Calling all UK creatives - the Government's consultation on AI and copyright closes on Tuesday (you can copy the key answers from here)

Have your say

This is a one-off free post as a resource for all UK creators.

The British government is conducting a consultation process about its forthcoming legislation on AI and copyright. The deadline for submission is Tuesday February 25, 2025. 11.59.

One minute to midnight.

It is absolutely essential that ALL people who make their money through the creative fields send their replies in – because what the government is proposing is catastrophic for us.

Writers, novelists, illustrators, artists, photographers, sculptors, musicians, textile designers, poets, playwrights, songwriters, garden designers, cookbook writers, knitting pattern designers, costume, set and interior desiners… It affects us all.

What the government proposes is freely allowing commercial text and data mining for no payment – unless the creators proactively request an opt out, called a ‘rights reservation’.

So it would all fall on us to save our content – rather than to be asked for permission to use it and be paid for it.

An equivalent would be us all helping ourselves to trollies of food from M&S, unless they have previously told us which things we are not allowed to take.

The Government seems to be so excited by the idea of the money AI could theoretically bring to the UK, they have lost sight of the money the creative industries actually are bringing in – £124.8 billion gross value added a year, at the Government’s own estimation on their consultation document.

Nor forgetting global admiration, from Chaucer to Stormzy and beyond.

It’s a classic chasing of the bird in the bush, at the expense of the magnificent bird already in the hand.

Now, we don’t have long and the consultation paper is very long and repetitive and the questionnaire is gruesome, using terms like ‘granularity’. I found some of the questions almost unfathomable.

It has taken me all day (Monday 24^th) to analyse it all and submit my answers – so I’m sharing what I wrote here, for anyone to copy and paste it.

I answered as many as I could, although from a certain point I had to strongly resist the temptation to write things like ‘Are you having a laugh?’ and ‘Did you mean to write that in Klingon?’

Granularity, my arse.

So to recap – you’ve got until one minute to midnight on Tuesday 25^th and it’s questions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 18, 22 and 45 which really matter, so you can just do those.

Here is the link to the questionnaire and below you will find my answers. I have put a * on the important ones.

If you want to check out another source, rather than taking it blind from me, I found this piece on the Association of Illustrators site very helpful.

This is another good one from the Author’s Licensing and Collecting Society (they collect library royalties for authors).

My answers

*4. Do you agree that option 3 - a data mining exception which allows right holders to reserve their rights, supported by transparency measures - is most likely to meet the objectives set out above?

No

Option ‘yes’ puts the responsibility on the human creators to protect their own work, while the AI companies have free rein. So the humans have first to make the effort of creating the work - and then the effort of proactively protecting its copyright. All the AI companies have to do is profit from the work created by humans.

This is the wrong way round. It' s like asking me, as an author, to keep track of the numbers of my books that are sold and then ask my publisher to pay me the royalties. As it stands, I write the books and they work out how much they owe me for the sales.

*5. Which option do you prefer and why?

Option 1

The responsibility, time and effort required to gain the rights to use the work of human creators MUST lie with the AI companies. They are companies with deep resources in money and staff hours. Human creators are sole traders, with very little spare time (and even less financial resources) to spend protecting their own work. Time is money and and Option 3 robs creators of it.

I must add - as someone who has only ever worked as a professional creator and has many friends in all aspects of the creative sector - we are not skilled in this kind of admin work. This is for spreadsheet people, like the accounts departments at our agents' offices.

Leave us to get on with the creating, while they put numbers in boxes. From each according to their ability.

*6. Do you support the introduction of an exception along the lines outlined in section C of the consultation?

NO

CATEGORICALLY NO. For the same reasons I have stated in the previous question. It makes preserving our copyrights and getting renumerated the responsibility of the people who have already done the creative work.

To put it in another context, it would be like me going to M&S and helping myself to a trolley of groceries - then it would be M&S's responsibility to work out what I'd taken, send me an invoice for it and chase my payment.

I find it very telling that in point 67, it's worded this way:

'This approach seeks expressly to balance the objectives of access to works by AI developers with control over works by right holders supported by increased trust and transparency for all parties.'

In plain English, the needs of the AI developers are put before the protection of the right holders.

*8. If not, what other approach do you propose and how would that achieve the intended balance of objectives?

I'm a novelist. AI companies need to seek permission to use my creative work exactly as publishers do.

First, they express a desire to use my work to make money for themselves, as part of their business activity and make me a financial offer for this usage. I then decide if I want to work with that publisher and if I do, I negotiate a price for my work. They then take on the responsibility of paying me according to how many copies are sold.

I don't see why AI companies should get a different deal to publishers, record companies, theatre companies, or any other business that uses creators' original work to make money.

They need to seek permission from me – not me seek payment from them.

*9. What influence, positive or negative, would the introduction of an exception along these lines have on you or your organisation? Please provide quantitative information where possible.

Like the vast majority of people making a living in the creative industries, I work alone and the work I do is very demanding.

Creating something original from nothing takes a lot of time, energy and application. It doesn't leave leeway for additional admin, so an opt out system with the responsibility on me to seek payment for my own work retrospectively is not supportable.

The organisations that wish to benefit from using creators' work have the responsibility to seek permission first and pay for it on agreement. The end.

10. What action should a developer take when a reservation has been applied to a copy of a work?

I find this a very strange question. Obviously, they should leave it alone, or seek permission from the creator, by negotiating a fee.

But, as I've said, I fundamentally disagree with the idea of 'reservation', which puts all the onus on the creator. It must be the other way round, with the responsibility to seek permission use material lying with the AI businesses, as it does with publications, publishers, music companies et al.

11. What should be the legal consequences if a reservation is ignored?

Any AI company that uses a creator's material without permission should be subject to the same laws as any other copyright breach. They should take it out of use and pay the creator.

*16. Does current practice relating to the licensing of copyright works for AI training meet the needs of creators and performers?

No! Because there isn't any. All my books have been fed in and I have received no requests for permission or any renumeration.

17. Where possible, please indicate the revenue/cost that you or your organisation receives/pays per year for this licensing under current practice.

All my novels have been fed into the AI system and I have received ZERO remuneration. I don't know if my journalism has also been used.

In terms of costs, I can't easily put a price on it, but it has required a lot of time filling in questionnaires on this subject for various interested bodies and now this.

It has taken me a full working day to read and analyse the Consultation document and write these replies. It will take more time for me then to create a Substack post of my replies to share with other people in the creative industries affected by this legislation.

*18. Should measures be introduced to support licensing good practice?

Yes. As well as legislation there needs to be some kind of body overseeing it to make sure good practices are upheld and to assist individuals who have complaints.

19. Should the government have a role in encouraging collective licensing and/or data aggregation services?

I didn’t answer this because I don’t feel I know enough about it.

20. If so, what role should it play?

I didn't answer the question above because I don't think I know enough about the details of it, but from reading the Consultation document in relation to 'collective licensing' it seems very much approached from what will be most efficient for the AI companies, rather than what would be best for the creators.

For eg, point 95. 'For AI developers to have easy access to licensed material, in particular small firms and new entrants, it will be important for collective licences to be available and accessible to them.'

As a sole trader, I feel this would particularly affect me and it seems like an area that needs a lot of serious and in-depth consideration - from the point of view of the creators, not the AI camp.

*22. Do you agree that AI developers should disclose the sources of their training material?

Yes. This is fundamental for several reasons. If the material has been accessed with full agreement from and payment to the creator there is no reason for them not to state what was used. Also, it gives creators a back up source of information to track where their material has been used. It also gives them creative credit - which is just as important to people in creative industries as the financial credit.

23. If so, what level of granularity is sufficient and necessary for AI firms when providing transparency over the inputs to generative models?

By 'granularity' I assume you mean 'detail'.

I would need more information about the possible options to be able to answer, but a broad response would be to say - the same as current industry standards. If a work by a particular creator has been accessed, then the name of the work and the name of the creator must be credited.

For example, if I were to quote lyrics from the song Blue, by Joni Mitchell, in one of my novels, I would be obliged to pay for the usage and to include a credit noting the song and the songwriter, either as a footnote, or in the acknowledgements.

26. Where possible, please indicate what you anticipate the costs of introducing transparency measures on AI developers would be.

All costs should be shouldered by the AI developers as they are getting all the benefits.

27. How can compliance with transparency requirements be encouraged, and does this require regulatory underpinning?

It shouldn't be 'encouraged', it should be essential by law, because enshrined in legislation.

29. What steps can the government take to encourage AI developers to train their models in the UK and in accordance with UK law to ensure that the rights of right holders are respected?

Legislation making AI legally accountable in exactly the same way as all other businesses using creative work to make money.

30. To what extent does the copyright status of AI models trained outside the UK require clarification to ensure fairness for AI developers and right holders?

Here we have another example where the business advantage of AI developers have been put physically ahead of rights holders in the wording of the question. A question posed by a Government department.

And ‘fairness’ isn’t the right word here. It’s a matter of reparation for wrongs already committed against UK creators.

There is no ‘fairness’ because the pirates of AI have already stolen our property. We can talk about ‘fairness’ once we have been paid back and publicly credited.

So the government’s first concern should be to seek reparation for UK citizens who have already been ripped off, before seeking ‘fairness’ for AI developers.

31. Does the temporary copies exception require clarification in relation to AI training?

Yes.

32. If so, how could this be done in a way that does not undermine the intended purpose of this exception?

I don’t agree with the concept of ‘exception’.

33. Does the existing data mining exception for non-commercial research remain fit for purpose?

In principle – yes. But I fear this opens a loophole that big companies with big, clever legal departments could easily manipulate. The terms of this need to be very tightly stated.

34. Should copyright rules relating to AI consider factors such as the purpose of an AI model, or the size of an AI firm?

In principle, yes, regarding purpose, with the caveats stated above. But not for size of firm. Giant firms can easily open lots of little firms to abuse this.

*45. Do you agree that generative AI outputs should be labelled as AI generated? If so, what is a proportionate approach, and is regulation required?

It is essential that all output is labelled as created by AI so it is 100% transparent so that anyone looking at it/reading it/listening to it knows it is artificial. This must be compulsary, by law.

This is also essential for creators, to provide another level of protection and prevent misattribution and unfair competition.

It's also very important for images that look like human 'models' to be labelled as AI generated. These create impossible ideals that can very negatively affect young people, in particular.

Note to beautiful paid subscribers: this is a one-off response to a major crisis in the creative industries! Normal service will resume shortly.