The UK’s House of Lords has dealt the government another setback over its plan to allow AI developers to use copyrighted material without prior consent.
On Monday (May 12), the House of Lords voted 272 to 125 in favor of an amendment to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill that would require AI companies to disclose which copyrighted materials they used in training their systems.
The amendment, which was introduced by crossbench peer Baroness Beeban Kidron, passed despite government opposition. It marks the second time the Lords have supported increased transparency measures in the Bill. In late January, the House of Lords — which has the final say on the passage of bills after they’ve been voted on in the House of Commons — voted 145 to 126 in favor of amendments to the Bill.
The latest vote came shortly after more than 400 artists, creative industries workers and executives signed a letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to urge his government to mandate transparency in the training of AI, and to create a licensing marketplace for AI developers and copyright holders.
The letter — signed by Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, Coldplay, Robbie Williams, Eric Clapton, Tom Jones, and Shirley Bassey — was organized by the Creative Rights in AI Coalition.
“It is an assault on the British economy and it is happening at scale to a sector worth £120 billion ($158 million) to the UK, an industry that is central to the industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import.”
Baroness Beeban Kidron, UK House of Lords
The Bill will now return to the House of Commons, where the government could attempt to strip the amendment. If that happens, it will trigger another showdown in the House of Lords next week, according to The Guardian. The Telegraph said it is likely to be defeated by Labour MPs when it returns to the Commons.
The vote was met with approval from recorded music trade group BPI.
“The House of Lords has once again taken the right decision by voting to establish vital transparency obligations for AI companies,” BPI Chief Strategy Officer Sophie Jones said.
“Transparency is crucial in ensuring that the creative industries can retain control over how their works are used, enabling both the licensing and enforcement of rights. If the Government chooses to remove this clause in the House of Commons, it would be preventing progress on a fundamental cornerstone which can help build trust and greater collaboration between the creative and tech sectors, and it would be at odds with its own ambition to build a licensing market in the UK.”
During Monday’s debate, Baroness Kidron said, as quoted by The Guardian: “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 £120 billion ($158 billion) to the UK, an industry that is central to the industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import.”
“Without action this day, news will die in the cold darkness of cyberspace where no legal framework exists – the advertising which supports it taken by the platforms, its content stolen by AI. There will be only a husk left.”
Lord Guy Black, UK House of Lords
At the debate, Lord Guy Black, the deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, said the government was “legalizing theft” and letting AI “plunder someone else’s work and profit from it,” The Telegraph reported.
Lord Black also warned that the Bill poses an “existential threat” to the press: “AI has the capacity utterly to destroy independent news organizations because it feasts off millions of articles written by journalists without any attribution or payment, destroying the business model that makes the free press possible.”
“Without action this day, news will die in the cold darkness of cyberspace where no legal framework exists – the advertising which supports it taken by the platforms, its content stolen by AI. There will be only a husk left,” he was quoted by The Telegraph as saying.
The government has initially proposed an “opt-out” system where AI companies could freely use copyrighted material unless rightholders explicitly objected, a solution that has met with widespread criticism across the creative industry.
“If this Bill does not protect copyright now, by the time they work out their policy there will be little to save.”
Baroness Beeban Kidron, UK House of Lords
However, The Guardian reported about two weeks ago that the Starmer government was backing off that idea in the face of widespread opposition. Instead, the government added amendments to the Data Bill that include commitments to conduct an economic impact assessment of the controversial changes and publish reports on transparency, licensing, and data access for AI developers.
According to The Telegraph, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle dropped the opt-out proposal and is now studying a more complex proposal to create a licensing system for copyright holders and AI developers.
A spokesperson for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology told The Guardian that the government will not rush any changes on copyright “until we are confident that we have a practical plan which delivers on each of our objectives.”
The Center for Data Innovation criticized the Lords’ vote, warning that the amendment could jeopardize the Bill’s passage.
Ayesha Bhatti, head of digital policy for the UK and EU at the Center for Data Innovation, said: “The amendments limit access to data, thwarting the very purpose of the Bill, and present a significant risk to its passage. If accepted as it currently stands, the Bill would have far-reaching consequences for the UK’s AI ecosystem, introducing technically difficult and costly legal requirements and stifling innovation at a critical moment for the sector.”
“If accepted as it currently stands, the Bill would have far-reaching consequences for the UK’s AI ecosystem, introducing technically difficult and costly legal requirements and stifling innovation at a critical moment for the sector.”
Ayesha Bhatti, Center for Data Innovation
Baroness Kidron, however, said transparency is needed so the government could enforce existing copyright laws. She told peers during the Monday session: “We do not need to change copyright law. We need transparency so that we can enforce copyright law, because what you cannot see, you cannot enforce.”
“If this Bill does not protect copyright now, by the time they work out their policy there will be little to save,” Kidron was quoted by The Telegraph as saying.
Music Business Worldwide
