Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Use of AI: Creative Industries

Thursday 3 April 2025 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Sir John Whittingdale asked the Secretary of State about discussions with creative industry representatives on AI use.
  • The Secretary affirmed the UK's creative industries are world-class and stressed the importance of the current copyright framework.
  • The Secretary stated that any deal not beneficial to creatives would not be accepted, indicating a priority for their interests.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Context

The MP is concerned about potential concessions around AI regulation in deals with the US, which could weaken the UK's copyright framework and harm the creative sector.

Question

What discussions she has had with representatives of the creative industries on the use of AI. The Secretary of State will be aware of suggestions that the Government may offer concessions around AI regulation in a deal to reduce US tariffs. Will she assure the creative and news media sectors that any negotiations will not include an offer to weaken our copyright framework, which would be opposed by creative industries both in the UK and in the US?

Answer from The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)

Our creatives are second to none in the world, as I just said, and our copyright framework is an essential part of their success. We have been clear that if it does not work for creatives, it does not work for us and we will not do it. On negotiations with the United States, the Prime Minister has been clear that this is the start of the process, but we will always work in the national interest, and we are considering all steps as we look to the future.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The Secretary did not provide a direct assurance against weakening copyright framework, only stating commitment to working in the national interest.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)