{"id":89294,"date":"2025-02-15T08:08:13","date_gmt":"2025-02-15T08:08:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/business\/legal\/clock-is-ticking-for-responses-to-uk-government-consultation-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence\/"},"modified":"2025-02-15T08:08:13","modified_gmt":"2025-02-15T08:08:13","slug":"clock-is-ticking-for-responses-to-uk-government-consultation-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=89294","title":{"rendered":"Clock is Ticking for Responses to UK Government Consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n

The authors wish to thank Sumaiyah Razzaq for her contributions to this post.<\/em><\/p>\n

Ever since the emergence of generative AI, a major concern for all participants has been the extent to which copyright works can and should be used in training AI models.<\/p>\n

The application of UK copyright law for this purpose is disputed, leading to inevitable high-profile tension between, on one hand, rights holders keen to control and be paid for use of their work and, on the other, developers who argue that this legal uncertainty is undermining investment in, and the development of, AI in the UK.<\/p>\n

Whilst cases are making their way through the courts in the UK and further afield (such as in Germany[1]<\/a> and the US[2]<\/a>) on this issue, there have been frequent calls for specific legislation (including by the UK government itself, which has publicly stated that the status quo<\/em> cannot continue).<\/p>\n

As a result, the UK government has launched a consultation[3]<\/a> open until 25 February 2025 inviting interested parties to submit feedback on potential changes to UK copyright legislation in light of AI. The options set out in the consultation, and on which feedback is sought, range from doing nothing through to the introduction of broad data mining rights which would allow use of copyright works for AI training (including for commercial use), without rights holders\u2019 permission and subject to few or no restrictions.<\/p>\n

The Options<\/strong><\/p>\n

The consultation invites feedback on four potential options under consideration:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Do nothing and leave UK copyright and other related laws as they are<\/strong> \u2013 essentially this would defer the matter to the courts to resolve on a piecemeal and ad-hoc basis. Whilst feedback on this option is invited the consultation makes clear this is not an option looked upon favourably by the government, given that it would prolong the current legal uncertainty.<\/li>\n
  2. The opt-in model requiring licensing in all cases<\/strong> \u2013 this would strengthen copyright protection for rights holders by providing that AI models could only be trained on copyright works in the UK if an express licence to do so has been granted. This option is likely to be popular with rightsholders, but at odds with the government\u2019s desire to turbocharge the AI economy in the UK.<\/li>\n
  3. A broad data mining<\/strong> exception<\/strong> \u2013 this would follow a similar approach already seen in Singapore[4]<\/a> (and to some extent in the US under its \u201cfair use\u201d standards) and allow data mining on copyrighted works in the UK, including for AI training, without the rights holder\u2019s permission. Under this approach, copyrighted material could be used for commercial purposes, and would be subject to few, if any, restrictions. Needless to say, this option is likely to be very popular with AI developers but is the least favoured by rights holders.<\/li>\n
  4. Allow data mining but copyright holders to reserve their rights along with increased transparency measures <\/strong>\u2013 this is the middle ground between options 2 and 3, and would allow AI\u00a0developers to train AI models using material to which they have lawful access, but only to the extent that right holders have not expressly reserved their rights. Any such use would also be subject to robust transparency measures requiring developers to be transparent about what material their AI models have been trained on. For rights holders, this means an \u201copt-out\u201d as opposed to \u201copt-in\u201d model and pro-active monitoring to identify unauthorised use.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Unanswered Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Option 4 broadly follows the approach which has already been seen in the EU under the not uncontroversial text and data mining exception in the EU Directive on the Digital Single Market,[5]<\/a> which has been further enhanced by the EU AI Act[6]<\/a> which declared these text and data mining exceptions to be applicable to general-purpose AI models. The government\u2019s view expressed in the consultation is that option 4 \u00a0is the option which would balance the rights of all participants, although the EU approach was rejected by the previous government as being a threat to rightsholders interests.<\/p>\n

    However, at this stage it does not represent a \u201csilver bullet\u201d as many issues would still need to be resolved, including those set out below:<\/p>\n