19-05-2025
Labour defeated for third time over AI plans that threaten creative industries
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, aiming to ensure copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by who.
Among the 287 to vote in favour of her amendment on Monday were 18 Labour peers, including former Labour deputy leader Lord Watson of Wyre Forest.
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.
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.'
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?
Crossbench peer Baroness Kidron, who tabled the amendment, rounded on the Government. 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.
'Political gesture'
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, 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.'
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.'
