The UK Government’s data reforms are nearing final approval, as the controversial Data (Use and Access) Bill cleared the House of Commons on Wednesday evening. However, the legislation has come under intense scrutiny from creatives, campaigners, and opposition MPs, who argue that it fails to offer adequate protection for artists against the unchecked use of their work by artificial intelligence (AI) developers.
Despite previous amendments made by the House of Lords to bolster copyright protections, ministers opted to remove these changes during the committee stage in the Commons. Efforts by MPs to reinstate them were ultimately unsuccessful. Instead, ministers pledged to carry out an economic impact assessment based on policy options raised in their ongoing copyright and AI consultation.
The move has sparked widespread concern among musicians, writers, and performers, with cultural icons such as Sir Elton John, Annie Lennox, Sir Paul McCartney and Kate Bush accusing the Government of enabling the “theft” of music. They claim the current trajectory could undermine the UK’s creative industries and allow AI developers to exploit copyrighted work without permission or fair payment.
Addressing MPs, Technology Minister Sir Chris Bryant sought to reassure the sector, stating that existing UK law already includes a text and data mining exception – but only for non-commercial research purposes. “I think that is absolutely clear in law, and I don’t think it needs any clarifying,” he said, pushing back on criticism that the Bill weakens protections.
Labour MP Stella Creasy disagreed, arguing the Government’s consultation effectively opens the door to significant changes in copyright law, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. “What’s at stake here,” she stressed, “is whether people who create content can benefit from and protect their own work.”
Sir Chris admitted that ministers shared many of the concerns raised. “We are not in the business of giving away other people’s work to third parties for nothing,” he said. “The only circumstance in which we would proceed with measures from the consultation is if we were certain they advanced the interests of the UK’s creative industries.”
However, other MPs remained sceptical. Labour’s Alison Hume, a former television writer, criticised the lack of transparency from tech firms. “AI companies do not have to tell anyone what they’re scraping from the internet, who they’re taking it from, or why,” she said. “That must change.”
Hume warned that by delaying concrete protections, the Government risks allowing a window where “everything that can be scraped will be scraped”. Without firm rules, she argued, there is no incentive for AI companies to be transparent or to compensate original creators fairly.
Echoing these concerns, Giles Martin – son of legendary Beatles producer George Martin – accused the Government of favouring big tech. “If Paul McCartney today writes Yesterday, that should belong to him. He should decide what happens to it – or to his voice,” he said. “It shouldn’t be taken and used without his permission.”
More Read
UK Music, the umbrella body for the UK music industry, warned that the Bill leaves creators vulnerable. Protections tabled by Baroness Kidron in the Lords, designed to enforce transparency and international standards, were among those dropped by ministers.
In response, a Government spokesperson defended its stance: “Currently, only the largest rights holders have the means to assert their rights effectively. We want to enhance the ability of all creatives to be paid fairly, while also removing unnecessary barriers to AI innovation in the UK.”
They added that the goal is to strike a balance—ensuring increased control and transparency for rights holders while supporting the UK’s AI sector to access the material needed to remain competitive globally.
As the Bill now advances towards becoming law, pressure is mounting for ministers to deliver on their promises. Creatives and campaigners remain wary, insisting that any delay in legislation leaves the door wide open for exploitation in a rapidly evolving digital age.
Would you like this story formatted for print or digital publication as well?
