The status quo on AI and copyright in the UK is a lose-lose. Restrictive copyright laws have left AI developers unsure about how they can legally access training data and content creators worry their work is being used illegally. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants to make the UK an AI “superpower.” Copyright presents a major hurdle.
The UK government knows. In December, it announced plans to weaken copyright protections to encourage AI. The move has, predictably, prompted fierce backlash from the country’s creative industries. But reform of the UK’s restrictive copyright laws is urgently needed. A pro-innovation policy that ensures AI developers have access to high-quality datasets could cement the UK’s position as a global leader in AI.
The UK is currently an outlier in copyright and AI. After Brexit, the UK opted out of the EU Copyright Directive, which allows for commercial text and data mining as long as the AI developers respect opt-outs. The UK now has more restrictive copyright policies than both the US and the EU, only allowing data mining for non-commercial research. This framework risks leaving the UK at a competitive disadvantage.
It’s a dilemma: harnessing AI for economic growth without compromising the UK’s rich cultural and creative heritage. The government recognizes that it cannot wait for courts to resolve ongoing legal disputes over copyright law and AI — such as the Getty Images vs Stability AI case before the country’s High Court.
Direct intervention is needed to provide legal clarity. The government has launched a 10-week open consultation on copyright and AI, expected to draw responses from industry stakeholders, academic experts, and creative professionals alike.
Several policy frameworks are on the table. Option one is to strengthen copyright laws, requiring all training data to be licensed. However, the government notes that this could ‘significantly damage the UK AI sector.”
A second option is to loosen copyright laws, following Singapore and Japan by introducing broad data mining exceptions – or a US ‘fair use’ approach. With these frameworks, rightsholders cannot opt-out. However, creative industries argue that this could erode the cultural assets that contribute to the UK’s economic strength. The creative industries contribute £124.8 billion annually to the UK economy. Indeed, the government points out that this approach is “highly likely to constrain the growth of the creative and media sectors.”
The government’s favored proposal seeks to strike a middle ground. It mirrors the EU’s copyright framework: commercial text and data mining exceptions with an opt-out right for creators, combined with robust transparency measures to ensure compliance. This balances encouraging AI development with protecting the country’s creative industries.
It is unlikely to satisfy everyone. The government’s proposal has already sparked fierce backlash. Creative industries accuse the government of unfairly benefiting the tech sector at their expense. They have been joined by influential names, including Paul McCartney and Kate Bush. UK Music argues that opt-outs are “confusing and virtually impossible to navigate”. The News Media Association, representing UK news publishers, prefers opt-in. By contrast, the EU model is unappealing to those who argue that the UK must seize the moment to assert itself as an AI powerhouse.
Post Brexit, the UK has found itself squeezed between the US and the EU on how to spur artificial intelligence. It has to choose between Washington’s deregulated, laissez-faire attitude towards technology and Brussels’s cautious, rights-focused approach. Amidst this tug-of-war, the UK is moving towards an EU model on copyright.
Yet the UK still seeks to promote a more innovation-friendly environment than that found on the European continent, aiming to attract AI companies and investment. The UK stands at the forefront of AI innovation, ranked third in the world after the US and China. By reforming its copyright legislation, it could outpace its EU neighbors on AI and could even challenge American dominance in the tech arena.
Going up against the country’s influential creative industries will be politically costly. But it is urgently needed to realize the UK’s AI ambitions.
Dr. Andres Guadamuz is a Reader in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Sussex and the Editor in Chief of the Journal of World Intellectual Property.
Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions expressed on Bandwidth are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
2025 CEPA Forum Tech & Security Conference
Explore the latest from the conference.
