Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

14:30

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of AI on intellectual property.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms McVey. I am grateful to all colleagues who have joined us here today. None of us will wish to prevent the inevitable, exciting power of change. This is not about resisting that change, but about shaping it, determining what comes next, for what and for whom. The debate grows louder and louder, and more important by the day. Today, I hope that we can begin to mark a landing zone of shared positions.

Our creative industries, with their might and strength, remain deeply alarmed. Copyright is the foundation of their creations, our UK industry and livelihoods, across music, films, books, news, investigations, coding, games, paintings and much more. The Government have made strong commitments to our creative industries, but their upcoming industrial strategy for growth will fall well short of the priority placed on those industries if it does not ensure legal peace of mind and action on artificial intelligence for those creating some of life’s greatest experiences.

The Government and the Minister have said continually that they want creatives to be better paid and better looked after, with licensing in the AI age to come. Given the agreement on the need for licensing and remuneration, why do the loudest AI tech companies expect to train their machines on human-created content for nothing? The Minister has referred to learning the lessons of the Napster age. I ask him: does he agree that it was the assertion of copyright that ensured we live with Spotify, for example, and not a music industry cannibalised by piracy?

Artificial intelligence is reshaping life as we know it. Its extraordinary potential must be built on integrity. Ignoring rights, abandoning trusted status or undermining commercial principles make for bad policy and worse law.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is he aware of the Society of Authors’ petition, which has 50,000 signatures so far, calling for action following Meta’s use of 7.5 million pirated books from the illegal LibGen database to train its Llama 3 AI? That is a blatant infringement of the authors’ copyright.

[Mr Frith]

My hon. Friend makes a precise and excellent point. Seemingly by the day, we learn of whole sections of our creative industries having their work ripped off. I will come on to what we need to do.

We need an assertion of first principles: economic fairness and an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work—the cost of doing business and paying one’s way. Our mission for our creative industries cannot mean creative industry submission. The opportunity plan will not work if our creative industries are the opportunity cost. As Labour, we back the working people who make our creative industries so powerful.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, because many of my Slough constituents have contacted me with concerns about the impact of AI on the intellectual property of creatives. We have a thriving UK creative industry, which contributed more than £120 billion to our economy in 2022. Just down the road from Slough, we have Pinewood studios and Shinfield studios, which have given us global hits over the years. Does my hon. Friend agree that those industries must be listened to properly before any legislative changes, to ensure that the film, book, media and other creative industries can continue to thrive?

[Mr Frith]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and demonstrates both the economic might of these industries—the sheer size of their contribution—and the fact that this is Britain’s best industry, giving some of the best life experiences. I know how well my hon. Friend is thought of.

Creative industries must not be expected to forfeit their legal rights for uncertainty. There is no doubt that AI will unlock huge gains in our society. The story some tell is selective, though. We are told that only if we deregulate will we unlock the AI economic growth, that the UK must hurry up or fall behind and that regulation will only slow us down, but the urgency to get the deal done is theirs. It is no coincidence that this hurrying up has intensified as the first US judgment has found that AI training is not deemed fair use.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the creative industries have shown us that they are willing to engage and embrace AI? The Financial Times was the first UK publisher to sign a licensing agreement with OpenAI, and Shutterstock has just this month signed a research licence with Synthesia, a London-based AI start-up. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should seek to create a framework that facilitates more of these deals and ensures that small, independent creatives can access them, too?

[Mr Frith]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is fundamental to future coexistence that the licensing and legal peace of mind that the industry requires, and is seeking, is uppermost in any future position that the Government take.

Let us take a closer look. We know that behind the AI models being created and trained are massive datasets, which are not built on transparency and trust, but on the unpaid labour of creators. Our concern must be to grasp the progress that AI presents, but not by dismantling or destroying a sector already giving Britain such substantial economic, cultural and social capital, both here and around the world. We are the creative superpower and our cultural exports are world class. Our IP industries are high-value, high-skilled and globally admired. Creative industries are not seeking to change the rules of the game; all they want is their rights to be upheld—rights that underpin the very licensing and remuneration that the Government have assured us, in person, are fundamental to any settled position.

The problem, though, is not uncertainty in the law, it is the opacity in the technology. UK copyright law is clear: if someone uses someone else’s work without permission, that is infringement. Arguments that cite complexity in an age of AI ignore the capabilities of the very web crawling under way.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate—we can see how important it is by the huge amount of people who have come to see the debate and who want to speak in it. Is he aware of the recent DACS survey of visual artists, most of whom live on pay under the minimum wage? That survey showed that 84% of artists would agree to license their work for fair remuneration. That would require a technical solution that is embedded in the metadata that is respected by AI and platforms. At the moment, anything uploaded on to our social media platforms has that metadata scraped. Does my he agree that, in looking for solutions, the Government need to make sure that we legislate with that in mind?

[Mr Frith]

I agree, and as I am about to say, there is ample proof of the stripping away of that very metadata, which could be the identifying feature when it is being used and scraped. With AI models, rights holders cannot see what is being used. This is not a crisis of legislation; it is an absence of transparency, attribution and recompense for the very content and resource that those giant machines are being built with and from.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The problem is not copyright law, but transparency and enforcement. My constituent Marion Todd, the author of the Detective Inspector Clare Mackay novels, found herself subject to LibGen, which the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) referred to. Does the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) agree that we need a full response from Meta, and that the new clauses that the Lib Dems have tabled will address future compliance?

[Mr Frith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I will expand on her point about transparency.

We must have transparency, and it needs to be granular, enforceable and practical. AI developers must be required to disclose which copyrighted works they used to train or fine-tune their models. TollBit’s “State of the Bots” report confirms:

“Whilst every AI developer with a published policy claims its crawlers respect the robots exclusion protocol, TollBit data finds that in many instances bots continue scraping despite explicit disallow requests for those user agents in publishers’ robots.txt files”.

Many AI companies say that this need not hamper AI, and it is their voices that I wish to amplify today. This is about creating a fair, functioning market for training data that benefits all sectors. Last month’s YouGov survey of MPs and the general public agrees: 92% of MPs believe that AI companies should declare the data used to train their models, 85% say that using creative work without pay undermines intellectual property rights, and 79% support payments to creators whose work is used in training. The public expect us to do our best for our UK industries, and that is why we are square behind the Government’s instincts on British Steel. Let us apply the Government’s instinct here, too, as well as their strong record and rhetoric on digital images, deepfakes, online harms and the principle that if it is illegal offline, it is illegal online.

Big tech always begins on the fringes before being regulated to the centre. We saw that most recently with age verification on app stores. Will the Minister commit to table Government amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, in recognition of these supermassive concerns, to introduce a power to regulate for transparency, consent, copyright and compensation?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is making a very hard-hitting speech. Any reforms we introduce should ensure that artificial intelligence companies are more transparent about the materials they use to train their AI tools. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would benefit the development of AI while ensuring adequate protections for the creative industries and individuals’ intellectual property?

[Mr Frith]

It is absolutely imperative that we strike the right balance. This is not about pitting one side against the other; it is about coexistence and mutual interdependence.

Will the Minister consider introducing a stronger framework for personality rights under the data Bill, as proposed by Equity and the wider creative sector, to improve protections against the illegal exploitation of artistic works by generative AI companies? Will he also explain why the position is still to bundle transparency in with copyright?

The stories are increasingly familiar: entire creations and careers are copied and remixed into data, while the original human creator and rights owner is left out of the conversation entirely. One visitor I met from big tech likened the training of an AI on copyrighted work to the use of a library, but that argument dries up when we remember that libraries pay for their books, and it wilfully ignores the scalability differences between machine learning and human inspiration. If a warehouse traded in stolen guitars or paintings, we would expect action, but in digital form online, theft is somehow not just tolerated but to be expected. The logic that the creative industry feels it is being asked to swallow is that because tech saw it, read it or heard it, it can have it, own it and resell it.

Copyright is not an obstacle but infrastructure—a cornerstone of the British economy. As colleagues said, it makes possible the £1.24 billion contribution to UK plc. We should not be weakening it with vague exceptions or opt-out regimes. The Berne convention, signed by more than 180 countries, makes it clear that creators must not have to exert their rights for them to exist, and they should not have to sue to keep them. This violation of international copyright norms will undermine international relations and investment in our country. It will see capital take flight and cause economic damage.

I would like to introduce a new thought to the Minister: please consider the relationship with managed risk and the freedom of expression in a regulated model that creativity needs and relies on. Creatives take risks, and express themselves freely. For growth, we need an economy of risk takers with the freedom to express without fear that they will be ripped off. Without the legal frameworks that protect copyright, risk will not be embraced and creativity will dry up or move away. That is why there is so little faith in an opt-out model, or a strategic direction placing the burden on individual creators to prevent their work from being taken by tech. A technical solution does not yet exist to make such opt-outs meaningful. As they emerge, the same concerns and questions will need answering.

Worldwide, there is no comparable territory where this matter is settled. No functioning rights reservation has emerged in the EU, and in the US, further litigation is rife. California, the home of silicon valley, has a carve out—they do not get high on their own supply. The Chancellor and the leadership of our Government are right to propose on the world stage that the UK is a safe and certain bet for investment, but being the UK branch for US tech demands will not deliver that. New growth must ensure net growth. Industrial-scale unregulated scraping is not innovation; it is infringement. It erodes the commercial certainty that serious investors need.

In the regulation space, we have exciting growth opportunities in the emerging AI licensing sector. They demonstrate that copyright is well understood, and that there are scalable possibilities for licensing and ethical AI here in the UK. The emergence of platforms such as Created by Humans, Narrativ, ProRata, Getty Images, Musiio, Adobe and We Are Human, and relationships between Sony Music and Vermillio, Universal Music and SoundLabs, Lionsgate and Runway, and news publishers and Microsoft all point to new licensing with a duty of candour. With these examples, will the Minister confirm if the Government are considering building new foundational models led and built by UK AI firms?

In conclusion, this rapid technological change demands that we confront the decisions in front of us as a creative powerhouse. In this defining moment, we must stand with those whose creativity shapes our culture, economy and shared human story. Algorithms may calculate, but it is the human creativity behind it all that pours heart, history, hope and the human into and out of every note, frame and story. AI cannot be allowed to redefine the soul of creation. If we erode the rights that protect our creators, we risk not only economic loss but strangulation of those voices that tell our stories, reflect our struggles and inspire our futures. Let us affirm that in Britain we value not just innovation but the irreplaceable human spirit behind creativity, and protect the rights that mean that we thrive, for now and for generations yet to imagine, to dream and to create.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a well-attended debate, but I hope to get everybody in. I have spoken to the Front Benchers: the Minister will have 10 minutes, and the Opposition spokespeople have agreed to go down to five minutes, so there will be a limit of three minutes per speech for Back Benchers. I hope that all hon. Members will be suitably aware of their fellow Members who want to speak, and I ask that interventions be interventions and not speeches, or I will stop you.

14:49

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) not only on securing this debate, and an excellent opening speech, but on his birthday.

One of the saddest things about this debate, and the pickle that the Government have led us into, is that it inadvertently pitches the AI sector and the potential for growth against our world-leading creative industries. That almost caricatures our creators as luddites against innovation, and that could not be further from the truth. There is no appetite in the creative industries to restrict this technology across the sector. They recognise the potential of AI—so many are already using it, and that is borne out in the statistics. In 2023, a Deloitte survey said that 74% of digital artists are already using AI, along with 67% of film and motion creatives. Those numbers will only grow over time.

We hear from almost every quarter about the serious concerns over our £130 billion creative industries—that AI, left unchecked, will represent an existential threat to their growth and very existence. Incidentally, that growth has outstripped that of the wider economy since 2010. Despite the potential of AI, we know that our creative industries are growing at an incredible rate. They are our global superpower—economically and reputationally, and that does not happen by accident. Those industries rely on the strength of a gold-standard British intellectual property regime, and they have made it clear to the Minister—and to every one of us in this room—that watering that down would rip the carpet out from under a tried and tested growth industry.

AI needs creators and the data they provide—but that data must be paid for, not stolen. Ironically, big tech relies on the strong IP regime as well; I am sure no one was more surprised than I was when Sam Altman at OpenAI noted, with irony, that DeepSeek had exploited its open-source model.

The Minister and I agree that the best way forward is to promote transparency across the AI sector. Where we disagree is on the Government’s prepared proposal for an opt-out system, which is utterly unworkable. That has been proven internationally. If they press on with this madness, we must find a way to safeguard the rights of creators by explicitly demonstrating where their work has been used in a commercial setting.

AI growth must not come at the cost of our creators and our world-leading creative industries. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive; there must be an opportunity here for this to be a country where both can flourish, in a transparent and accountable environment where everyone’s talents are recognised. I ask the Minister once again to think long and hard before he does anything that could rip up the potential of our world-leading creative industries. Both can grow collaboratively and make this country so much stronger.

14:52

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I first declare an interest: my wife is a professional photographer.

People who create art in any form add value to the world. They inspire people, provoke ideas and push boundaries—and deserve to be fairly paid for it. In East Thanet alone, we have the famous names of J. M. W Turner, Vincent van Gogh, Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins and Jane Austen—all inspired by that constituency, all having called it home. Current creatives who live there must be paid to be able to do the same.

The image of an artist in a garret has become romanticised to the point that it is almost used as an excuse not to pay creatives properly. The Government are currently taking the Employment Rights Bill through its legislative stages and, once introduced, it will be genuinely transformative for people in low-paid and insecure work.

Simultaneously, the Government are consulting on proposals that could actively take away rights and protections from creative workers. The right to have one’s work protected by copyright law is enshrined in British law. Copyright exists to protect not just the wealth of the individual but the wealth of the nation. It is fundamental to the success of innovators, entrepreneurs and creatives—and it is fundamental to our economy. The claim that AI and tech firms will take their business somewhere else if they do not have free access to people’s work is, quite frankly, extortion. We do not expect or allow other industries to do that, so why do we think it is acceptable to force creatives to accept this deal?

I am not here to defend the status of our copyright laws—we are not starting from a high baseline in this country. Sadly, creatives are all too used to being ripped off and taken advantage of. The Government have acknowledged that our copyright regime is out of date, and I absolutely agree. However, it cannot be right that the answer is simply to make it harder for creatives—to make low-paid work even less rewarding and insecure work even more insecure.

If we choose to modernise copyright law to increase protections for our national cultural wealth, we can turbo-charge the growth potential of this industry. Currently, we are on a path to undermine an industry that is already insecure. One of the staples of British values is fairness; if someone does a fair day’s work, they get a fair day’s pay. Not only is allowing creatives to have their protection eroded not fair, but it is simply not British. We ask for simple fairness, the right to permit or protect, and the right to be paid.

14:55

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) not only on this debate, but on his birthday—I hope he goes on to enjoy himself much more than sitting in Westminster Hall for the rest of the day.

Of all the issues that the Government thought they would be confronting nine months after being elected, I do not think they thought they would be in some sort of spat with the creative industries, finding that they, almost as one voice, have real difficulties and issues with the Government initiative.

First, we have to pay tribute to the wonderful campaign that has been mounted over the past few weeks and months from all our artists and creatives. When everybody from Thom Yorke to Rupert Murdoch, from Paul McCartney to the director general of the BBC is upset, there really are difficulties. The Government asked the creative industries what they thought of their proposals, particularly of their preferred opt-out plan, and like a finely tuned chorus, the creative sector came back as one and told them it does not like it one bit.

Our constituents have been magnificent in the way that they have responded. For the 20-odd years I have been in Parliament I have tried to evangelise about the role of IP and the value of copyright, but one thing that has come out of this consultation is that, inadvertently, this Government’s clumsy attempt to martial this debate has made our constituents realise the value of copyright. They have got behind it and started to understand it and see that it is the basis of all the wonderful works they enjoy throughout their lives. They know it is our gold-standard copyright regime that gives our artists protection and renumeration and ensures that they are rewarded for producing all these wonderful works. One good thing that has come out of this is that the value of copyright has now started to be seen by all our constituents.

The Government are sincere in trying to bridge the gap between artificial intelligence and the creative industries, and they want to satisfy all sectors, but we have to see what we are up against—just have a look at some of the big tech companies’ submissions to the consultation. Have a look at OpenAI’s submission—even the opt-out proposal is too far for it; it wants unfettered access to our cultural treasure trove, without any inhibitions or difficulty. The first thing that the Minister has to say to the big AI companies is that our creative heritage—everything we have built in the past few decades—is not there to be plundered and taken for nothing.

We must make progress, and I really hope that the Government now decide that they will not pursue the opt-out proposal—it cannot work; there is no way that it could be a technical solution. We have seen that within the EU. The Government have to drop it. Look at this licensing system—the Minister has talked about it consistently in the past few weeks and months. Let us make sure that we unravel the idea of copyright from that of transparency; we have to make sure that those are separated. Let us use the Data (Use and Access) Bill—it is there in front of us, so why cannot we use it to make real progress on this issue?

14:58

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) on securing this timely and important debate. I would like to draw Members’ attention to my membership of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.

I hope Members had a restful Easter break. Many writers particularly look forward to Easter every year, not least because of the eggs, but towards the end of March we see the payment from the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society land in our bank accounts. For writers who depend on payments for secondary uses of their work, that money is a vital income stream in what is a harsh freelance existence. I love seeing where my television dramas that I wrote many years ago have been shown; this year I learned that Swedish children had watched my UK-based science fiction series set in a world without adults. Creativity knows no boundaries but neither, it seems, does generative AI.

Collection societies such as the ALCS and those representing other creative working people ensure that we receive fair payment, and that our rights are respected. The ALCS has paid out £700 million to writers since 1977. The point that I rise to make is that many scripts end up on the internet, along with novels, books and other published work. The Government have proposed the introduction of a text and data mining copyright exception that would allow AI developers to use copyrighted works without explicit prior consent. One of the arguments put forward for that exception is that we need it because licensing does not work—but licensing does work. Rights-holders have been licensing their works to commercial users for over a century, adapting to emerging technologies and meeting the demand for multi-territorial licensing. Moreover, licensing is proven to provide commercial users with the legal certainty required for investment, while also protecting creators and rights-holders from unauthorised exploitation.

We cannot allow a lifetime of human creative endeavour to be gobbled up for free by the bots. This is the opportunity for the UK Government to lead from the front by ensuring that the Data (Use and Access) Bill includes granular transparency requirements so that AI companies must disclose what they use for free, and to put a stop to the unregulated scraping of creative content online. Freelancers are looking to this Labour Government to ensure that they are fairly rewarded for their work. We must protect our creative working people and ensure that their work pays, too.

14:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) on setting the scene so very well.

I believe that we sit at the crossroads of cutting-edge technology and the legal frameworks that govern creativity with the different ways in which artificial intelligence impacts on intellectual property rights. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can boast a historically strong and thriving culture of creativity across a very broad spectrum of the arts, science and technology. It is very important that we consider this issue.

Advancements in AI raise important questions about the protection of intellectual property, because who owns the output of an AI system? Is it the user, the developer, or the AI proprietor? Such questions inspire debate in boardrooms, courtrooms and centres of policymaking across the United Kingdom. In 2020, a UK-based artist used an AI tool to create a series of digital paintings that drew significant attention at a London gallery. The question that arose was this: who owns the copyright? The artist who used the AI technology, the developer of the AI system, or no one at all?

The current law, section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, states:

“In the case of a…work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”

The problem with that, of course, is that it was written decades ago, before such technology as AI was even thought about. The challenge is when we address the nuances of today’s AI systems, where creativity is often a joint effort of human input and machine output.

The outcome of the consultation is important, because it will shape the creative industries for years to come. As the UK is a global hub for technology and law, with institutions such as the Intellectual Property Office and a thriving creative economy, it can set the precedent for how AI and intellectual property can co-exist. I believe that the first step must be legal clarity; we should revisit the 1988 Act specifically to address AI-generated works and conventions by creating a new category that pertains to AI-assisted intellectual property, with its own rules, including on ownership. We should also invest in education to empower creators and businesses to navigate the evolving intellectual property landscape. Finally, we need to balance innovation with fairness. As AI reshapes the landscape, we must ensure that the benefits of AI-driven innovation are shared in a way that is equitable and that does not place a monopoly of power in the hands of an elite few or restrict raw human integrity.

We should embrace this moment as an opportunity to redefine intellectual property for the age of AI and a future where technology and human enterprise work hand in hand to create a more resourceful and ambitious society. The time to start doing that is this day and in this debate.

15:04

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) on securing this debate, particularly as it is his birthday. The debate comes at an important time for the country as we grapple with the ways in which we can continue to nurture our fantastically successful creative and cultural sector, and supercharge our economy with the opportunities that AI offers.

Across Devon, our creative industries contribute more than £250 million to the local economy every year, and support more than 11,000 jobs, with hubs in my city of Exeter, Plymouth, Totnes and our coastal towns, where there is a thriving festival scene. The sector is not only economically significant but deeply rooted in our communities. It is powered in our region by freelancers, microbusinesses and independent venues. It is also a driving force in regional regeneration and tourism.

Exeter is a shining example of what creative investment can achieve. As a UNESCO city of literature, it stands among a global network of places that recognise the power of human words to connect, include and inspire. Exeter’s literary legacy stretches back over 1,000 years from the 10th century Exeter Book to the dynamic work of contemporary writers and festivals today. Our city holds institutions such as the Exeter Phoenix, the Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter library and the Quay Words writing hub. They are not just cultural assets, they are civic anchors promoting literacy, community engagement and creative opportunity for all.

We also have a thriving digital and gaming scene, a world-class climate science sector and a burgeoning life sciences economy. Creative tech includes an emerging immersive media, film and digital design sector across the city and the wider region. Although we have a creative economy that we want to grow, we also want to seize the opportunity of AI, which is able to change completely the way our economy works and will supercharge our science and creative tech sectors as well.

The Government are already creating space for those opportunities with the AI opportunities action plan. I have written to the Department in support of the Exeter science park’s application to host a new AI growth zone. Building the UK’s sovereign compute capacity to enable UK-based AI models and cloud computing across the country, including in Exeter, will be vital to securing the investment, jobs and future tech creativity that will continue to shape our lives, and meet some of the great challenges of our times, including the very greatest—climate change.

That must be built fairly, however, and not at the expense of human creators. I am a member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, and we recently held a joint session with our Culture, Media and Sport Committee colleagues to delve further into these issues. I support our joint submission to the Minister on that basis. I want to ensure that the Government are working hard to find a balance between protecting the rights and nurturing the growth of our cultural and creative sector, while also grasping the opportunities of UK-based AI development.

Will the Minister commit to working with stakeholders involved in the area, cultural and technological, to build a system—possibly a globally unique and groundbreaking system that will be embraced by others in the future—built on technological solutions, providing granular transparency, consent, fair remuneration, and respecting and building on our copyright laws while also enabling AI training models to be built and trained here?

15:07

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important and timely debate, not only on his birthday but on that of one of our greatest creatives ever, William Shakespeare. I hope the hon. Member does not also succumb on his birthday like he did. [Interruption.] Did he not know that? Shakespeare was born and died on the same date.

My son, Isaac Slade, is studying musical theatre at university and wants to spend his life in the performing arts, a career he knows will be challenging. He and his peers expect long hours, low pay and the need to support themselves with hospitality and teaching work, all so that they can do what they love and entertain us all. The Government’s current position on copyright and AI risks making those careers even more precarious.

Gerard, an actor from Upton in my constituency, wrote to me calling the position dangerous. Margaret, a designer, explained that she no longer shares her work online. She is afraid it will be copied without her consent, without protection and without pay. She said:

“If this is allowed to happen, we shall become a dying breed. If we don’t get paid for our artwork, we will eventually go out of business.”

Are the Government suggesting that performers and creatives should work for free? I recently held a roundtable in my constituency when a musician, Peter from Wimborne, shared something that shocked me. He told me that when I am out walking my dog, listening to my calming classical playlist, the chances are that some of that music has been interspersed with AI-generated music. I had no idea. I am sure most people would be deeply concerned to learn that they might unknowingly be enjoying work taken and replicated without the original artist’s permission.

Today I met Equity, who explained the risks in very simple terms. Just as PRS ensures musicians are paid when their track is played on the radio, the same principle applies to the use of a voice or performance on screen. But without those solid copyright positions remaining in place, AI will use that voice without their knowledge, consent, or payment from people around the world.

The Government argue that loosening copyright laws may encourage AI companies to set up here, but where is the evidence? Why would they move here where their costs are higher if they can access that content from around the world? If they do come here, why should they be able to get rich off the voice of an actor, the song of a musician or the design of an artist? The people who created the work deserve to keep what is theirs. That is why I urge the Government to scrap the opt-out clause and support new clauses 2 to 6 to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), which will protect UK creatives by requiring transparency in using the data, enforcing compliance of copyright, giving power to the Information Commissioner and preventing data from being scraped. Our creative sector is the soul of our culture and the heart of our economy. We must protect it.

15:10

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important debate.

The question about machine learning tools—AI—and their use in intellectual property is a key test of our time. What we decide to do now will have ramifications culturally, socially and economically long into the future. Large language models, a form of machine learning such as ChatGPT, have already used pirated and copyrighted material without the consent of the people who created it to train their models. It should be self-evident that that is a problem. It is a well-established right that people retain ownership of their work, with limited exceptions for education or critique. We have clear copyright laws. We have collective licensing schemes, yet those have been ridden over roughshod by machine learning developers.

I am not a luddite. I am very excited about the potential for machine learning to make our lives better, just as other technology has done before. The potential for large datasets to identify health concerns and make diagnostics more accurate—with a programme able to predict the folds of proteins, saving scientists time that they can spend on the next thorny issue—is exciting stuff. It is important to remember that technology is morally neutral. The technology itself is not good or bad. It is a tool—nothing more, nothing less—and we as humanity get to decide how we use that tool. To use that tool, we need to understand it, at least in terms of how we interact with it.

For example, we need to know that AI can lie. It will invent things. One of the best examples I have heard was when a large language model tool was asked by a huge “Doctor Who” fan to tell him about “Doctor Who” episodes and it simply made some up—perfectly plausible episodes that did not exist and have never existed. If anyone here is ever tempted to ask ChatGPT, be warned: it might not tell you the truth.

As well as understanding the potential and limitations of the technology itself, it is also important that we create frameworks that align with our values and do not roll over for mega-corporations that really do not care for our values. Meta, which owns Facebook, has argued that individual creative works have no value in themselves as they individually barely affect the performance of large language models. As a Vanity Fair article pointed out, it is a bit like an orchestra arguing that it should not pay an individual musician because the solo bassoon cannot play the whole piece by itself.

If large language model tech as a whole relies on creative works, and it does, then some form of respect for the rights of creatives must be found. We have existing copyright laws. We could simply enforce them and ensure that the tools are there to do so. I urge the Government to treat machine learning for what it is: a tool to be used well or used badly. Let us choose well.

15:14

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and have worked with Equity through the Performance Alliance and the Musicians’ Union for the last 25 years. I just want to get on the record the union perspective. As other Members have said, often in these debates the workers have been portrayed as luddites. It is quite the reverse; it is the workers who are creating these mechanisms.

As hon. Members have said, all that the trade unionists are asking for is for their rights to be protected—protected through collective bargaining, which is the mechanism that we have used for over a century for negotiations between the trade unions and the trade associations. The request is straightforward: that copyright law should be respected. The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who secured the debate, eloquently and comprehensively set out that that law is actually not unclear or disputed—it exists. The simple rule is that if someone wants to use someone else’s material, they must secure a licence with the rights holder. As a result, through that collective bargaining mechanism, we can protect everybody in future.

[Ms Billington]

Copyright is often enforced by people who have licensing departments to enforce it, but smaller creatives, such as many in my constituency, find it extremely difficult to enforce copyright as it currently stands. That is one reason why we should use this opportunity to strengthen our copyright law to protect those low-paid workers.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly right. One of the key issues raised by the hon. Member for Bury North is that lack of transparency, because people are not even aware that their stuff is being used until a later date, and then they are outraged. The role of Government is to ensure that they can enforce that the AI being developed is compliant with the regulations. In addition to that, as has been mentioned, the Information Commissioner has made very clear the role of GDPR and how it applies in such cases, and that the issue is about ensuring, from Government, that there is proper enforcement.

The simple message from this debate to the Minister is to just drop the Government’s proposed text and data exception. Several hon. Members have made it clear that nobody has discovered an effective opt-out mechanism that is applicable at this time—maybe some time in the future, but certainly not in the immediate future.

The other issue is that the performers’ rights framework needs to be updated now. That demand has come from virtually every trade union, and other bodies representing individual artists as well. That is the debate we should be having—about how we could update and improve that framework, and about enforcing existing GDPR.

One of the briefings that I saw said that this country is a gold mine of creativity and creative content. Well, at the moment, there is a gold rush on. It is a wild west out there, and the people benefiting are the big US tech companies. I do not want to push the analogy too far, but we need a sheriff. That is the role of Government; the Government should not be taking us backwards rather than moving us forwards.

I hope that the Minister leaves this debate with a full understanding of the tenor not just of what is needed, but of the cross-party strength of feeling. We need the Government to intervene positively to protect people’s rights and to protect that gold mine of creativity in this country.

15:18

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this crucial debate—a great way to spend his birthday.

I want to draw attention to the fact that my partner works in publishing. My background is not in publishing or the creative industries, but in the data and tech industry, and I am excited by what it can help us to achieve. I rise to speak not only about artificial intelligence, but about the kind of country we want to be in the decades ahead. We are at a crossroads. The United Kingdom is positioning itself as a global leader in AI, and rightly so—AI has the potential to transform every sector of our economy, from healthcare to transport and from education to climate science—but, as we drive innovation forward, we must also ensure that our values are aligned.

If we want to be the best place in the world to start, scale and grow an AI company, we must also be the most trusted. Trust is not built through ambition alone; it is built through transparency, fairness, respect for the rule of law and the protection of intellectual property. At present, many of the most powerful AI models have been trained on vast quantities of copyrighted material—books, articles, art, music and software—and often without the consent, knowledge or compensation of the people who created it. That is not hypothetical; it is happening now. In the last week, we have seen some big names in tech say that they want IP law to be ripped up altogether. I wonder how they would feel if tech firms with deeper pockets and bigger legal teams than theirs decided to simply take what they have. Pulling up the ladder of IP law may no longer seem such an attractive prospect.

Let us be absolutely clear: copyright is not an inconvenience or a technicality. It is the legal and moral framework that ensures that creators are rewarded for their contributions. Some people will argue that requiring AI companies to comply with copyright law would hinder innovation, but the opposite is true: legal certainty enables innovation. What stifles innovation is a regulatory vacuum where only the largest, best resourced firms can afford to operate in the grey areas of the law. We should not accept a model where creativity becomes collateral damage in the pursuit of speed or short-term profit for shareholders. Governments must prioritise the concerns of citizens.

Let us establish a clear, transparent and enforceable framework for the use of copyrighted content in AI training, and let us not waste any time or kick this can down the road by waiting for the results of the copyright and AI consultation. Let us act now. Let us amend the Data (Use and Access) Bill to ensure that companies providing generative AI services in the UK must comply with UK copyright law and be transparent about the data fuelling their models. After all, they should know what data they are utilising. It can be done; companies including Adobe, 273 Ventures and Flawless AI are doing it. Experts have made it clear that no opt-out models work. We have an opportunity to be world leaders—let us lead.

14:34

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important debate. I should declare that my husband is a voiceover artist.

As with every technological leap forward, whether from theatre to cinema or television to streaming, protecting the rights and income of our creators does not create a barrier to innovation or growth. As we move into an AI-powered future, it is even more crucial to protect creators with transparency, consent and compensation for the content used to train AI models.

Our creative industries are a great British success story, worth more than £125 billion to the UK economy and supporting more than 2.4 million jobs. What underpins that success is the principle that those who create content are paid for it, and copyright protections have been the bedrock of that principle for decades. The case for updating UK copyright law for training AI is that the current framework is unclear, but there is no such ambiguity. If someone plays music in a club without a licence or sells counterfeit DVDs, they are breaking the law. If AI companies wish to train their models on copyrighted content, they have to get consent to do so.

AI companies may be harder to hold to account because their models are opaque, but that makes this a transparency and enforcement issue, not a legal one. Our content, our books, our journalism and our music are the oil needed to fuel generative AI systems. I do not think anyone would argue that oil should be mined and used for free by any other industry, so why should it be any different for the precious resource that is creative content? Creating generative AI systems with no accountability and no remuneration is not innovation; it is simply exploitation.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to our creative industries and to finding a solution fit for the future, but the current proposal of an opt-out system is unworkable and unfair. The Government even acknowledge that the technology to implement an opt-out system does not exist. We must uphold the rights of our content creators by upholding copyright protections and giving creators the transparency, consent and compensation they deserve.

14:34

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this debate and wish him a happy birthday. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Musicians’ Union. Long ago, I worked in the music industry, so I know musicians not as headlines or playlists, but as people. Most of all, I am a fan—a fan of what they make and of what their work means to our shared national life—but I am inundated with concerns from them. Their fears are immediate and tangible, because the truth is that the music industry has long enabled the legal and largely unchallenged exploitation of those who make music.

Streaming has gutted the income of songwriters and performers. More than half of professional musicians now earn less than £15,000 a year, which is much less than the minimum wage. Their songs are played more than ever, but they are not seeing the money; someone else is. If copyright law is not handled correctly, musicians will once again lose out—used, imitated, unpaid.

Any serious discussion about AI must include a clear demand for transparency from companies developing such tools. Creatives deserve to know when and how their work is being used. Without that, there can be no fairness. To me, it is very simple: no one should be allowed to use someone’s work without permission or payment. That is called theft. Sidelining the creative sector that already exists comes with a bill, and right now, working artists are being asked to foot it. We in the Labour party believe in making work pay. That has to include the work of musicians.

Some of the proposals could favour faceless corporations that treat creativity as data and dress up appropriation as progress. Nothing is inevitable about that. We value culture, we value work and we must value those who create. I will end by repeating the plea of my friend from the other place, Lord Brennan of Canton:

“I want to make a plea for human intelligence and EI—emotional intelligence—over AI, artificial intelligence. AI is a great servant, including to the creative industries, but it would be a terrible master if we allowed it to become that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 848.]

15:26

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) on securing such an important debate. To me, it is about culture, creativity and human talent, and about people reaching their full potential in life and making sure that that is not taken away from them by things that can happen. This morning, I hosted a drop-in with Equity, and I met the Association of Photographers. They are worried, and rightly so: 58% of Association of Photography members say that they have already lost work to AI. That is more than £14,000 on average already lost by each professional photographer.

That is not work going; that is work being taken by generative AI. More than 15 billion AI-generated images are out there now, trained by using people’s intellectual property without permission, payment or those people even knowing. Photographers post their pictures on their websites, then AI companies send in web crawlers to scrape them—no consent, no warning. That is data theft, plain and simple. It breaks data protection laws, and we should call it out for what it is, because once scraped, they are gone—people cannot retrieve their property.

We would not allow that in any other sector—it is not right. We would not let someone steal our tools, so why would we let them steal our work, our face or our voice? That is robbery. Actors are finding their faces and voices turning up in ads and games that they never agreed to. AI watches people work and copies them. No one should lose their job and their creative talent to a machine that is trained on their own work—it is your face, it is your voice, it is your style, and it should be your choice. Consent must come first—no yes, no use.

Let us fix this. Let us give working people the rights they need in the AI age. We have copyright law for a reason, so let us update and strengthen it. Tech companies cannot just take—there must be rules and no opt-outs. There have to be protections and there has to be fair pay. Protect our artists, our voices and our jobs. This is not science fiction; it is happening right now, and we need to act now before irreparable damage is done.

15:28

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) on securing this important debate and, in the words of my favourite artist, Stevie Wonder, “Happy birthday to ya”.

In my constituency, I have a brilliant example of how technological advances can expand the performing arts in the best way, with the wonderful “ABBA Voyage” and its famous digital avatars, or ABBAtars, as we call them. I have, however, also been contacted by more than 200 constituents, because we have a thriving creative hub in east London. They have very real concerns about what the development of AI means for their careers—the careers that they have devoted their lives to.

Motion designers, photographers and illustrators have been in touch with me, as has “The voice of the Northern line”. To give an example, a few people who work in illustration have written to me with their concerns, outlining that without suitable safeguards, their careers and businesses are being put at risk, not to mention their creative output, as we have already heard from hon. Members. The creative output of these illustrators is their craft and their life’s work, which they have honed—in some cases, they have spent decades training—but it is all at risk of being cannibalised. There is a tension between big-scale changes from technology and AI, which can enrich our lives, and the impact that those changes can have on individual creators, who are the engine of the culture that we consume. That tension needs to be reconciled.

I am proud that Britain is leading the way in so many technological advances, but we absolutely have to get to the bottom of the concerns that my constituents and others mentioned today have outlined. Could the Minister provide any assurances about how the Government are addressing those concerns and showing that they are listening to the voices of our constituents? Could he also outline how the Government will ensure that artists and creators retain control over their voice, style and licences?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

To fit in the last couple of speakers, we will go down to two minutes per speech, but I will get everybody in.

15:30

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who spoke excellently, and there have been many excellent speeches today. I will speak briefly, but I want to raise some specific points. First, I thank Valerie Dunmore, who is the chair of the Society of Women Writers and Journalists, which was established in 1894. She came to see me specifically to raise these issues, and this gives us an idea of what is at stake.

Turning to the creative industries in Wales, we have heard how much the creative industries contribute in other areas, and in Wales itself, the figure was £1.5 billion. There are over 3,500 creative businesses in Wales; that number is increasing and the freelance workforce is growing. These industries all play an important part in preserving and spreading the Welsh language and culture. Film, drama, literature and music all sustain and produce a unique Welsh way of life, through the medium of both Welsh and English.

In February this year, newspapers and news organisations across Wales devoted their leading articles to this issue, warning that what is threatening their industry could have potentially catastrophic consequences for Welsh journalism. Creative groups in Wales, such as Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru, say that they do not support an opt-out process. Instead, they suggest that any new regime should require creators to opt in, meaning that web crawlers cannot simply scrape content unless permitted to do so.

I wanted to bring the Wales-specific issues to the fore because the risk is that we always assume that the Welsh language works in the same context as that of the English language. It does not. We look at English creators as being vulnerable, but Welsh creators are even more so. I urge the Minister to respond by stating what impact assessment has been carried out in relation to the creative industries in Wales, and specifically the Welsh language, given its vulnerabilities.

15:32

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important debate. This is a subject of huge concern to anyone who works in the creative industries. I have been contacted by many people in my constituency who are concerned about how the future will impact them and their work. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for visual arts and artists, and we are looking at this issue closely to ensure that artists’ copyright is fully protected.

AI can provide many opportunities across many industries. Indeed, we have already seen AI images grace the cover of magazines and AI artwork sold at auction. However, it also comes with challenges, such as how we can ensure sustainable growth while safeguarding the value of people’s artistic work. Artists and creatives rightly have significant concerns about how AI could negatively impact their work, future opportunities and copyright. The breakneck speed at which AI is developing means that there is a widening skills gap, with people playing catch-up to ensure that their work remains relevant and current.

The role of Government in this emerging sector is crucial. Consent, control and remuneration for intellectual property must be at the heart of how the Government manage AI development. To prevent exploitation, we must ensure that the onus of protecting rights and intellectual property is not placed on rights holders. There are huge growth opportunities across the creative industries, worth billions to our economy. Our legal frameworks for AI and copyright must support artists and creatives to facilitate the protection of their intellectual property. Rights holders must be able to make nuanced decisions about the potential use of their work through standardised systems and be fairly compensated for that use. It is the role of Government to ensure that copyright is protective and enforced, so let us do that.

15:34

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important debate.

A study by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers found that people working in the music industry could lose up to a quarter of their income by 2028 as a result of generative AI. Those losses would happen on two fronts: unremunerated and unauthorised use of their work, and competition from AI-generated output. In opposition, the now Government proposed to grow the creative economy and create good jobs right across the country. That was rightly welcomed, but there is significant concern about the proposed opt-out approach to text and data mining. I add my voice to the concerns about the removal of Baroness Kidron’s amendments from the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Government previously said that the Bill was not the right vehicle for such action, so I would welcome some clarification: if not now, when?

The EU has had an opt-out system for text and data mining since 2019, but no effective rights reservation solutions have been developed in six years. That system was introduced before the widespread adoption of AI, and the EU is now trying to retrofit solutions.

The Government have outlined that AI companies and creative industries would need to collaborate to solve these problems, so I would appreciate some guidance from the Minister about the work that is happening in that space. I know that the Government are waiting for the results of their consultation, but many creators would appreciate clarity today about the work that is taking place. The UK’s creators are asking not for special treatment but for fairness and for the unique value of their work to be recognised and protected in the digital age. Let us make sure that the law keeps pace not only with technology but with justice.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I thank Members for keeping so keenly to the time limit, which has allowed us to get everybody in.

15:36

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the birthday boy, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), on securing this important debate.

In my constituency, we have thriving creative and tech industries off the back of GCHQ—Cheltenham has a lot of creative businesses. When I hosted my roundtable with the creatives, they told me that they are extremely worried about what they assume is being proposed in the Government’s consultation. When I talk to tech start-ups, they say they are also concerned about that because they are worried that the things they are doing to innovate are being scraped. That is a concern from an economic growth perspective, in both directions, and the Government need to acknowledge that.

Intellectual property rights protect human ingenuity. They are the legal and moral foundations that allow creators to share in the value of what they create, but artificial intelligence is blurring the line between human and machine authorship, and is raising urgent and complex questions. Who owns an AI-generated piece of music trained on thousands of copyrighted songs? How do we enforce rights when the inputs and outputs are hidden behind proprietary algorithms? The answer must be that creators own the rights to their work, and those rights must be protected.

For centuries, creators have honed their craft through years of study, practice and transformation. That contributes to what we all enjoy about the creative industries, but AI now allows machines to ingest and remix millions of works in seconds, fundamentally altering the relationship between inspiration and creation. If we talk to tech companies about this, we find that they do not quite grasp the difference between their innovation and that of the human mind. That unprecedented scale and speed demands stronger, not weaker, protections. Our creative industries generate £126 billion annually and are central to our economy and cultural identity. As AI continues to reshape content production, the intellectual property rights of our writers, musicians and artists must be safeguarded, not weakened.

As we argued during the debates on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, when innovation outpaces regulation, we risk losing public trust and undermining the creative industries that employ 2.3 million people across the country. That is bad for our economy. Throughout the debates on data legislation, we have consistently argued that consent must not be an afterthought but should be the default. If a human being has created something, they have the right to know how it is being used and to be fairly recognised and remunerated for that use. That principle must carry through to how we approach AI and intellectual property.

The tech companies claim that an opt-in system would be too technically complex to implement. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? But at its heart, this debate is not about technical feasibility. It is about being willing to respect creators’ rights from the outset, preventing theft, as Members have said, and supporting our valued creative industries. We have also warned against innovation washing: the idea that technical progress should come before ethical scrutiny. It is not anti-innovation to protect creators, but quite the opposite. A fair IP framework is what allows our creativity and innovation to thrive, and it is good for our economy, too.

So what must we do? First, we must ensure that web crawlers and AI models are bound by existing copyright law. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would enforce existing copyright protections, rather than weakening them through a suggested opt-out system. Secondly, we need meaningful transparency. Our amendments would increase data and identity transparency for crawlers and models, ensuring that creators know how and where their work is being used to train AI systems. Thirdly, we need a clear path for consent and compensation. We have seen in the data Bill debates how opaque data-collection practices undermine public confidence. That lesson must apply here. Creators should have the right to opt in or opt out of their work being used in AI training, and there must be mechanisms for meaningful, proportionate compensation.

I also urge the Government to lead internationally on this issue. We have an opportunity to establish stronger protections that better serve our creative sector. The Independent Society of Musicians, the Authors Guild, the British Copyright Council and the Association of Illustrators—to name just a few of the many organisations representing hundreds of thousands of creators—all support that stance. The global nature of AI necessitates co-ordination through the World Intellectual Property Organisation and alignment with international partners, but British creators deserve robust protections that travel with their work across international borders.

This debate has repeatedly shown that, across party lines, we believe that creators must be protected—that is true of those who speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the Government, the Conservatives and the nationalists, and those elsewhere, too. Creators must be at the centre. Data and innovation policy must work for people, not just for platforms, algorithms or corporations. Let us remember that behind every dataset are human stories: the novelist who spent years crafting her narrative; the musician who refined his composition through countless hours of practice; the visual artist whose unique perspective shapes our cultural landscape. Their rights are not obstacles to innovation, but its very foundation.

15:42

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in this very well-attended, knowledgeable and thoughtful debate. Given that so many Members have taken part, I can only make some brief remarks.

I want to focus on principles, which came up quite a few times throughout this debate. In a complex area, it is principles that help us get through. It seems to be tradition in this debate to say happy birthday to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith)—he will be clipping this so that it can go out on his social media. He spoke with knowledge and passion, and there is not much to disagree with in what he said. He also mentioned what I see as the core principles—transparency; the ability to enforce copyright; the ability to demonstrate where data comes from, so that we can see who owns it and what the root trace is; and a technological solution linked to that, in terms of demonstrating data ownership.

I also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, who reiterated this week, importantly, that all companies need property rights to be enforced, and that these two are not mutually exclusive. I thank her for her extensive work in this area to push forward this debate.

The previous Government were committed to the UK being at the cutting edge of tech and creative industries, and we remain committed to that in Opposition. We have heard the concerns of the creative industries loud and clear, but we do not believe that there is anything to be gained by treating the emergence of AI as some sort of zero-sum game, where one industry wins and another fails. It should not be an either/or. This needs to be mutually inclusive, not mutually exclusive, and we believe that it is possible to achieve that.

This is a challenging and complex area to get right. Solving this problem is not simple, particularly if we look at what is happening internationally and at extra-jurisdictional issues. Quite simply, other areas have not fixed this either. If there was a straightforward solution for this problem, it would be in process right now. It is important to recognise that from the outset, and to recognise the challenge facing the Minister in fixing the problem, but I have ambition for him. I believe that he can fix it, and I look forward to him doing so over the course of the next year. It is in this direction that we as Opposition want to take things forward.

We believe that getting this area of policy right will mean focusing on some key principles. Most importantly, there should be proportionate transparency in our AI industries about how they use creative content to train their models and generate content. That should be combined with recognition and enforceability of creative rights. The development of technology in the form of a readily accessible digital watermark will be instrumental in helping creatives protect their work online. Start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises in our growing AI industries need to be supported to develop their models in a way that respects the rights of creatives. In that regard, the AI opportunities action plan identified the need to unlock public and private datasets to enable innovation and attract international talent and capital.

We tabled a series of pragmatic amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill in Committee that would have committed the Secretary of State to putting in place a plan to achieve those important aims within a reasonable period after the conclusion of the Government’s consultation on copyright and AI. We understand that the Government have received in excess of 11,500 consultation responses from stakeholders, which they are in the process of analysing. Given the concern that their original plans caused in our creative industries, we welcome the Minister’s announcement, following the closure of the consultation, that the Government have taken a second look at their preferred approach to regulating the sector. In particular, we welcome the renewed emphasis on the need for increased transparency about how models are trained, so that creatives can enforce their rights. This is a key area that has come up throughout the debate, and we called on the Government to set out an informed plan in Committee on the data Bill.

We appreciate that the impact of AI on intellectual property requires proper and careful consideration. We will work constructively to support the creation of policy and plans in this fundamentally important area. If we get it right, there will be tremendous economic and societal benefits to growing our AI sector and supporting our creative sector to continue to thrive. It is time for the Government to be clear about their plans, in order to create certainty for the AI and creative industries about the way forward and help promote an environment of confidence, paving the way for investment and growth.

15:47

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

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.

I will not go through all the individual contributions to the debate, if that is all right with Members, because I want to deal directly with the specific issues as much as I can. My hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on securing the debate, talked about a landing point, and that is what I will try to talk about today.

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. Interestingly enough, in one of the very early Westminster Hall debates I took part in, way back on 12 June 2002—the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is sitting across the Chamber today, led the debate that day—I said that we need to look at the performers’ rights framework. I completely agree that creators need to be remunerated.

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.

Fourthly, the creative industries are already engaging with artificial intelligence. Many of them are engaged in licensing already, and have been from the very beginning. That is not just true for newspapers, many of which have had an easier time delivering that if they have been behind a paywall; a whole series of different licences have now been arranged. I went to the London book fair and spoke to several publishers, all of whom were interested in bringing forward licensing with AI companies and want to do so with all the AI platforms, for the simple reason that, as some of the academic publishers put it, they want AI to be the best version of AI that it can be. A fundamental principle of a pipe is that what comes out of it depends on what is put into it, and the quality of responses produced by AI will depend on the quality of information that has been put into it. Many of the UK’s big academic publishers are trying to license and get remuneration for their work because they want to make sure that AI provides good, modern answers based on solid information.

Fifthly, transparency is vital but not simple, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said. Several hon. Members referred to the European Union, which theoretically has transparency provisions in its legislation, but has yet to come up with a system that is both proportionate, and effective and usable. Frankly, there is no point in somebody dumping a list of millions or billions of URLs that have been scraped and looked at on some kind of website. Whether that was done on a monthly or weekly basis, it would hardly be usable, or a proper, effective means of transparency.

We need to get transparency, and the enforcement of transparency, right. That is why we have consulted on this area. There is a great deal more work that we need to do. I would like to do some of it with allies in other countries who are struggling with this too, but we need to do it with the creative industries and with tech. There must be somebody out there who could make a commercial living out of creating an app that could help us solve the transparency issue, but it is vital that we do so. We need to make sure that there is transparency, because otherwise how can anybody know whether their works have been scraped or not?

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am very reluctant to give way, if only because I have quite a lot of things to get through. I am really sorry. We will have another debate on this issue very soon, I am sure.

Sixthly, several Members referred to people wanting a “legal peace of mind”. I am not reiterating the line about whether or not there is legal certainty; that is not the point I am making. Many individual creators have been in touch with me directly—I am sure that they have been in touch with other hon. Members—to say, “I don’t know where I stand now under the existing law. I understand how Getty Images can go to court and enforce their rights, sometimes on behalf of themselves but also on behalf of the people they represent, but how do I do that for myself when I’ve just posted some of my works online, because I’m advertising my works? I don’t want to disappear from the internet, so the robots.txt system doesn’t work.”

That is a really important area where we need to do work. We have a framework of civil enforcement of copyright in the UK. It is robust and it meets the Berne convention issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North referred to, but it is still easier for those who have lawyers and cash to use it. That is why we have collecting societies, which can be more effective in many areas, but the different segments of the creative industries that we are talking about have to be dealt with differently, because a musician, an artist, a photographer, somebody who writes or somebody whose words or voice are being used are all treated differently, or their rights are enforced differently at present, and we need to make sure that there is that legal peace of mind for all those people into the future.

My hon. Friend said that a technical solution for rights reservation does not yet exist and he is absolutely right. I think a couple of other Members made that point, and I know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is admirably chaired, has referred to some of these matters, including in a letter to Secretaries of State. But why do we not make it happen? I am determined to make it happen. Surely, it cannot be beyond the wit of the clever people who are developing all this technology to develop something. If we could get to a place where it was very easy for any individual, or everybody—

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I only have 45 seconds left, so I am afraid that I cannot; I am sorry.

If we were able to deliver that over the next 12 to 18 months in the UK, then we genuinely would be leading the world and we would be answering the problems of transparency and provenance, and making sure that people were genuinely remunerated. That is one of the things I am determined to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is no longer in his place, said that we must listen to the creative industries before any legislation is introduced. He is 100% correct. I absolutely commit that that is what we will do. Somebody else said that technology is not good or bad; I think they were almost quoting “Hamlet”. I will make the point that artificial intelligence was made for humanity by humanity, not humanity made for artificial intelligence, and we need to make sure that we get the balance right.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North started the debate by saying—because he had to—that we have “considered” the impact of AI on intellectual property. We have not adequately considered it yet. We have to consider it more. We were not intending to legislate in the data Bill, and there is no clause in it, on opt-out. There is no such clause. There is no need to take it out, because it does not exist. I am determined to get us to a place where people are properly remunerated, where they are able to enforce their rights, and where AI can flourish in this country and be used by the creative industries and the creative industries are not left by the wayside. In short, to quote the Bible, we will not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage.

15:58

[Mr Frith]

I thank everybody for their considered remarks. I have been so inspired by the turnout, not just of colleagues, but of industry representatives and other concerned stakeholders. It was remiss of me not to begin by referring to my wife, as is often the case: I failed to declare that she is a jobbing actor and a recording vocal artist. I apologise to her, and for my failure to follow protocol on such matters.

I will jump straight into the remarks by my hon. Friend the Minister. I cannot fault him for his engagement, but I will send him the questions that I posed to him, because I do not think that we got commitments to remove the opt-out clause or to a more clinical focus on the enforcement of copyright. If we addressed both of those issues, we would solve much of the problem that brought so many people to the Chamber today. I thank stakeholders for their engagement, and all those who wrote to me following my request for evidence.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

16:00

Sitting suspended.