Lords Defy Government Again Over AI Copyright Battle as Artists Demand Stronger Protections

 

The UK government has suffered a fourth defeat in the House of Lords over its proposed Data (Use and Access) Bill, as peers continue to push for greater protections for artists and creators in the age of artificial intelligence. In a vote on Monday, the Lords backed a transparency-focused amendment by 242 to 116, despite the measure being rejected multiple times by the House of Commons where the government holds a majority.

 

This persistent standoff between the two Houses of Parliament is highly unusual, with no side showing signs of retreat or compromise. “This is uncharted territory,” said one source from the Lords' camp, underlining the growing momentum behind those seeking to challenge the government's approach.

 

At the heart of the dispute is how best to balance the interests of two powerful industries: technology and the creative arts. The Data (Use and Access) Bill was expected to pass into law smoothly, but now finds itself stuck in a political tug-of-war, with the potential to be shelved entirely. If that happens, other key elements of the legislation—such as proposals to give bereaved parents access to their children’s data, improved NHS data sharing, and a comprehensive 3D map of underground utilities—would also fall away.

 

The core issue revolves around how AI companies use copyrighted material to train their models. The government’s current proposal would allow developers to access any content unless the individual owner explicitly opts out. However, critics argue this amounts to giving tech firms a free pass to exploit creative work without consent or compensation.

 

Baroness Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer and former film director, is among the most vocal opponents. She warned that ministers are “knowingly throwing UK designers, artists, authors, musicians, media and nascent AI companies under the bus,” describing the current system as “state sanctioned theft.” She has called for an amendment that would require Technology Secretary Peter Kyle to report to Parliament within 15 months of the law’s enactment on its impact on the creative industries.

 

Mr. Kyle has himself acknowledged that copyright law is no longer adequate for the AI era. “Copyright law was once very certain,” he said, “but is now not fit for purpose.” His remarks reflect the ongoing struggle to reconcile legal frameworks with rapid technological advancement.

 

Among those backing the government’s stance is Sir Nick Clegg, former Deputy Prime Minister and now a leading figure at Meta. He has warned that requiring explicit permission from every copyright holder could “kill the AI industry in this country.” Supporters of this view argue that if the UK becomes too restrictive, tech firms will simply move operations abroad, taking investment and jobs with them.

 

Artists and musicians, however, remain outraged. Sir Elton John has been especially outspoken, accusing the government of planning to “rob young people of their legacy and their income,” and branding the current administration “absolute losers.” His comments echo a broader backlash from creators who feel exploited by AI tools that use their work without acknowledgment or payment.

 

This backlash stems from how AI companies originally developed their tools. Before the AI boom, developers scraped vast amounts of content from the internet—much of it created by artists, writers, and musicians—arguing it was publicly available. That scraped data now powers AI systems that can produce images, text, and music in moments, often mimicking specific styles.

 

For example, a recent trend saw people sharing AI-generated images in the style of Studio Ghibli. Yet Hayao Miyazaki, the studio’s co-founder, once called AI in animation “an insult to life itself.”

 

As debate intensifies, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology insists that changes to the bill will only be considered if they are proven to work for creators. Still, the future of the legislation remains uncertain. With both sides dug in and public support for creators growing, the fight over AI and copyright may well define the next phase of the UK’s digital future.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC  2025-06-04

 

 

As long as artists get a share of the profits , why not AI generated ?

Maybe we get some better music , tv , movies ,... than the human cr-p nowadays.

1 hour ago, FlorC said:

As long as artists get a share of the profits , why not AI generated ?

Maybe we get some better music , tv , movies ,... than the human cr-p nowadays.

 

But they won't, if this bill goes through.

 That's the whole point of the article...

HoL is stuffed full of pop singers and TV and film stars, isn't it? They're voting to clog things up out of their own self interest. Should all recuse themselves.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular bill, the HoL should be abolished.

 

The UK needs a second House which is elected.

9 hours ago, John Drake said:

HoL is stuffed full of pop singers and TV and film stars, isn't it? They're voting to clog things up out of their own self interest. Should all recuse themselves.

 

8 hours ago, RayC said:

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular bill, the HoL should be abolished.

 

The UK needs a second House which is elected.

By the same people who vote for the government in the lower House? 

13 hours ago, FlorC said:

As long as artists get a share of the profits , why not AI generated ?

Maybe we get some better music , tv , movies ,... than the human cr-p nowadays.

They won't get their fair share- maybe nothing at all . Did you read the article?

1 hour ago, Lancelot01 said:

 

By the same people who vote for the government in the lower House? 

 

Yes. Would you prefer that the Commons was also unelected?

10 hours ago, Magictoad said:

They won't get their fair share- maybe nothing at all . Did you read the article?

YES.

 

The government’s current proposal would allow developers to access any content unless the individual owner explicitly opts out. However, critics argue this amounts to giving tech firms a free pass to exploit creative work without consent or compensation.

 

If you put something online (or elsewhere) without explicitly opting out (that others , like AI use it) , you're fair game.

This article is also only about the UK , so not so important.