The UK’s creative industries, a sector worth £124 billion, are facing an unprecedented threat from artificial intelligence (AI) systems, and the Labour government appears alarmingly complacent. On December 17th, amidst the festive distractions, Keir Starmer’s administration launched a consultation that, if implemented, could dismantle copyright protections, allowing AI companies to train on copyrighted material without obtaining prior consent.
This policy proposal, spearheaded by Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, has sent shockwaves through the creative sector. Kyle claimed that the current AI and copyright framework hinders both the UK’s creative industries and its burgeoning AI sector from competing globally. Yet this assertion has been met with widespread scepticism. Copyright is not an impediment; it is the very foundation upon which the UK’s creative industries thrive. By enabling the wholesale appropriation of copyrighted material, the government risks legitimising theft on a grand scale.
The creative backlash
The reaction from the creative sector has been fierce. Legendary filmmaker Steven Spielberg voiced his fears about the existential threat AI poses to human creativity, stating, “The human soul is unimaginable and ineffable. It cannot be created by any algorithm.” Spielberg is joined by a chorus of prominent figures, including musicians Ed Sheeran and John Legend, who have criticised AI’s encroachment on their intellectual property. Actor Stephen Fry has also spoken out after discovering his voice was cloned without his consent to narrate a documentary, calling it a gross violation of his rights.
This anger is rooted in the knowledge that the government’s proposed measures could reduce artists, writers, and musicians to mere data points in an AI training dataset. As Baroness Beeban Kidron succinctly put it: “Should shopkeepers have to opt out of shoplifters? Should victims of violence have to opt out of attacks? Why should creators have to opt out of having their work stolen?”
Copyright under siege
Copyright exists to protect the value of human creativity. It ensures that artists, authors, and musicians are compensated for their work while fostering innovation and competition. Yet the Labour government’s stance risks undermining this balance. Under the proposed rules, AI companies would no longer need explicit permission to use copyrighted material; creators would instead have to proactively opt out via complex technical measures, a task that is neither practical nor enforceable.
This approach is tantamount to artistic vandalism. By failing to enforce copyright protections, the government signals a willingness to sacrifice the creative industries at the altar of tech industry profits.
Tech exceptionalism and labour’s misstep
Peter Kyle’s suggestion that countries should approach tech giants like Meta, Google, and Microsoft with “humility” reflects a troubling deference to corporate interests. Rather than holding these firms accountable, Labour appears willing to grant them extraordinary leeway, even at the expense of the UK’s cultural heritage.
As Sophie Jones, Chief Strategy Officer at the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), warns, “While the British music industry is already embracing AI’s many positive use-cases, a broad copyright exception for text and data mining by AI firms would be hugely damaging to the UK’s creative industries.”
More Read
The Labour government’s pre-election manifesto made scant mention of the creative industries, and this glaring oversight continues. It is a tragic miscalculation, given the sector’s critical contribution to the economy and cultural identity.
What must be done
To safeguard the future of Britain’s creative industries, the government must unequivocally uphold copyright protections. AI companies should be required to seek permission and pay for the use of copyrighted material, just as any other business would. Granting exceptions to tech firms undermines the rule of law and devalues the work of creators who fuel the UK’s global cultural reputation.
The creative industries are not resistant to technological progress; on the contrary, they have been at the forefront of embracing AI’s potential. However, they rightly reject a system that permits unchecked exploitation of their intellectual property. If the government persists with its current approach, it risks eroding the foundations of an industry that is both a significant economic driver and a vital part of the nation’s identity.
As the Labour government appears intent on appeasing the tech sector, it must recognise the long-term consequences of its actions. To maintain the UK’s status as a global creative powerhouse, copyright laws must be enforced with rigour and fairness, ensuring that innovation does not come at the cost of exploitation. The creative industries deserve better than to be treated as collateral damage in the pursuit of tech sector appeasement.
