Latest news with #MakeItFair
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
We can't let AI take it all, warns Abba's Bjorn Ulvaeus
Abba's Bjorn Ulvaeus has warned of the dangers posed by artificial intelligence (AI) copyright laws. The musician and lyricist, 80, is the latest to join a row over government plans to water down copyright laws for the benefit of big tech companies. The Swedish star backed calls from more than 1,000 artists urging ministers to change course in allowing tech companies to train AI on British works by default. He told The Times: 'Copyright is the oxygen which creators and the creative economy depend on for their existence and survival. 'They cannot be sacrificed. Unfortunately, there is an alternative and, in my opinion, more dangerous view, driven by profit-seeking tech companies. That view favours a weaker rights framework and broad exceptions to copyright.' Under government plans, big tech companies would be allowed to use copyrighted material to train new software unless the rights holder explicitly opted out. It would mean that giant US tech firms could plunder artists' work to feed their AI chatbots. A consultation on the proposals closed in late February amid fierce opposition from the creative sector, and fears that the creation of AI music and art could drown out works by humans. Ministers are due to respond this year. Ulvaeus added that AI training must be subject to 'clear transparency rules', where creators should be able to license their own works and receive guaranteed remuneration. More than 1,000 artists – including Damon Albarn, Kate Bush and Sam Fender – have put their names to a silent album in protest against the plans. Writing for The Telegraph in February, Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the culture, media and sport committee, accused AI firms of the 'largest copyright heist in the world's history'. She argued the Government's proposed 'opt-out' scheme would not provide sufficient safeguards to creative work. She said the launch of the Make It Fair campaign, a coalition of creatives, artists and businesses against the plans, had sent a 'loud and clear' message that the proposals were 'not fair'. 'If the Government carries on down its preferred pathway of an 'opt-out', [creatives] say the very foundations that make the UK a world leader in culture and creativity would be lost,' she warned. Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, and Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, are considering the responses to the consultation and have the final say on any changes to the law. Mr Kyle told The Times: 'I have always been clear that no changes will be made until we are absolutely confident that we have a practical plan that delivers on each of our objectives. 'We want to provide a solution allowing both sectors to thrive, and this is the message I reiterated when I met with Bjorn earlier this week.' Ulvaeus is the co-founder of Pophouse, the Swedish entertainment firm behind the band's hit hologram show Abba Voyage. The show, which has sold more than three million tickets, has been on stage in a purpose-built arena in east London since 2022. It features life-sized avatars of the four Swedish pop stars, created through computer-generated imagery using their likenesses, alongside a live band. The shows generated more than £103 million in revenue in 2023 and is leading others in the industry to look at recreating digital hologram shows for other artists. 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.
Telegraph
30-04-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
We can't let AI take it all, warns Abba's Bjorn Ulvaeus
Abba's Bjorn Ulvaeus has warned of the dangers posed by artificial intelligence (AI) copyright laws. The musician and lyricist, 80, is the latest to join a row over government plans to water down copyright laws for the benefit of big tech companies. The Swedish star backed calls from more than 1,000 artists urging ministers to change course in allowing tech companies to train AI on British works by default. He told The Times: 'Copyright is the oxygen which creators and the creative economy depend on for their existence and survival. 'They cannot be sacrificed. Unfortunately, there is an alternative and, in my opinion, more dangerous view, driven by profit-seeking tech companies. That view favours a weaker rights framework and broad exceptions to copyright.' Under government plans, big tech companies would be allowed to use copyrighted material to train new software unless the rights holder explicitly opted out. It would mean that giant US tech firms could plunder artists' work to feed their AI chatbots. A consultation on the proposals closed in late February amid fierce opposition from the creative sector, and fears that the creation of AI music and art could drown out works by humans. Ministers are due to respond this year. Ulvaeus added that AI training must be subject to 'clear transparency rules', where creators should be able to license their own works and receive guaranteed remuneration. More than 1,000 artists – including Damon Albarn, Kate Bush and Sam Fender – have put their names to a silent album in protest against the plans. 'Largest copyright heist' Writing for The Telegraph in February, Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the culture, media and sport committee, accused AI firms of the 'largest copyright heist in the world's history'. She argued the Government's proposed 'opt-out' scheme would not provide sufficient safeguards to creative work. She said the launch of the Make It Fair campaign, a coalition of creatives, artists and businesses against the plans, had sent a 'loud and clear' message that the proposals were 'not fair'. 'If the Government carries on down its preferred pathway of an 'opt-out', [creatives] say the very foundations that make the UK a world leader in culture and creativity would be lost,' she warned.
Telegraph
14-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Labour is using scare stories to attack British creativity
This year's Brit awards weren't just about chart-topping hits or show-stopping outfits. They were a stage for the music industry's loudest demand yet: Make It Fair. Over the past few weeks, the Government's plans to overhaul copyright law have rightly provoked a huge outcry from some of our most important sectors. The proposals would allow tech companies to hoover up content without permission in order to train their AI models – and could be catastrophic for our country's creative sector. Music, film, publishing, visual arts – some of Britain's most dynamic and successful industries have come together as part of the Make It Fair campaign to set out their stark opposition to this policy. Most extraordinarily, even British AI companies have come out against it. UKAI, the trade body representing British AI businesses, has said: 'The opt-out model would significantly harm the creative sectors to achieve a minimal gain for a handful of global tech companies.' In short, the Government is proposing a policy that would devastate the British creative industries – but not actually benefit the UK AI sector. It's a lose-lose policy with the only winners being global AI companies who want to hoover up artists' work for free and churn out machine-made imitations on an industrial scale. Britain's creative and technological sectors are natural allies that should be working with, not against, each other. For years, the UK has had a robust copyright and intellectual property (IP) framework that has driven just such partnerships and commercial collaborations. Yet ministers are now trying to upend that framework in a way that threatens to disrupt a system that is already working. Across the world, leading AI developers and content creators are proving that fair licencing agreements and partnerships can work. Sony Music partnered with rock legend David Gilmour to unlock new ways for fans to reimagine audio and cover art using AI, and supported AI-startup Vermillio in helping artists protect and profit from their work. Universal Music Group has brokered a deal with YouTube to develop AI-driven tools while ensuring that artists retain control over their work, while Warner Music developed the first animated biopic of an artist, legendary French singer Edith Piaf, using AI. Meanwhile, The Guardian announced a strategic partnership with OpenAI and Shutterstock as well as signing multiple agreements with OpenAI, Meta and Google to ensure its contributors are compensated for AI-generated uses of their work. So if the private sector is already negotiating agreements, why is the Government insisting on stepping in to 'fix' a system that isn't broken – and driving apart our creative industries and AI sector in the process? If ministers have proof that our current system is failing, let's see it. Because so far, all we've heard is scare stories and speculation. Worse still, these new laws would put the UK out of step with other leading economies, where AI firms and content creators are finding practical solutions rather than being tied up in regulatory red tape. The AI revolution is moving fast. If the Government genuinely wants to support British creatives and AI pioneers, it should provide certainty – not force unnecessary lose-lose restrictions on the sectors that will be driving growth in the future.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Labour is using scare stories to attack British creativity
This year's Brit awards weren't just about chart-topping hits or show-stopping outfits. They were a stage for the music industry's loudest demand yet: Make It Fair. Over the past few weeks, the Government's plans to overhaul copyright law have rightly provoked a huge outcry from some of our most important sectors. The proposals would allow tech companies to hoover up content without permission in order to train their AI models – and could be catastrophic for our country's creative sector. Music, film, publishing, visual arts – some of Britain's most dynamic and successful industries have come together as part of the Make It Fair campaign to set out their stark opposition to this policy. Most extraordinarily, even British AI companies have come out against it. UKAI, the trade body representing British AI businesses, has said: 'The opt-out model would significantly harm the creative sectors to achieve a minimal gain for a handful of global tech companies.' In short, the Government is proposing a policy that would devastate the British creative industries – but not actually benefit the UK AI sector. It's a lose-lose policy with the only winners being global AI companies who want to hoover up artists' work for free and churn out machine-made imitations on an industrial scale. Britain's creative and technological sectors are natural allies that should be working with, not against, each other. For years, the UK has had a robust copyright and intellectual property (IP) framework that has driven just such partnerships and commercial collaborations. Yet ministers are now trying to upend that framework in a way that threatens to disrupt a system that is already working. Across the world, leading AI developers and content creators are proving that fair licencing agreements and partnerships can work. Sony Music partnered with rock legend David Gilmour to unlock new ways for fans to reimagine audio and cover art using AI, and supported AI-startup Vermillio in helping artists protect and profit from their work. Universal Music Group has brokered a deal with YouTube to develop AI-driven tools while ensuring that artists retain control over their work, while Warner Music developed the first animated biopic of an artist, legendary French singer Edith Piaf, using AI. Meanwhile, The Guardian announced a strategic partnership with OpenAI and Shutterstock as well as signing multiple agreements with OpenAI, Meta and Google to ensure its contributors are compensated for AI-generated uses of their work. So if the private sector is already negotiating agreements, why is the Government insisting on stepping in to 'fix' a system that isn't broken – and driving apart our creative industries and AI sector in the process? If ministers have proof that our current system is failing, let's see it. Because so far, all we've heard is scare stories and speculation. Worse still, these new laws would put the UK out of step with other leading economies, where AI firms and content creators are finding practical solutions rather than being tied up in regulatory red tape. The AI revolution is moving fast. If the Government genuinely wants to support British creatives and AI pioneers, it should provide certainty – not force unnecessary lose-lose restrictions on the sectors that will be driving growth in the future. Jamie Njoku-Goodwin is former director of strategy to prime minister Rishi Sunak and former chief executive of UK Music 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.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
I streamed the totally silent AI protest album on Spotify – and if you don't like AI stealing the voices of music icons, I think you should too
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. What do you get when you put Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, and Damon Albarn into a room? A silent, ambient music protest album, of course. On Tuesday February 25, over 1000 artists banded together in a moving protest against a UK government proposal that would allow AI developers to use copy-righted music from creative professionals to train algorithms and other AI models such as ChatGPT and Open AI - unless right holders choose to opt-out. Just when I thought the UK government couldn't get more whack, lo and behold, it just did. The protest album, titled Is This What We Want? is now available to stream on platforms like Spotify and Tidal. It is a 12-song project consisting of ambient sound recordings from inside empty recording studios and other performance spaces, intending to shed light on the possible impact the proposal will have on creative livelihoods and the UK music industry. It's believed that one of the songs was recorded at Kate Bush's studio, and she didn't hold back with providing comment on the matter, asking; 'in the music of the future, will our voices go unheard?'. The icon has spoken. Is This What We Want? is just one of the many concerned reactions to the new proposal that has since sparked the wider Make It Fair campaign, acting as a means of protest, raising public awareness, and tackling legalized content theft. Since the inception of the campaign, it has enlisted the support of several more figures within British music including Ed Sheeran, Radiohead's Ed O'Brien, and Billy Ocean, as well as creative professionals outside of the music industry. Some of these names include film and stage producer Barbara Broccoli and national treasure Stephen Fry. Fry, like Kate Bush, has expressed his concerns: 'You don't promote growth in a garden by allowing all the pests to feast on the fruit and flowers, and you don't promote growth in an economy by allowing all the AIs to feast on the fruits of our creators'. It's difficult for me to write this, but it feels like we are witnessing a cultural genocide in the UK, where the looters and destroyers of artists' works are not human. They are, however, being aided by humans. Silent albums and I have a bit of a tumultuous relationship (if you've listened to Ethel Cain's most recent LP, you'll know what I'm talking about), but after streaming Is This What We Want? on Spotify, I've found a whole new appreciation for the art of the ambient album. Turns out, they're not just there to help you fall asleep at night. It goes without saying that the first thing that jumps out when listening to Is This What We Want? is the album's hollowness and static-like frequencies that, when put into the context of the government's proposal, paint a rather harrowing picture of the music industry's future. Especially if you have a set of the best earbuds or even better a good set of headphones (I use the Sony WH-1000XM5 noise-cancelling headphones), the album does a solid job of bringing the most otherwise-mundane sounds to the surface, be that the soft meow of a studio cat, the slow dragging of a chair across the floor, or the deep sigh of someone sat at a desk in clear disappointment. One of the better parts of the protest album is that it doubles as a fundraising opportunity, so from wherever you choose to stream Is This What We Want? profits will be donated to the charity Help Musicians, even though Spotify's reputation for artist royalties speaks for itself. It gives a whole new definition to the saying 'silence speaks volumes'. I'm a working musician, and as Spotify says it's not to blame for how little artists make from streaming, here's how you can really support your favorite bands Forget Spotify – I'm going all-in on Bandcamp for music in 2025, here's why you should too Spotify HiFi: release date rumors, price predictions, and everything we know so far
