Latest news with #DataBill
Int'l Business Times
28-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Int'l Business Times
Former Meta Executive Declares Asking Artists for Permission to Train AI Would 'Kill' the Industry Almost Immediately
Meta's former president of global affairs has stated that having to ask artists for permission to use their content to train AI is "implausible" and would be detrimental to the industry. Nick Clegg, who worked with Meta for almost seven years, was asked about his opinions regarding copyright laws and artificial intelligence while speaking to members of parliament on Thursday. "I think the creative community wants to go a step further," Clegg said, according to The Times . "Quite a lot of voices say, 'You can only train on my content, [if you] first ask'. And I have to say that strikes me as somewhat implausible because these systems train on vast amounts of data." "I just don't know how you go around, asking everyone first. I just don't see how that would work," Clegg said. "And by the way if you did it in Britain and no one else did it, you would basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight." Clegg made these statements after discussion pertaining to a potential amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. If passed, the amendment would mandate that technology companies disclose the copyrighted works they used to train their AI. Earlier this month, hundreds of creatives, including Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, Ian McKellen, Elton John and more, signed an open letter supporting the amendment to the Data Bill and urging the government to ensure that AI companies credit the copyrighted work they use. "We will lose an immense growth opportunity if we give our work away at the behest of a handful of powerful overseas tech companies, and with it our future income, the UK's position as a creative powerhouse, and any hope that the technology of daily life will embody the values and laws of the United Kingdom," the letter read, according to The Guardian. "I think people should have clear, easy to use ways of saying, no, I don't. I want out of this. But I think expecting the industry, technologically or otherwise, to preemptively ask before they even start training — I just don't see. I'm afraid that just collides with the physics of the technology itself," said Clegg. Originally published on Latin Times Artificial intelligence AI
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Labour defeated for third time over ‘AI theft' Bill
The Government has been defeated for a third time over AI plans which threaten the creative industries. Peers have joined artists and musicians, including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, in opposition to allowing AI companies to use copyrighted work without permission. The House of Lords supported – by 287 votes to 118 – an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, adding a commitment to introduce transparency requirements to ensure copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by which company. Among the 287 to vote in favour of her amendment on Monday were 18 Labour peers, including Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, the former Labour deputy leader. The Government has said it will address copyright issues as a whole after more than 11,500 responses to its consultation on the impact of AI have been reviewed, rather than in what it has been branded as 'piecemeal' legislation. Sir Elton has said he felt 'incredibly betrayed' after the Government resisted changes to the Bill last week. He told the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme: 'It's criminal, in that I feel incredibly betrayed. 'The House of Lords did a vote, and it was more than two to one in our favour, the Government just looked at it as if to say, 'hmmm, well the old people... like me can afford it.' Credit: Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg – BBC One Lord Black of Brentwood, the deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, has called for ministers to do more to protect creatives from AI 'theft'. 'For AI businesses to flourish here, they need access to our world-class content, which will only be produced if content creators have effective copyright protection,' he said. 'This House recognised that on Monday during the passage of the Data Bill and it's deeply disappointing to learn that, rather than act decisively to give creators transparency as we voted for [...] the Government is manipulating parliamentary procedure arrogantly to dismiss our views. 'Is it really now the Government's extraordinary position that if it costs money to enforce the law we must just let criminals get away with theft?' Baroness Kidron, the crossbench peer who tabled the amendment, 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 will give the Government free rein on enforcement procedures. However, it also requires 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 will also require the 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.' 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'. Responding, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, a technology minister, 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.' 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. '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.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
BBC News
19-05-2025
- Entertainment
- BBC News
Peers demand more protection from AI for creatives
The House of Lords has dealt a second defeat to the government over its Data (Use and Access) had already backed an amendment calling for more copyright protections for the creative industries from artificial intelligence (AI) scrapers rejected that amendment and sent the Bill back to the Lords, where Technology Minister Baroness Jones told peers it would lead to "piecemeal" legislation as it pre-empted consultation on AI and there was broad and vociferous support for Baroness Kidron, a film director and digital rights campaigner, who accused ministers of being swayed by the "whisperings of Silicon Valley" asking them to "redefine theft". The Lords rebellion follows condemnation from Sir Elton John, who called the government "losers" over the weekend and said ministers would be "committing theft" if they allowed AI firms to use artists' content without joins the ranks of high-profile musicians, including Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, and Kate Bush, who are outraged by plans they say would make it easier for AI models to be trained on copyrighted amendment would force AI companies to disclose what material they were using to develop their programmes, and demand they get permission from copyright holders before they use any of their the power differential between the big tech giants in the US and creatives in the UK, Kidron branded the government's plans "extraordinary"."There's no industrial sector in the UK that government policy requires to give its property or labour to another sector - which is in direct competition with it - on a compulsory basis, in the name of balance," she said."The government has 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 has persuaded the government that it's easier for them to redefine theft than make them pay for what they have stolen."Defending her amendment, the crossbench peer said it was "the minimum viable action from the government" to signal that "UK copyright law is indeed the law of the land".Otherwise, Kidron said, the Bill was merely a "political gesture" ignoring "widespread theft" of UK copyright and "starving" the creative industry of "the transparency they need to survive". She was backed by Labour's Lord Brennan, who said the government was trying to set up "a double standard" with AI companies, and abandoning its historical leadership over the importance of intellectual copyright."This country has shown leadership throughout history in relation to copyright and setting the highest standards in order to try and drag people up to our level rather than simply putting up the flag of surrender," he said."I fear there is a view that we have to allow AI companies to do anything they want because otherwise they'll just go and do it somewhere else."Lord Watson, former deputy leader of the Labour Party and clearly a fan of Sir Elton, reeled off a string of song lyrics urging ministers to heed "the clarion cry of this country's creators".A third Labour peer, Lord Knight, also called on his party colleagues to "protect the livelihoods of artists from big tech" and said he believed this could be done at the same time as "taking advantage of the creative and economic opportunities of AI". The strength of feeling around the urgency to protect artists was made clear by others, including crossbencher and composer Lord Berkeley, who labelled the current situation "burglary"."The only way you will stop it is by acting now before the gate is trampled down by the horses," he said. "If this door is left open we will destroy the future of our creative industries."Conservative Lord Dobbs agreed those who had "slogged away, struggled and suffered" for their art deserved the government's protection and Liberal Democrat Floella Benjamin said she saluted Kidron for her "tenacity and dogged determination" to ensure "creativity will not be stolen".Baroness Jones spoke again at the close of the debate to plead with peers not to overturn the will of MPs for a second time, insisting "this isn't about Silicon Valley", denying the government was being complacent, and pointing out that "no other territory has cracked this either"."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," she said."Kidron's amendment will not provide certainty of anything except for certainty of more uncertainty, of continuous regulations stacked one upon another in a pile of instruments..."Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others and especially because this is a global issue and we cannot ringfence the UK away from the rest of the world."However, Kidron said her amendment "does not challenge the primacy of the Commons" and pushed result was a decisive defeat for the Government, with 287 votes in favour of Kidron's amendment and 118 against - a majority of 169 - and the Bill will now be sent back to the Commons. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Daily Mail
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Mother who fears her son died taking part in an online challenge battles for changes to the government's Data Bill
A mother fighting for changes to the government's Data Bill said she won't stop until she gets answers as to why her son killed himself. Ellen Roome has been campaigning to change the law since her 14-year-old son Jools Sweeney took his own life three years ago. Ms Roome, 48, has been campaigning for an amendment to the law that would force social media companies such as Snapchat and Meta to give bereaved parents access to their child's data in the event of their death. Jools was found dead in his bedroom after taking his own life but a coroner was unable to confirm if he was in a suicidal mood before his death. Ms Roome from Cheltenham, said Jools did a 'lot of online challenges' and fears he fell victim to a 'dangerous' one such as Blackout which linked to the deaths of dozens of young people. MPs passed The Data (Use and Access) Bill last week, but the change proposed by Ms Roome was not voted on. The proposed bill would allow bereaved parents to request their child's user data from up to 12 months before their death. Ms Roome met with ministers on Thursday to discuss the amendment - and she is hopeful the law will go further in allowing parents access to data from their children's phones. She said: '[They] Ministers made it perfectly clear that they had listened to me and that they would take on board what I said. 'I met the Ministers who confirmed the Data Bill process that once a child dies that they can automatically preserve a request of data from Ofcom and then Ofcom will request to preserve data for a child that has died, which is really positive news for children going forward. '90 days and the data goes off the phone - I know of another mum whose phone is sitting on a queue waiting to be looked at. That's not good enough - it needs to be preserved within days so that social media companies can't delete it and that data is there in case it is needed. 'I did raise that we need some training with regards to the police and the coroner assistant to make that they know how it is actually done. All the police forces get different training which I think it is crazy in England. They should have centralised training that they all get trained the same way. 'How do you make sure the coroner's know how to request it is my next battle but hopefully that will happen.' In Jools' case - police did not access his phone until months after his death a when data had been deleted. Ms Roome has since been campaigning to get access to Jools' social media data. She said: 'I kind of hoped, naively, that I thought the coroner might say that they could re-do his inquest, but I can't do that without a legal battle of High Court. 'I'm hoping a nice barrister might come forward and offer to do some pro bono work for me. 'Not getting answers of how my son died seems wrong.' Some social media companies told her that they cannot release the data because of issues around privacy and others have said they would only do so if a court order was given. She said: 'I have raised some money which I used - twenty thousand pounds for forensics - but I need the data service from the social media companies because when we did forensics there was massive gaps in the data that we could get from the phone. 'I need the social media companies to release that data to me and that's frustrating that social media companies have information on my child that I can't access and whilst there is a possibility it might get the answers as to why Jools ended his own life I need to try that. 'It is the only piece that we haven't looked at.'
The Independent
18-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Elton John calls Labour ‘absolute losers' over AI copyright plans
Sir Elton John branded the Labour government 'absolute losers' after calls by the House of Lords to amend the Data (Use and Access) Bill to include greater copyright protections against artificial intelligence (AI) were resisted. Peers supported an amendment designed to ensure copyright holders would have to give permission over whether their work was used, and in turn, see what aspects had been taken, by whom and when. However, the government has argued that some of the proposed amendments pre-empt the results of its copyright and AI consultation, and it does not want to legislate in a 'piecemeal' fashion.
