The new government proposal could impact creators' rights and future earnings from works that are used to train generative AI systems. Image credit: Shutterstock.
Last year, the music industry faced down a government-proposed exception to UK copyright law. The law would have allowed the unrestricted use of musical recordings and compositions to train generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, without any requirement for consent from, or payment to, the original creators.
Today sees the launch of a new government consultation on a revamped AI training exception.
Does the proposal this time include the safeguards required, or are we looking at yet another fight to protect the future of the UK music industry and its talented composers and musicians?
Artists’ works are regularly being used to train AI without permission
Generative AI services are popping up everywhere across the creative industries, allowing users to create AI-generated music, art, photographs, and stories with the input of a few keywords.
These services have been trained on millions of human creations scraped from the internet, mostly without the knowledge of the original creator and no intention of sharing the revenue generated.
There is currently no requirement for AI tech firms to be transparent about which works they have used to train their systems, and no requirement for clear labelling of the AI-generated output.
All calls from industry to-date for the government (mostly the previous Tory government) to publicly state that copyright has been breached in the training of generative AI systems have gone completely unanswered.
The consultation
What is being proposed is an exception to UK copyright law for the training of AI systems for commercial purposes (there is already an exception for non-commercial research purposes).
This is exactly what was proposed back in 2023, but this time it is proposed to introduce a mechanism for rights holders to “reserve” their rights and therefore either prevent their works from being used to train AI systems, or negotiate a licence to permit their use, presumably in return for a fee.
Strengthened transparency requirements on AI firms are also proposed to facilitate the rights reservation mechanism.
Read the full consultation
Individual creators should have control over how their works are used
We will be responding to assert that individual creators, not just record labels and publishers should have the ability to reserve their rights and prevent their works being used to train AI systems.
The argument from rightsholders will be that this right has already been transferred to them through contracts or session forms, and therefore they are the ones who are able to say “yes” or “no” to use for AI training, and to negotiate what the licensing deal and fee will look like.
Our counter will be that most contracts were signed long before anyone had knowledge of AI and the effect it could have on creators’ future earnings.
24% of creator remuneration is at risk from AI music over the next five years
A recent study by CISAC found that 24% of creator remuneration was at risk from AI music over the next five years, if the legal framework was not amended to better protect creators’ rights.
The ability to reserve rights in this case should be individual and unwaivable. Without this, why would any creator sign a future recording contract or publishing deal, knowing that whatever they created was just being lined-up as the fuel to keep AI churning out fresh material and generating income for US tech giants?
There are other issues to consider. Even if individual creators are afforded the right to opt their works out of AI training, what transparency obligations are going to be placed on the tech firms? How are creators going to find out if their works have been used?
How do they exercise their opt out, and how do they know that the tech firms have acted upon it? Will they have the ability to opt out universally, or are they going to have to spend the rest of their careers playing AI whack-a-mole, issuing opt out notices to individual new system providers on a daily basis?
The MU will be fighting for consent, credit and fair compensation for all creators
The consultation is open for ten weeks, so we have time to consider the proposals in detail, work with industry partners and fellow creator representatives to try to build consensus.
An industry-wide response speaking in union is likely to hold more sway with government than a lone voice.
This is a unique opportunity for government to get this right. A solution is available that will allow developers to comply with the law and license musical works that are willingly offered by creators for the purpose of training AI systems - in return for a fair share of the income generated from the exploitation of the output.
The MU will be fighting to make sure this happens.