UK designers oppose government's AI copyright proposal

The UK government's proposal to amend copyright laws to allow artificial intelligence companies to use copyrighted works without explicit permission has sparked concern among designers and intellectual property experts.

In a statement addressed to Technology Secretary Peter Kyle, nearly three dozen influential designers, including Sebastian Conran and Sir David Chipperfield, have voiced their opposition to the suggested modifications. They believe the changes could adversely affect the creative sector, which is a significant contributor to the UK economy.

Iona Silverman, Intellectual Property & Media Partner at Freeths in London, commented on the situation, explaining the complexities surrounding AI's use of content. "AI's use of content is unprecedented," Silverman noted. "If we rewind a few years, we can all be fairly comfortable that I am allowed to listen to a song, be inspired by it, and write my own (not too similar) song. I am not, however, allowed to copy someone else's song or to use it without permission (for instance, in my social media post). The problem with AI, is that it does not copy or use copyright protected works in the traditional way, instead it learns from them to create something new. In the old world that was entirely permissible. However, the rate at which AI can consume content, and churn out new content is unprecedented."

Silverman highlighted the concerns of creatives across all industries, fearing that AI's capability to generate and saturate the market with new content could lead to a devaluation of their work. "There is understandable concern from creatives across all sectors that AI will use their works to flood the market with new content. This will drive prices down, meaning already poorly paid creatives will receive even less for their work," she continued.

The government's proposal aims to allow AI to mine data for various purposes, including commercial ones, potentially enabling AI to learn from available creative works without compensating the original creators. "The Government's proposal is to allow AI to mine data for any purpose, including commercial purposes. This would effectively mean that AI would be permitted to learn from any creative works that it can access, without any remuneration being due to the creators," Silverman explained. She also mentioned the potential need for creators to enforce strict access controls, such as paywalls, to protect their work.

Iain Connor, an intellectual property lawyer and partner at Michelmores LLP, remarked on the issue as part of ongoing efforts by the creative industries to influence government decisions. "This is the latest salvo from the creative industries to get the government to back the House of Lords' amendments to Data (Use and Access) Bill which are designed to bolster the position of copyright holders," he stated.

Connor added, "The issue for designers, musicians, writers, etc is that unchecked, AI models learn from copyright protected works and then go on to use an amalgam of these works to compete against the very people from whom the AI took the copyright material without permission. The government is torn between a desire to protect one of the UK's most successful industries and a wish to be at the forefront of the AI revolution; so far, it has failed to show leadership on either."

The group of designers expressed their apprehension over the potential ramifications of the proposal. In their statement, they argued, "We are concerned that the DSIT secretary of state, Peter Kyle, is running roughshod over one of our most productive and precious sectors." They urged the government to compel AI companies to adhere to existing copyright laws, underlining the critical role of intellectual property in their industry.

A government spokesperson, however, defended the proposed changes, arguing that the current copyright framework limits the creative industries' potential growth.