MU General Secretary Naomi Pohl has spoken to Culture Minister Chris Bryant to raise our concerns and we will be submitting a detailed consultation response. Photo: Shutterstock.
As many of you will be aware, the government is currently consulting both creative and tech industries on a proposal to introduce a new exception in UK copyright law.
This exception would permit tech firms to use creative works, including songs and recordings, to train Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems for commercial purposes without any need for permission from, or payment to, the original creators or rights holders.
If you are getting déjà vu reading this, it’s probably because the previous government consulted on the same thing back in 2023. Thankfully, at that time, they were made to see sense by creative industry representatives and backed down.
The new proposal includes a ‘transparency requirement’ and ‘rights reservation mechanism’
This time around, the proposal includes an additional “transparency requirement” to be placed upon tech firms, which would at least permit creators and rights holders to know when their works had been used to train AI systems, although details remain vague.
It also includes a proposed “rights reservation” mechanism, which is intended to allow rights holders to opt out of the exception and either entirely prevent their works being used, or negotiate a licence with the tech firms for use of their works in return for a fee.
The MU will contine to lobby government
MU General Secretary Naomi Pohl has spoken to Culture Minister Chris Bryant to raise our concerns (which are outlined below), and we will be submitting a detailed consultation response.
The Union is also locked in conversations with politicians, other music industry bodies, trade unions and other organisations across the creative sector to ensure that these concerns are heard, and to try to find a solution that works for our members and all UK creators.
Ways to have your say on copyright and AI
We strongly encourage members to submit their own response too. You can get involved by:
Please view the online consultation document for more guidance when responding to the consultation. The deadline for responses is 25 February.
Suggested points to consider when responding to the consultation
At this stage, the Musicians’ Union has a number of concerns and questions about the proposal:
- What is the need for the proposed exception?
There is discussion ongoing elsewhere regarding AI access to private medical records. If such a scheme were to result in a cure for cancer, for instance, most reasonable people would accept the intrusion on their privacy was probably worth it. What is the equivalent argument driving the need for free access to creative works? To permit the generation of AI music? How does that benefit humankind?
- Where is the market failure?
AI requires huge numbers of creative works for training purposes in order to build an effective working model that produces realistic, useful output. The tech firms are claiming, it seems, that the exception is required in order for them to gain access to works in these numbers.
No evidence has been provided to back up any attempts being made to legitimately license works from rights holders and of those requests being refused. Our argument would be, if the tech firms offer sufficient financial incentive there will no doubt be plenty of rights holders ready to license works. As it stands, they don’t seem prepared to offer any financial incentive at all – they just want works handed to them for free!
- Which works will the proposed “rights reservation” apply to?
The tech firms have already scraped the entire internet of creative works (apparently), and there is no clarity within the consultation about whether any rights reservation will apply retrospectively to these works, or whether it’s only going to apply going forward.
Obviously, we’d want to see it being applied entirely retrospectively with payment for use of works already scraped, and the ability to prevent ongoing use of these works moving forward, but the tech firms will no doubt argue that removal of works from their models is too technically challenging and costly. It feels a lot like standing on your driveway negotiating with a burglar about the contents of your house they’ve just loaded into the back of their van!
- Who will be able to effect a “rights reservation”?
There is also a significant lack of clarity on who would be able to reserve rights under the proposed scheme. The consultation announcements from ministers trumpeted protections for musicians and artists, but the consultation itself is deafeningly silent on whether individual performers will be able to effect a “rights reservation” or just the rights holder (record label or publisher in the case of music).
You can understand that neither government or tech firms want to be negotiating with 120 musicians on an orchestral recording, and then failing to agree on a licence because one violinist decides to reserve their rights. However, every musician who performed on that recording is likely to see a negative effect on their income and work opportunities as a result of AI, so why shouldn’t they all have a say in whether the recording is used, and why shouldn’t they all be entitled to a say in the level and structure of payment required in return for agreeing a licence?
- The exception will unfairly penalise sole traders and small businesses
The consultation suggests that “rights reservation” will need to be attached to the work and be machine readable. This will permit web-crawlers to identify the work as un-scrapable and move on to the next thing.
Large record labels and publishers will firstly be aware of the requirement and secondly, have the capacity and expertise to effect such reservations easily enough, and to negotiate a satisfactory deal with the tech firms should they decide to license works under their control. Individuals and small businesses will, without doubt be less informed, have less capacity and know how, and considerably less bargaining power.
The exception therefore risks AI systems being awash with works outside those controlled by the major labels, that they have swept up for free simply through the inactivity or inability of their owners to prevent it.
- What about copies of works?
Let’s assume that a sole trader has managed to add a machine-readable rights reservation tag to their recordings, but then one of them is used in a film soundtrack, an advert, a YouTube video etc. The user didn’t go through the appropriate process, they just ripped the audio from the internet, or a physical copy. As a result, there’s now a version of the recording out in the world without the required rights reservation, ready to be hoovered up by AI.
Again, a major label may have the resources to chase down and stamp on such issues, but a small enterprise is just going to end up focused on damage limitation rather than an actual creative career.
- What is a reasonable licence fee for permitting AI training?
Given that billions of works are required to make an effective AI model, what will a tech firm be prepared to pay in order to legitimately access each work? Are we talking about a £5 up-front buyout to scrape the work and that’s that? At this stage, no one can tell you precisely the effect that AI generated music will have on the music industry as it is now.
A recent CISAC study suggested it could result in a 24% reduction in creator income in the next 5 years. So, would you be happy to say goodbye to a quarter of your income in return for a one-off payment of £5, while the AI tech firm goes on to make billions for its US owners? Any deal agreed for AI licensing needs to include a share of back-end income, as well as any up-front licensing fee. This needs to be a statutory requirement.