Data Bill’s AI amendment to enforce copyright law on tech companies defeated in parliament
An amendment backed by creatives that would ensure AI models obey copyright law has been defeated in parliament as the contentious Data (Use and Access) Bill proceeds towards its final stages.
The Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) labelled the vote to scrap the amendment “disappointing”, while the Publishers Association said that the “way forward was clear” with licensing.
Cross-bench peer and campaigner Baroness Beeban Kidron, who first proposed the amendment, also expressed disappointment, and argued that the government’s planned impact assessment of the bill was not the concession to creatives it purported to be.
Kidron’s amendment, which would have ensured tech giants comply with current copyright law and disclose information about which text and data they scrape, has been endorsed by swathes of high-profile creatives including authors Kazuo Ishiguro and Helen Fielding.
Earlier this year the amendment was passed by the House of Lords but was taken out of the House of Commons.
This week, Liberal Democrat MP Victoria Collins reintroduced it to the Commons, but yesterday (7th May) it was voted against by 287 to 88.
Richard Combes, head of rights and licensing and deputy chief executive of the ALCS, told The Bookseller: “That Baroness Kidron’s amendments to the Data Bill, which would ensure AI companies operate in line with existing UK copyright law, were not adopted is disappointing but not the end of the fight for a fairer, more transparent approach regarding the use of copyright works by AI companies. The government’s own amendments to assess the impact of AI on copyright owners is a positive, but will not deliver the transparency authors urgently need. While we are glad the government no longer prefers the unworkable and unfair copyright exception and opt-out mechanism, creators still need the government to acknowledge and support their rights over their work.
“Licensing solutions that balance the interests of copyright owners with the needs of the AI companies are achievable, as demonstrated by our recent commitment to working with the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) and Publishers’ Licensing Services (PLS) to develop models covering the use of published works for AI training. The ALCS will continue to advocate for solutions that ensure greater transparency, control and remuneration for writers.”
Continues…
Dan Conway, CEO of the Publishers Association, told The Bookseller: “The way forward for the government remains clear. Legislate for transparency requirements now, consult on how to supercharge tech and creative industries’ partnerships through licensing, and simply move on from the polarising red-herring that is copyright reform.”
MPs from numerous parties called for culture minister Chris Bryant to protect the arts, which were hailed as a “phenomenal UK success story” that should not be jeopardised by embracing big tech.
But Bryant argued against various amendments, including Collins’, on the basis that they were “unworkable” at this stage and would pre-empt the results of an ongoing government consultation into the debate. He said: “It must surely be better to legislate on this complex subject in the round rather than piecemeal.”
“Does the minister not understand the urgency?” Scottish National Party MP Pete Wishart responded. “Generative AI is ingesting our whole creative catalogue as we speak. We need something in place now. We cannot wait a year for reports or three years for legislation; we need action now. Does he not understand that something needs to be brought forward here today? These amendments offer that.”
Kidron told The Bookseller’s sister publication The Stage that she was sceptical about the efficacy of the government’s impact assessment and accompanying report, which were tabled in parliament as a way to gather data and find a solution that would appease both creatives and big tech.
She said: “The government concessions are not really concessions at all… both of these reviews will have to be done as part of the original consultation process. The only thing that should reassure creatives is if the government comes forward with granular transparency and a short timetable to improve enforcement of copyright law. They are throwing creators under the bus in the wrongful assumption that it is AI that will fuel growth.”
Responding to the House of Commons’ rejection of Collins’ amendment, Kidron added: “It was disappointing that the government did not answer any of the issues raised by MPs during the debate, who universally stood behind the creative industries. I am not sure that they have fully understood the strength of feeling or the full impact of their policy – but when the amendments come back to the Lords it will be made abundantly clear.”
The bill is now set to return to the Lords with both parliamentary chambers expected to quibble over the final wording before it gains Royal Assent.
link
