Why Is the UK Giving Away Copyrighted Art to Silicon Valley?

Andrew Durbin The UK government recently proposed allowing AI companies to train their systems on copyrighted material. Can you tell me about your campaign and the reason you’ve taken on this issue? 

Beeban Kidron Most creative people embrace technology in their practice, but the terms upon which they are being asked to work with AI are deeply unfair. They’re being told that AI companies can scrape their work unless they actively opt out, and the terms of that opt out are unclear, 18 months away at least and currently technically impossible.  So, the question must be: Why isn’t the government protecting our copyright right now? Why are they proposing we give it away?

AD Why do you think the government is giving it away?

BK I can’t speak for the government, but I do know they claim two things. Firstly, they say that copyright law is uncertain, which is simply untrue, as regulators, lawyers and judges have made clear. The second reason the government gives is that, even if we do insist on copyright, these companies will just scrape copyrighted material from other jurisdictions that don’t have gold-plated copyright laws. That’s a very short-sighted view. The UK is rich in quality data, including that of the creative industries. It’s one of the reasons creative businesses invest in the UK. Doubling down on the rule of law gives us sovereign assets.

AD This is a global problem. Do you see legislation in other countries to which the UK might look as a model? 

BK Of course, it’s global. But we have seen the tech sector repeatedly work with governments to ensure compliance with the law: we saw Brazil insist that X followed local law, we have a higher bar data protection for children in the UK, Germany had different rules about hate speech than elsewhere – tax, age limits, and yes copyright – laws are different and companies regularly have to navigate them. The new American administration now says: tech is ours, America first, we don’t want to pay tax and we don’t want regulation. So, to a degree, it is up to the rest of the world to set their terms. Otherwise, it will simply be a feudal system, whereby we work for nothing and in the near future will have to rent back the products generated from our own creative output.

AD Are you seeing like-minded international campaigns coalescing around this issue, since it is something so many artists are facing around the world?

BK We’re seeing a lot of American artists going to the courts. We saw an outcry yesterday in response to an auction due to take place later this month at Christie’s of AI-generated artworks, which were created using models trained on copyrighted materials. Today Westlaw vs Thomson Reuters was resolved in favour of Reuters saying that scraping had infringed their copyright, The EU is trying to beef up its own laws. There’s a lot of activity. Does anyone have the absolute answer? No. But is there a value bonus for the country that does support copyright? I would say yes, there is.

The government has put forward a preferred option that gives away copyright which doesn’t belong to the government. It’s the property of the artist, who has both moral rights over how it is used, as well as property rights over its transfer. The UK excels at the arts: they drive tourism; they are our soft power; they provide 2.4 million jobs, 67 percent of which are outside of London, so this affects all the nations and regions of the country. But, instead of being rewarded, they’re being slapped down and told to give away their intellectual property rights to tech bros. For what? We’re not sure. There is no impact assessment; there is no technical solution; there is no enforcement proposal. It’s a big giveaway of our rights. That does not seem to be good policy.

Right now, the value of AI is speculative. But, increasingly, everyone is realizing that it’s all about the quality of your data. It’s not always bigger is better. It’s the quality. And we, in the UK, have some very high-quality data sets, one of which comes from our marvellous creative industries.

AD Even before AI, young artists – including recording artists – were seeing their works co-opted, often for free or for little compensation, by big tech. Spotify is perhaps one of the most obvious examples.

BK We have bought into this idea that tech companies are exceptional. That they are allowed to take everything for free because they give us some services for free and in the exchange they’re not responsible for the impact of what they do. After two decades, we must conclude that our initial perception was wrong. It’s not free: there are societal costs, there are costs to different industries and, increasingly, not only do they take our material for free, they charge us to rent it back. What the government is not recognizing in its proposal is that these companies are taking people’s work and using it to make money while depriving creators of revenue. If you don’t have a flow of funds, then a creative life is not possible, unless you happen to be wealthy by birth. That is not an attitude we expected to see from a Labour government.

AD What can artists, writers and their allies do next?

BK They must let the government know how unhappy they are. Whether they have a Labour MP or someone in an opposition party, they should write and tell them that this matters. The creative industries are uniquely spread across the country: every constituency will be affected by this. The government is listening to the tech companies, who are very vocal in their need, which in summary is: we are hungry to grow and we have billions of investment, so we can’t afford to pay. That is ludicrous. They pay for talent, electricity and computer chips. There is no moral or economic argument for them not to pay for the raw material: copyrighted works. Creative artists need to make themselves felt.

 Visit Creative Rights in AI Coalition to write to your local MP 

^{Main image: Prime Minister Keir Starmer Gives Speech On AI Opportunities Action Plan (detail), 2025. Courtesy: Henry Nicholls - WPA Pool/Getty Images}