Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Rights

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

The debate can technically run until 6.04 pm.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights for creative workers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am delighted to have secured a debate on such an important and dynamic topic.

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence seemingly knows no bounds. Each week, a new AI tool is launched that drives further change across business, science, the arts and everyday life. When I applied for the debate, no one had heard of ChatGPT, but now it is writing speeches for the Chancellor. AI can undoubtedly bring significant advancements across a variety of fields, from aiding medical diagnoses to predicting environmental disasters. AI is transformative. It goes further and faster than humanly possible. Quite rightly, it has been identified as one of the UK’s key growth industries, and it is vital that Government policy supports digital innovation to position the UK as a world leader in this field.

But just as AI brings many benefits, it also carries significant risk. AI is rapidly permeating the creative sector, creating visual art, prose, music and film at a pace and cost that humans are unable to match. For creatives, the risk of AI-generated material flooding the market gives rise to significant regulatory and ethical challenges, but these can be overcome, or at least mitigated, with well thought out and considered policy that balances the legitimate concerns of creatives with the need to foster digital innovation. I am therefore pleased to bring this debate to Parliament to discuss those challenges on the record and to give a voice to the millions of creative workers across the UK whose careers will be impacted by AI.

We have all seen how quickly AI can redefine industry norms. We must start exploring how we balance our digital and creative future. What is the outlook for our musicians, journalists, visual artists, publishers and performers in an increasingly computer-powered world? With the help of the Chamber Engagement Team, I conducted a survey of over 200 creative workers to hear how AI was impacting their work. Many said that their work, which they own the copyright for, had been used without their consent by AI companies. One respondent, Richard, noted that, in recent weeks, almost 600 of his copyrighted images had been scraped off the internet to train AI platforms, for which he has not received a single penny. Another survey respondent, Henry, said:

“Why should an AI company be able to blatantly copy and capture the ‘essence’ of how I compose music and monetise it, for free?”

This bypassing of copyright has resulted in creatives feeling that AI is undermining their skills and devaluing the creative process, as well as having a detrimental impact on their income.

The respondents to my survey are not alone. A significant volume of active legal battles regarding AI and intellectual property is currently going through the courts. Intellectual property rights and copyright laws are fundamental to the success of the UK’s world-leading creative industries. They not only protect the integrity of original work, but provide a revenue stream to ensure that creatives can make a living from their work. Copyright therefore has both an economic and a moral importance for creatives. But rather than looking to ensure current protections are upheld and enforced, last June, the Intellectual Property Office published proposals for an all-out exception to copyright for text and data mining in order to promote AI, with no opt-out for rights holders.

Under these proposals, companies across the world would be able to use UK creatives’ material to produce clean, new material that they could sell and even obtain copyright for without having to gain permission from the creator or pay for a licence. This would see a huge transfer of value from individual creatives to tech companies and strip creatives of the opportunity to refuse or grant permission for the use of their work by AI companies, placing thousands of jobs within the creative sector under threat.

These proposals to dramatically widen the text and data mining exception have been met with staunch resistance from the creative community, which has emphasised not only their economic harm but the damage that the erosion of intellectual property rights will do to industry as a whole by stunting future creativity. UK Music has referred to the text and data mining exception as “music laundering”. Equity, the trade union, has said that the proposal

“could be a huge assault on the property rights of performers.”

The Publishers Content Forum has said that the proposals would disincentivise further investment in high quality data. The Design and Artists Copyright Society, which represents visual artists, has warned that

“this change will have far-reaching detrimental consequences”.

It has urged the Government to

“look again at how the policy objectives”

of supporting AI-driven technologies

“can be better met without undermining creators’ rights.”

After hearing evidence from some of those groups and many others, the Lords Communications and Digital Committee found that the IPO’s text and data mining proposals were “misguided” and advised that they be dropped “immediately”. I was therefore encouraged yesterday to hear the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), tell the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that she was “pretty confident” that the text and data mining exception would not be going ahead as proposed last summer.

As the Intellectual Property Office falls within the remit of the Minister responding to the debate, I am hopeful that he will confirm that the Government will not proceed with the all-out exception to copyright. That news would be welcomed across the creative sector, but a number of questions remain to be answered. Why were the proposals ever signed off? Who asked for them? What issue were they trying to solve? On what basis was it deemed necessary to adopt such a broadbrush approach? What evidence is there that the copyright exception will benefit the UK economy in general and the promotion of AI specifically?

If the proposals are indeed not proceeding as originally intended, how will the Government ensure that stakeholders are thoroughly consulted on alternative proposals to avoid a repeat of last summer? How will Parliament be consulted to ensure that the correct balance between promoting our creative sector and developing AI can be achieved? Both sectors are strategically important to the UK.

Many of the creative workers who responded to my survey expressed a clear desire for robust enforcement of current copyright protections, with any form of open access text and data mining arrangement offered on an opt-in basis for creatives. One respondent, Ian, said:

“If musicians and composers wish to sell their rights to software companies to train their systems then that is their right, but the default should be that it is illegal to use any music without permission, and it must be enforced robustly.”

There does not seem to be a shortage of free data online. Google has this week revealed a new AI tool that is able to generate music from a short textual description using only work that is not protected by copyright. Other survey respondents advocated stricter rules relating to copyright infringement and tougher legislation to improve copyright protection of individuals and companies.

What is the solution? How do we balance the legitimate concerns of rights holders with the need to foster an environment that stimulates innovation in AI? The answer cannot simply be plucked out of thin air. It needs to be worked out in detail after careful discussion between Government, officials and stakeholders from across the full breadth of the creative sector.

The creative industry, like all sectors, will have to adapt to accommodate AI, but the industry is capable of and already making progress with that. Creatives have largely accepted that AI-generated content will have its place in the market, and they are already using AI to enhance their work by driving efficiencies and extending their reach to new markets. It also gives rise to a number of new licensing opportunities to generate value for creatives. However, a solid regulatory framework is essential to protect their rights and ensure that they can take part in value creation and retain control over their work.

My team and I have spoken to a number of bodies across the creative sector, whom I thank for sharing their insights. It is clear that the passion that drives our creative industries is still well and truly alive. That is not to say that the creative industries will not face challenges from technological advancements. AI can operate faster and more efficiently than humans, but it will never be able to draw on the lived experience of humans.

The arts bind us together as a society. They create a collective identity and a shared cultural experience. The connection drawn between reader and author, listener and songwriter, and artist and viewer cannot be replaced by a robot. The value, beauty and joy of the arts is that they reflect the human experience. How sterile and lonely our lives would be if human life were only to be captured on servers and in pixels. How deprived we would be if algorithms served us up only what they thought we wanted to hear and see and we no longer had the opportunity to encounter something completely different.

We must also remember that creators are individuals who often dedicate their lives to their craft. History teaches us that as manual workers are replaced by machines, skills atrophy as demand for them falls. People work hard to develop a skill because they hope to earn a living from it. If the economy no longer demands skills in the creative sector, they will start to decline.

Amy, a composer who responded to my survey, said:

“We train for many years, often at our own expense, to develop and hone our skills in order to share our music. Yet with every week that goes by, we see our music being devalued at every turn. We should be embracing musicians, composers and artists, not trampling over them with the click of a button.”

If creative industries no longer present a viable career option, we risk deterring future entrants to the sector and depriving future generations of creative skills. Another survey respondent, Oliver, noted:

“AI threatens having a creative industry that continues to breed and create new ideas.”

We must embrace, rather than resist, AI developments. Unleashing innovation in AI is central to economic growth, but that objective cannot be pursued at the expense of creatives. We cannot let AI replace the human creators who have built our world-leading creative industry, nor can AI content be produced off the backs of hard-working creatives without their consent. I urge the Minister to confirm that the Government will not proceed with the text and data mining exception proposed last summer, and I would welcome his assurance that all relevant stakeholders will be properly consulted in the development of alternative proposals to balance the needs of our creative and digital economy.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I do not wish to speak for a long time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on her excellent opening speech. She made some powerful and important points.

Last year, I was briefly the Minister for tech and the digital economy, and this issue came within my remit. It sits between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister’s Department, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I was surprised then, and I am surprised now, by the result of the Government’s consultation. The recommendation that was made is the most extreme of the options considered. It is unsurprising when we read the responses that, on the whole, rights holders complained that the general exemption was a bad thing, and researchers and developers who wanted to do it thought it was a good thing. However, the Government’s response seems to completely dismiss the concerns raised by rights holders and entirely favour the people who wish to exploit this data for their own benefit.

It is quite clear that people are seeking to extract value from data that other people have created in order to create products and tools from which they themselves will benefit commercially. There are already lawsuits in the music industry between musicians who claim someone else has listened to and copied their work and sought to benefit from it commercially. For example, someone could take the back catalogue of every track ever written by the Beatles to learn the techniques and methods. From that, they could create new music composed in the same style, as if the group was at its peak of writing and recording today. They would do so without the consent of the rights holders of that content, and they would make money out of it for themselves.

We can easily see how that kind of passing off could occur at scale, without any licence or exemption, or any benefit for the original creators. We should be concerned about the impact that will have on the creative economy. Many experts believe we are already very close to the day when AI will be capable of creating a new No. 1 download track or even a hit movie.

[Sarah Olney]

The example of the Beatles is an excellent one that we can all relate to. However, the Beatles have already generated a great deal of wealth from that back catalogue. Does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be a greater threat to new and emerging artists, who perhaps have not yet achieved the reach of the Beatles, that their copyright could be breached and their music replicated before they have even had a chance to establish themselves as an artist and as the correct owner of that work?

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Lady is completely right. It has an impact on new artists in two ways. First, they are competing against AI-generated generic music from legendary artists. Secondly, the technology could be used to spot new and emerging artists who may be gaining in reputation and popularity, to quickly copy their style and techniques by analysing the data and text from their works, and creating new works from that. It opens the door to the machines really taking control of the creative process, to the detriment of original artists.

The important point of principle is that when people have created works, they should have the say on how those works are exploited. It is detrimental for another organisation that sees value in that work to take it, mine it, create something from it and claim it as its own. It would be rather like saying, when radio launched, “Well, we don’t really think that we should pay artists any money for playing their music on the radio because the radio creates a new audience for their work; more people are likely to buy records as a consequence, and charging for music would inhibit the growth of radio and radio stations, which have a huge benefit to the country.”

As technology has developed, we have decided to recognise that, with technological advances, we must reward the creators as well. Their work is exploited through those technologies to entertain and engage people, and it has a value too. If we deny them access to that value, we will restrict their work and the future work that will come from it.

I think that it is very important that there is at least an opt-in or an opt-out. The Intellectual Property Office cites other jurisdictions in the world where exemptions exist. In its preamble, it cites the EU as one of them, but what it does not say is that there are pretty fundamental differences between the way that it works in the EU and the proposals for the UK. The IPO has also taken the most extreme option of having very general exemptions.

It is very important to think about the remit of AI, because we can already see how important AI will be to shaping people’s experiences of content. Probably the best live example of AI at work today is in the way that people play video games—the way that they are designed around the user as they play them—or the way that content is recommended to people on social media platforms. That is AI-driven recommendation tools learning from the things that people like and engage with—how long they look at things and what they listen to—and pushing new content at them based on that.

When we think about metaverse and virtual-reality experiences, that will all be based on machine learning and data mining to create new experiences for people. If people doing that mining can benefit from the creativity of others to create those experiences and create those new images, and can do so without any recourse or compensation to the original creators, then that is a big power shift in the creative economy, away from creators to people who drive systems—away from the artist to the data broker and data miner.

As we see the central role that AI will play in shaping people’s experiences in the future, it would be a big mistake, at this point, to completely cut out the creatives and see their data and content exploited by somebody else without any compensation at all. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. This is an urgent issue that requires a new think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Thank you for your excellent chairing of the debate, Mr Robertson, which it is a pleasure to wind up. I am delighted to hear that the Minister has committed, as far as he is able, to withdrawing the current proposals, and that he will consult widely with all parts of our creative industry before putting forward any further proposals. I am sure everyone in this room looks forward to hearing what those are.

This debate has, perhaps, been a reflection of why our creative sector is such a stronghold of the British economy. We have been debating this cutting-edge technology in the ancient surroundings of Westminster Hall. That really points out the context and the source of so much of the uniqueness in British creativity, across all parts of the UK.

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for bringing his expertise and experience in this area, which really contributed excellently to the debate. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for his contribution. I found it rather chilling, actually, that the phrase that sprung out at me was “software and other tools”—presumably those other tools are paintbrushes and musical instruments. It highlights that we cannot allow our human input and skills to be swallowed up by AI and, as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire said, the very derivative nature of what we will be served up as a result.

I thank not only all Members who participated in the debate, but all the industry sector groups who spoke to me and my team about the issues they are experiencing, and particularly the artists, musicians and performers who responded to the survey. It has been incredibly useful to really understand this issue. I am particularly grateful to Megan Harding, in my office, who brought all this together and helped me with the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights for creative workers.