Latest news with #creativeIndustries
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
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 crossbench 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, the 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.' 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. The technology secretary, Peter 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.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Peers vote to defy government over copyright threat from AI
Defiant peers have delivered an ultimatum to the government – calling on it to offer artists copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies or risk losing a key piece of legislation. The government suffered a fifth defeat in the House of Lords over controversial plans to allow the AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to force AI companies to be transparent about what material they use to train their models. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning Elton John Speaking at an awards event after the vote, Elton John said copyright protection was an 'existential issue' for artists and urged the government 'to do the right thing'. He added: 'We will not let the government forget their promise to support our creative industries. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning.' Wednesday night's vote prolongs a lengthy standoff between the Commons and Lords over the data bill, which has been used as a vehicle by campaigners to oppose the government's proposed copyright reforms. Resistance to the changes in the Lords has been led by Beeban Kidron, a cross-bench peer and film director, whose amendments have been repeatedly backed by the upper chamber. The data bill now faces the prospect of being shelved unless the Commons accepts the Kidron amendment or proposes an alternative. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, had urged peers to vote against the Kidron amendment after the government offered last-minute concessions in an attempt to stave off another defeat. Before the vote, Jones said peers were 'choosing whether they want the entire bill to fall' and that by voting for Kidron's amendment they would 'countenance the unprecedented – to try to collapse a bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law' but included other important measures including to combat sexually explicit deepfake images. Kidron told peers: 'This is our last chance to ask the government to provide a meaningful solution' and urged ministers to set out concrete steps to subject AI companies to copyright rules. '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.' Several peers pushed back against the suggestion that the Lords' move was unprecedented and said the government was itself breaking precedent by not compromising. Tim Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the digital economy, offered his party's 'staunch support' for Kidron's amendment. The Lords' move puts the data bill 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 or offer an alternative. A bill falling is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European parliamentary elections bill in the 1997-98 session. Under parliamentary convention, the Commons has primacy as the elected house, and in rare instances where the Lords refuses to back down ministers can resort to the Parliament Act to pass the bill in the next parliamentary session. This would significantly delay the legislation. In concessions offered to peers on Tuesday night, the government said it would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' Jones said in her letter, reiterating that ministers regretted the way the Lords rebels 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 after the death of a child. 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.' 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. 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.
Daily Mail
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer suffers THIRD defeat in fight with the House of Lords (and Elton John) over AI copyright protections for artists
Sir Keir Starmer 's government last night suffered yet another defeat over copyright protection from artificial intelligence for the creative industries as peers backed by Sir Elton John showed no sign of backing down. For the third time the House of Lords tried to toughen up a law to prevent tech firms using copyrighted work without permission, after efforts by ministers to block them. The row centres on firms using copyrighted material like song lyrics and books to train their AI systems, without paying those who produced the works. Sir Elton at the weekend branded the Labour government 'losers' for blocking efforts to improve protection. Peers supported by 287 votes to 118, majority 169, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, that adds 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. 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.' 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.' 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.' 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.
The Independent
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Government suffers third defeat over copyright protection against AI
The Government suffered a resounding defeat in the House of Lords for the third time over copyright protection for creative industries against artificial intelligence (AI). Peers voted 287 to 118, majority 169, to amend the Data (Use and Access) Bill, echoing concerns raised by prominent artists like Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney about AI companies using copyrighted material without consent. The amendment mandates transparency requirements, ensuring copyright holders can identify when and by whom their work is utilised. 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. 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 is provided to copyright holders so they can identify the use of their copyrighted work, and that legislation is 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'. 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.' 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.' '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.
The Independent
19-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
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. 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.' 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.' 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.' 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.
