House of Commons · Westminster Hall
23 April 2025 · 26 other contributors · 14,234 words
Opened by James Frith Lab Bury North
Responding minister: Chris Bryant
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
James Frith raised concerns about intellectual property: artificial intelligence in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key points
Key requests to Government
The Government must ensure that any industrial strategy guarantees economic fairness and upholds the rights of creatives to be properly remunerated for their work, including through licensing agreements.
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Our creative industries are deeply alarmed by the potential impacts of AI, particularly regarding copyright and legal peace. The petition from the Society of Authors has gained significant support with over 50,000 signatures against the misuse of copyrighted content for AI training.
Writers rely on secondary use payments, which are vital for their survival. The proposed text and data mining copyright exception is a threat to creators' rights as it allows AI developers free access to copyrighted works without explicit consent.
Midgley underscored immediate concerns from musicians about being exploited by streaming and AI technologies. She called for transparency in how companies use copyrighted content, stressing that it is illegal to use someone's work without permission or payment.
Acknowledged a petition with over 50,000 signatures from the Society of Authors regarding Meta's use of pirated books to train AI models.
The chair of the all-party parliamentary group for visual arts highlights concerns about AI's impact on artists' income, opportunities, and copyright. The Government must ensure consent, control, and remuneration for intellectual property in AI development.
Rejected a request to give way due to time constraints and promised another debate soon. Emphasized the need for legal peace of mind for creators regarding their rights under AI usage.
Warned about the potential threat AI poses to creative industries worth £130 billion, urging for transparency and protection of intellectual property. Asked if she could give way during her speech, to which Chris Bryant declined due to time constraints.
Focussed on principles such as transparency and enforcement of copyright, emphasising the need for technological solutions to trace data ownership.
Discussed a DACS survey indicating that most visual artists would agree to license their work for fair remuneration if metadata was respected by AI and platforms.
The current law on intellectual property does not address the complexities of AI-generated works, and there is a need for legal clarity to protect creators' rights while enabling innovation. The UK should lead in setting standards for how AI and IP can coexist.
The MP highlights that trade unions are not luddites but creators of these mechanisms, requesting for existing copyright laws to be respected through collective bargaining. He also emphasizes the lack of transparency and proper enforcement of GDPR in AI development.
A study shows that people working in the music industry could lose up to a quarter of their income by 2028 due to generative AI. The Government's opt-out approach to text and data mining is causing concern.
Barron highlighted the loss of jobs and income within creative sectors due to AI scraping intellectual property. He emphasized that consent must come first in using copyrighted material for training AI models.
Emphasised the willingness of creative industries to engage with AI through licensing agreements, suggesting a framework that facilitates more deals for small, independent creatives.
In Wales, the creative industries contribute £1.5 billion to the economy, with over 3,500 businesses and a growing freelance workforce preserving Welsh culture through media in both languages.
Machine learning developers have used pirated and copyrighted material without the consent of creators, which should be a problem given clear copyright laws and collective licensing schemes in place.
Called for stronger protections for intellectual property rights in the face of AI advancements, arguing that creators' rights must be protected and not weakened.
The hon. Friend agrees that reforms should ensure that artificial intelligence companies are more transparent, benefiting the development of AI while ensuring adequate protections for the creative industries and individuals’ intellectual property.
She argues that smaller creatives find it difficult to enforce copyright law as it currently stands, suggesting a need to strengthen copyright laws for better protection.
Emphasized fair payment for creatives and the need for transformative Employment Rights Bill while opposing proposals that could undermine rights and protections.
Irons emphasized that protecting creators' rights does not hinder innovation but rather ensures legal certainty. She highlighted the importance of transparency, consent and compensation for content used in AI training, supporting a value of £125 billion to the UK economy from creative industries.
Recognised the unified opposition from creative industries to government AI initiatives, highlighting their collective concern and criticism. Asked the Minister if he would give way during his speech.
Across Devon, the creative industries contribute more than £250 million to the local economy and support over 11,000 jobs. Exeter’s literary legacy and its institutions are civic anchors promoting literacy and community engagement.
Highlighted the significant economic contribution of creative industries in Slough and the importance of ensuring that these industries are listened to before any legislative changes.
In east London, constituents are worried about AI's impact on careers in illustration, motion design, photography, and voice work. The creative output of these illustrators is their life’s work and it is at risk without proper safeguards.
The Government’s current position on copyright and AI risks making careers in the performing arts more precarious, with some performers no longer sharing their work online due to fear of it being copied without consent or payment.
The hon. Lady supports the need for a full response from Meta and agrees that transparency is crucial, expanding on her point about disclosing which copyrighted works AI developers used to train or fine-tune their models.
Government Response
Chris BryantThe Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism
Ms McVey, I am sure that if you were not in the Chair, you would be participating in this debate, because I know that you have an interest in this area not only as a Member of Parliament, but personally. I am not sure whether there is a recording of your performance in “The Vagina Monologues” years ago, but there are many other recordings of you around, and I am sure you would want to enforce your copyright in relation to them as well. Today is not only the 48th birthday of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) and Shakespeare’s 461st birthday, but Turner’s 250th birthday. I suppose we could all join in singing “Happy Birthday” since, interestingly enough, it came out of copyright in 2015 because Warner Chappell lost a lawsuit over whether it maintained the copyright. The fact that people had to pay for it is one of the reasons that it rarely appeared in films and instead people ended up singing “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow”—or “For She’s a Jolly Good Fellow”—which always seemed rather odd. There are some things that I think we all agree on. First, an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work is a fundamental principle not just of the Labour party, but of the whole of British society in how we order ourselves. Another hon. Member said that creators deserve to be paid. I completely and utterly agree, and so do the Government. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to the performers’ rights framework. He is quite right: that does need some review, and we are looking at it. Secondly, it is patently wrong to use pirated material to train large language models. I have to be careful, because—I declare my own interest as an author and member of the Society of Authors—it has been noted in several newspapers that my own work was scraped in the use of the Library Genesis dataset by Meta Platforms Inc. Such use is patently wrong and I do not think anybody disagrees with that. Thirdly, we should never characterise the creative industries as luddites. That is simply and patently untrue. I recently went to Ninja Theory, a video games company in Cambridge. It uses AI all day, every day, as an integral part of making sure that any game it presents is at the cutting edge of modern gaming. The same could be said of so many creative industries, not just about their use of AI but about their use of innovation. I want to knock this on the head: nobody in Government is saying that the creative industries are luddites. It is perfectly legitimate for people to have concerns about their future remunerative stream, and we acknowledge that. It is not just video games; musicians and people in so many other parts of the creative industries use AI. Indeed, we should not forget that a large chunk of the creative industries is tech companies that are developing AI. As several hon. Members have noted, those companies have their own copyright concerns—otherwise, how will they make a living into the future?—but the irony of some complaining about others stealing their work is not lost on anybody.