A copyright madness in the UK has been defeated - but only for now

British government plans to give away the nation's IP for LLM training have thankfully been stymied for the moment. Why do they think it's a good idea?

by Rob Corbidge

Published: 16:52, 06 February 2025

Explaining the UK's constitutional arrangements is a bit like going through Lady Gaga's sock drawer. There are some choices there that are inexplicable without context. And even then, the mystery can remain. 

The unelected second house, the House of Lords, is frequently targeted for reform by incoming governments, who then realise that being able to elevate some of their friends and backers as Peers of the Realm to the upper chamber is an excellent way of rewarding loyalty, and reforming zeal is extinguished by political reality.

However, it's hard to argue that such a curious arrangement is without merit, given the members of the House of Lords frequently put the brakes on sillier ideas sent up from the House of Commons. Not being at the direct mercy of the electorate makes them more circumspect, in most cases.

So it is with copyright law.  A week ago, the UK government had its plans to reform copyright law to make the country "more competitive" in AI derailed in the Lords, at least for the moment, after Peers voted 145 to 126 in favour of a number of amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, most importantly an amendment that would require all generative AI companies to respect UK copyright law if they sell their products in the UK.

The development comes after it was suggested by the government that it could introduce an exemption to UK copyright law specifically for "text and data mining". Now, the bill must return to the lower chamber for further consideration.

Notably, the government was serious about this. Equally notably, enough Peers from both the major parties, right and left, rebelled against their formal party voting instructions and voted with the copyright protection amendment. The amendment itself was put forward and promoted by the excellent Baroness Kidron, who sits as a crossbencher, or independent, in the Lords. She's the daughter of a renowned publishing family. She also knows the value of published things.

Seemingly, the current administration is under pressure to generate "growth". It is not acting on some ideological, or even self-interested grounds in trying to push this copyright issue, but rather on an idea that the UK must "open up" copyrighted content to AI, in the same manner it would advocate "opening up" to investment. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of original work, as opposed to a processed, collated and neutralised version of it given to us by some AI.

That misunderstanding leads to them not being able to see where the lion's share of value in this particular chain sits, perhaps not so surprising in an age transfixed by the medium, not the message. Such is the anxiety to be seen to keep up, or be on the latest thing so you can mention it in speeches, that even such an idea as removing copyright protections can seem a good idea, as the means justifies the ends. It is the awful mark of short-term political thinking. It is actually the embodiment of the technological myopia they are so terribly keen to be seen avoiding.

Such a notion of "opening up" sounds good, it sounds positive, it sounds like they're getting on top of the latest technological trend, but all it means is that people are being forced to give stuff of value away for free to a few wealthy tech companies, and punishing the creative industries, a sector where the UK gives a good account of itself. It's not a case of "Who stole my cheese?", it's more a case of "Who gave my cheese away?". As Matt Rogerson, head of policy for The Financial Times told UK Press Gazette this week, watering down UK copyright law to allow for access to train LLMs would be a "huge mistake" and a question of "right or wrong". 

This happened on the exact same day that the US Copyright Office ruled that artists can copyright works they used AI to help create, as long as the "centrality of human creativity" was apparent in the work.

"Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection," said a statement from Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter. 

That phrase, the "centrality of human creativity" does a pretty good job in nailing down the joint lightning that is cultural and technological change. It also didn't require a legislative chamber.