that theft is theft, whether it takes place with the aid of a tool or without. A scammer who uses software to access a vulnerable elderly person's bank account has left them just as disadvantaged as if they had lifted the money from their pocket. In its infinite wisdom, however, Silicon Valley disagrees. Copyright material is not really copyrighted when it disadvantages the technology companies that wish to train their models on the efforts of writers, artists and musicians without paying for the privilege. This laissez-faire attitude only goes so far: OpenAI was most displeased to learn that the Chinese firm DeepSeek might have 'inappropriately' used its models, and swore to take 'aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology'. But so far as creative industries go, the belief appears to be that everything and anything is fair game. Regrettably, this attitude is shared by Sir Keir Starmer's Government, which is resisting an amendment to the Data Bill proposed by Baroness Kidron. The amendment would introduce regulations requiring AI firms to disclose which data was used during their development, enabling copyright holders to identify where their work has been used, and potentially seek licensing deals. Sir Keir instructed his MPs to vote against the amendment for a fourth successive time on Tuesday, sending the Data Bill back to the House of Lords. On Wednesday, the Government duly suffered a fifth defeat on the matter in the Lords.
