CliffNotes
- Government AI copyright plan defeated again
- Peers voted 242 to 116 in favour of an amendment that would require greater transparency from tech companies
Government AI copyright plan defeated again in the House of Lords
What Happened
The UK government’s proposed Data (Use and Access) Bill has faced its fourth defeat in the House of Lords. Peers voted 242 to 116 in favour of an amendment that would require greater transparency from tech companies using copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence models.
This amendment aims to ensure that creators know when and how their work is being used, allowing the possibility of licensing arrangements.
The Lords’ move comes amid growing concern from musicians and artists – including Sir Elton John – who argue that AI models trained on their work are threatening the future of the creative industries.
Despite repeated rejections by MPs in the Commons, support in the Lords appears to be growing, with many peers saying creators deserve more protection.
The government’s current plan would allow AI developers to use copyrighted material unless the owner actively opts out – a move critics call unfair and opaque.
What Next
The Bill now returns to the House of Commons, possibly for discussion as soon as Tuesday – though that remains unconfirmed.
If the two Houses cannot reach agreement, there is a risk that the entire bill could be shelved, though this is considered unlikely. However, scrapping the bill would also mean losing other key reforms, including:
- Allowing bereaved parents access to their deceased children’s data
- Improving NHS data-sharing
- Creating a 3D underground map of UK pipes and cables
Peers like Baroness Beeban Kidron argue the government is failing UK creators by allowing what she calls “state-sanctioned theft”. In contrast, tech leaders such as Sir Nick Clegg have warned that forcing AI companies to seek permission from all copyright holders could “kill the AI industry” in the UK.
The issue boils down to a clash between the tech and creative sectors, with no clear solution yet. If neither side backs down, the legislation may continue its parliamentary “ping-pong”, leaving the future of AI and copyright regulation in limbo.
