On the 26th of February 2025 newsstands across the UK looked a bit different. Rather than the usual partisan political takes and celebrity gossip, every major newspaper displayed the same front page – a call to action to ‘Make it Fair’. The campaign (https://newsmediauk.org/make-it-fair/) is protesting UK government plans to allow tech companies to “power their AI models without permission or payment unless the creators specifically say “no.””.

This campaign follows a lengthy consultation where the UK government sought input as to the impact artificial intelligence – in particular generative artificial intelligence – is having on the UK’s creative industries. You can read more about the consultation here: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-impact-on-creative-industries/

The government has suggested a model where exceptions are made to copyright laws to allow for text and data mining, which would be largely in keeping with the EU, and where artists/creatives would have to opt-out in order to reserve their rights. In essence, this would mean that tech companies would be able to use previously copyrighted material in order to train their AI models without compensating the original creators.

The government’s justification for their proposed course of action is, ostensibly, to make the UK an attractive place for AI-related investment and to encourage innovation. The push back from the creative industries claims that this will undermine human creativity and make it harder than ever to make a living in the arts. Over 1,000 British musical acts put their name to a silent protest album titled “Is This What We Want” to represent “the impact we expect the government’s proposals would have on musicians’ livelihoods”.

As you’d expect, the claims on both sides are being hotly contested. There’s the question of how UK copyright law would be enforced if it’s infringed upon by overseas organisations – the Berne and Universal Copyright Conventions may not be up to the task of tackling this new moral and logistical argument. Similarly, there’s the argument that what generative AI creates is ‘transformative’ and new and therefore traditional copyright laws are not applicable. Where you fall on this argument is mostly a philosophical question.

Conversely, what kind of message does it send to creatives in the UK when the government gives tech companies free reign to profit from their work without having to compensate them in any way? According to Make It Fair, the creative industries in the UK generate £120bn per year for the economy – not an insignificant amount. The ‘opt-out’ approach is also causing concern due to the vague and as-yet-not-invented mechanism by which this would work. With opt-out as the default the advantage is immediately with the tech companies – it’s unclear why the responsibility should lie with the creative to ensure they reserve their rights rather than with companies to ensure they’re acting lawfully. It seems that making opt-in the default option would be a sensible way of getting around this – it would provide agency to creatives while also affording AI companies the peace of mind that the data they’re using has been accrued consensually and legally.

In many ways the argument boils down what you believe is more important – UK tech companies having free data to train their models on, or protecting the rights of creatives. The battle rages on in hearts, minds and courts around the world – where we land, at this point, is anyone’s guess.