Latest news with #dataBill
The Independent
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Why Lords are striking a blow for creative industries over new AI bill
Strange to say but a government with a Commons majority of 156 is somehow in danger of losing one of its more important pieces of legislation. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is commonly called the 'data bill' or ' AI bill' because it is central to the regulation of the new world of artificial intelligence; indeed, it is the first act of parliament specifically designed to deal with it. After breezing its way through the Commons, it has encountered unexpectedly stiff resistance in the House of Lords. Peers have five times rejected parts of the bill, and unless the government is prepared to compromise, the AI bill will have to be abandoned. Why is the AI bill in trouble? There are a lot of complicated parliamentary shenanigans involved, but at issue is the right of artists, creatives, authors – and, indeed, journalists – to own and make a living out of their work. Elton John, Kate Bush, Damon Albarn, Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney are just a few members of a formidable coalition of interests who want to stop AI giants 'scraping' their work, undermining their livelihoods, and potentially killing the whole sector. It's the biggest change to the law in copyright and intellectual property in generations, effectively abolishing royalties, and hasn't really been subjected to the kind of national debate that it merits. The artists, writers and musicians have found a doughty defender in Beeban Kidron, a film director (Bridget Jones) who's been leading the guerrilla warfare in the upper chamber. As a lead character, she's been compelling. What do the Lords rebels want? A relatively modest amendment to the bill that would subject AI companies to copyright rules and make them declare when and what material they are using for their own commercial purposes: a duty of transparency. Thus, copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by whom. How determined are the rebels? Very. In the words of Baroness Kidron: '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.' Why won't the government give way? It has offered concessions, but ministers maintain the new law does not weaken copyright law; creatives, who have the most to lose, beg to differ. Obviously, the government is anxious not to lose a whole piece of legislation that also covers, for example: a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking; and a framework for research into online safety. AI is also an important driver of economic growth. More than that, the government has been trying to tread a middle path between the more restrictive European approach and the American policy of laissez-faire. If Britain annoys the Americans, who lead in the sector, it might spoil the trade deal and relations more widely. Can't the government just force it through? Not easily. The deadlock between the Commons and Lords is such that either the bill gets amended to the satisfaction of both sides, or it cannot go forward for final readings and ultimately royal assent. This resistance by the Lords is exceptional and called 'double insistence', arising from the fact that the bill originated in the Lords rather than the Commons. (It must have been assumed to be less controversial.) But in the end, the government could get its way by invoking the Parliament Act, which trumps anything. The new law would be delayed, but the rebels might lose their cause by refusing to compromise. What is likely to happen? A compromise – but with further Lords reform in the way, the rebel peers may feel they have nothing to lose. By delaying the bill, they would force ministers to think again and allow the campaign by Elton John and his formidable creative forces to regroup and build more momentum – the issue still lacks much salience with the public. Either way, it has been tough on the personable Peter Kyle, secretary of state for science, innovation and technology.
The Guardian
12-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
House of Lords pushes back against government's AI plans
The government has suffered another setback in the House of Lords over its plans to let artificial intelligence firms use copyright-protected work without permission. An amendment to the data bill requiring AI companies to reveal which copyrighted material is used in their models was backed by peers, despite government opposition. It is the second time parliament's upper house has demanded tech companies make clear whether they have used copyright-protected content. The vote came days after hundreds of artists and organisations including Paul McCartney, Jeanette Winterson, Dua Lipa and the Royal Shakespeare Company urged the prime minister not to 'give our work away at the behest of a handful of powerful overseas tech companies'. The amendment was tabled by crossbench peer Beeban Kidron and was passed by 272 votes to 125. The bill will now return to the House of Commons where the government is expected to remove it, setting the scene for another confrontation in the Lords next week. Lady Kidron said: 'I want to reject the notion that those of us who are against government plans are against technology. Creators do not deny the creative and economic value of AI, but we do deny the assertion that we should have to build AI for free with our work, and then rent it back from those who stole it. 'My lords, it is an assault on the British economy and it is happening at scale to a sector worth £120bn to the UK, an industry that is central to the industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import.' The government's copyright proposals are the subject of a consultation due to report back this year, but opponents of the plans have used the data bill as a vehicle for registering their disapproval. The main government proposal is to let AI firms use copyright-protected work to build their models without permission, unless the copyright holders signal they do not want their work to be used in that process – a solution that critics say is impractical and unworkable. The government insists, however, that the present situation is holding back both the creative and tech sectors and needs to be resolved by new legislation. It has already tabled one concession in the data bill, by committing to an economic impact assessment of its proposals. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion A source close to the tech secretary, Peter Kyle, said this month that the 'opt out' scenario was no longer his preferred option but one of several being given consideration.
The Independent
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Producer Giles Martin says Government must do more to ‘protect artists' from AI
The Government must do more to 'protect artists' from AI developers as a data Bill moves through parliament, award-winning producer Giles Martin has said. Creatives, industry leaders and politicians gathered in central London to call on the Government to scrap plans that would allow AI developers to use creative content without permission or payment. It comes ahead of a parliamentary debate where MPs are due to discuss the Data (Use and Access) Bill which primarily covers data-sharing agreements, but has received a backlash from the likes of UK Music after transparency safeguards were removed at committee stage. Martin, a Grammy-winning English record producer and son of Beatles producer George Martin, attended the event claiming that the Government is not doing enough 'to protect artists'. He said: 'The Government seem to be more and more influenced by large technology companies, seem more impressed by them. '(If) Paul McCartney today writes Yesterday, that should belong to him, or he should just say what happens to that, or his voice. He should say what happens to his voice and right now, with the Government, they're not doing enough to protect artists. 'If you make something, if something is yours, it shouldn't be taken by a company and used without your permission. It's as simple as that.' UK Music claims the Bill would put creatives at risk after amendments put forward by Baroness Kidron to ensure transparency and international compliance safeguards were removed. The protest saw industry leaders and creatives call on the Government to make changes to the Bill to ensure that companies training generative AI models, such as ChatGPT, disclose whether work by a human creator has been used and protect creatives under existing copyright rules. Martin added: 'I think we should be worried about protecting artists, and actually not just artists. I think people's own personalities, their own voices, their own creations. I think that's what needs to grow. I think we need to look after the individual. I think tech companies will look after themselves.' Currently, British songs, films, paintings and news articles are protected under UK copyright law but a recent Government consultation proposed that it could offer tech companies free access to British music, films, books and more in order to train generative AI models without permission or payment, with creators required to 'opt-out' if they do not want their work to be used. Alex Sobel, MP for Leeds and Central and Headingley, who also attended the event, tabled an amendment to the Bill, requiring greater transparency from tech companies, ensuring that creatives know when their work is being used and how. Mr Sobel said: 'I'm very concerned about creator content being ingested by AI without any traceability. 'It's really important for creators, creative industries, that we have traceability, that we know what's going in, so artists and creative companies are not completely deluded of income in the future. 'It could absolutely ruin the creative industries in the UK.' The consequences of the Bill, if the amendments do not go through, could point to a future with 'no income in music' according to Mr Sobel. Describing how this would impact new artists if protections are not added to the Bill, Mr Sobel said: (AI models would) ingest a few different catalogues of similar artists, Dua Lipa, Calvin Harris, etc. You create a song, the song sounds just like them. The streamers just put those AI-generated songs. 'Artists don't get anything. Record companies don't get anything because nobody knows what was ingested in so people are listening to content but nobody's earning any income. And what happens in future? No new artists come through because there's no income in music. So then we just have legacy industry, and nothing new. 'What we don't want to do is stop progress. All we do is ensure that those creators and creative industries who generate the content are being recognised and enumerated. 'I think there's a lack of understanding about the real significant dangers, because it's a new area, because it's complicated, because it's confusing. 'There isn't just one form of AI. There's generative AI, which is this one we're worried about. But there's also assistive AI, where artists might use AI to create songs, that's completely different, and people can easily get confused between different types of AI and what they do and how they operate.' Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, chairman of UK Music, said: 'The UK music industry has always embraced tech. We've been at the forefront of using tech to create new sounds to give new energy to different generations of music. That's not going away. But what we're saying is there is a danger with this particular technology. 'We're at a critical point in the future of British music. Give our creators and music and businesses protections they need and deserve, and we can carry on going forward with the British music industry in good condition.'
