An aerial shot of London. Photo Credit: Jaanus Jagomägi
The major labels and the indie sector alike are pushing back against a UK government proposal that would allegedly allow AI giants to train on protected works with impunity.
Universal Music’s Lucian Grainge, Sony Music’s Rob Stringer, Warner Music’s Robert Kyncl, and others just recently took aim at the controversial training framework, which we first covered back in December.
In short, the measure as outlined would enable gen-AI developers to (lawfully) train models on copyrighted materials unless rightsholders expressly opt out. Amid well-documented artificial intelligence training concerns, the likes of news companies, authors, and music-space players promptly voiced their opposition.
At least in theory, the training proposal is designed to encourage UK investments from AI companies, which are grappling with stiff regulatory scrutiny in the EU. (Even so, some maintain that the EU’s voluminous AI Act is failing to adequately protect copyrights.)
To be sure, Prime Minister Keir Starmer in mid-January not-so-subtly unveiled a “blueprint to turbocharge AI,” which will purportedly “deliver a decade of national renewal.”
But according to critics including the majors, which weighed in ahead of a February 25th consultation cutoff, the proposal would compromise intellectual property rights as well as the monetization of music.
Without diving too far into the corresponding remarks, which span hundreds of words in total, Grainge indicated that the United Kingdom “stands at a decisive crossroads” regarding its ability to protect IP.
Kyncl added that the training proposal would be “very detrimental” to the music sphere, and Stringer underscored the belief that “creators must be rewarded for being part of this [AI] technological revolution.”
Additionally, Association of Independent Music (AIM) chief executive Gee Davy told Digital Music News that the AI training “exception would put Britain in a race to the bottom.”
“The UK’s independent music businesses are innovative, tech-friendly early adopters who are excited about where AI can help them, but not at the expense of musicians’ abilities to make a living,” Davy said to DMN.
“A text and data mining exception would put Britain in a race to the bottom rather than fostering a system where both music and AI can thrive across the UK,” the AIM head continued. “What’s more, the Government’s proposal of an opt-out system would place a disproportionate burden on smaller players and market entrants. Independents want to work with AI developers to create frameworks for mutual growth and success.”
Instead of having an opt-out option, creators should automatically enjoy training safeguards, the above-mentioned Daily Mail campaign relayed.
Lawmakers should further amend the UK’s Data Bill to bolster copyright protections in the AI era, according once again to the campaign. Said amendment has drawn support from Paul McCartney, Elton John, several organizations, and, perhaps most importantly, a number of peers, per regional reports.
As the multifaceted lawmaking process plays out across the pond, pressing AI questions remain in the States. Just in passing, that includes conflicting views and decisions about what exactly constitutes fair use – besides a recent AI (but not generative AI, it’s worth reiterating) legal win for Thomson Reuters.