<\/p>\n
Industry bodies welcomed the government\u2019s announcement last month that it has ditched plans to allow AI firms to use copyrighted works without permission<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Here, Gregor Pryor, managing partner EME at Reed Smith<\/a>, looks at the developments that led to this point and what the industry should expect to happen next with AI and copyright\u2026\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n After many months of uncertainty, the UK government has abandoned plans to allow the operators of AI models to use copyrighted works without permission. Whilst this stops some way short of a complete victory <\/span>in favour of creators<\/span><\/a>, it is a clear step towards a more rights-holder friendly national approach. It is welcome news for many in the music industry. But there are still big issues on the horizon.<\/span><\/p>\n To recap, the government has ditched the broad exception for text and data mining and controversial plans which would have seen music rights-holders having to <\/span>actively opt-out of their copyrights being used by AI companies<\/span><\/a>. Encouragingly, there is also a proposal to collaborate with AI companies to ensure transparency and best practice.<\/span><\/p>\n The report strikes a realistic balance by acknowledging the fast-growing market for <\/span>legitimate licensing for AI training data<\/span><\/a>, perhaps paving the way for an adaptable and sophisticated licensing ecosystem which benefits both creatives and technology companies moving forward.<\/span><\/p>\n Assuming that AI is clearly here to stay \u2013 how did we get to this latest report? And what could be next for the music industry as it grapples with this new force?<\/span><\/p>\n The build up: copyright, content, and controversy<\/strong><\/p>\n The intersection between copyright law and data protection has never been more topical. Yes, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 gave the country something of a roadmap for navigating these challenges, but questions and controversies still abound. Only at the start of March did the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee publish a report declaring that <\/span>\u2018UK creative industries face a clear and present danger from generative AI\u2019<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n For instance, data relating to music content typically contains both copyright and personal data in an AI context. The music and tech industries have been waiting for much-needed guidance on how these two legal protections will be dealt with. Licensing pilots are already underway in attempts to forge a path, but they are still nascent and more government guidance has been needed.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also the political context. In 2023 Rishi Sunak detailed the risks and responsibilities which AI brings. Labour’s manifesto pledged to \u201censure the safe development and use of AI models\u201d whilst in the King\u2019s Speech they aimed to \u201charness [its] power\u201d. Following the pushback Labour\u2019s proposals have received since \u2013 driven in no small part by music industry figures \u2013 March\u2019s announcements were also an attempt to win back favour and push ahead with policymaking.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Top recommendations<\/strong><\/p>\n The announcements raised several proposals for the music industry to digest \u2013 some were more significant and surprising than others.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The biggest news for the music industry is the removal of the opt-out mechanism. This has been the source of much previous controversy \u2013 and concern \u2013 with the likes of <\/span>Elton John and Dua Lipa leading the criticism<\/span><\/a>. Although the wider proposals may have their own strengths and weaknesses, this climbdown by the government is a clear win for music. It is only logical that rights-holders are the ones by default who decide how their content is used, and the advent of AI shouldn\u2019t change this.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n It is only logical that rights-holders are the ones by default who decide how their content is used, and the advent of AI shouldn\u2019t change this<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Gregor Pryor<\/p>\n
\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Second, the government has suggested repealing current provisions in UK copyright law which afford protection to computer-generated works. In many respects, the UK was an outlier when it came to protecting AI-generated works, compared to laws in many other countries. As has happened in the US, this type of change may give rise to questions concerning how critical human involvement is for determining if a work should be protected by copyright.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n For artists and songwriters who include <\/span>AI-generated elements in their work<\/span><\/a>, how will this proposal be put into practice and, more importantly, will it affect their wider protections?<\/span><\/p>\n Third, several ideas were put forward for dealing with digital replicas and deepfakes, including a somewhat radical suggested personality right. It\u2019s hard to find a record label or artist that isn\u2019t against <\/span>deepfakes<\/span><\/a>. With replica and soundalike songs already rife across streaming platforms, the industry will be tracking which proposals are pursued and how much protection they ultimately give.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Overall, the government is clearly willing to trial a largely free-market approach, seeing how the UK industry develops and how other countries react. Whilst some in the industry will welcome this more hands-off strategy, others will be concerned it will allow further threats to creativity and copyright to foment.<\/span><\/p>\n Name, image, and likeness rights \u2013 the next AI frontier for music?<\/strong><\/p>\n