Latest news with #BeebanKidron
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI
Campaigners have accused ministers of lying to parliament and the creative industries after the government signalled it would not force AI companies to disclose how they train their models. Ministers are holding firm in a standoff with the House of Lords, which has called for artists to be offered immediate copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to the data bill that would force AI firms to be transparent about what copyrighted material they use to train their models. In an amendment tabled on Friday, the government dismissed the Lords' request and reiterated its promise to publish an economic impact assessment and technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation. Beeban Kidron, the crossbench peer and film director who has campaigned on behalf of the industry, said during Wednesday's debate that she would 'accept anything that the Commons does' after this week. 'I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case,' she said. But the News Media Association (NMA), which represents publishers including the Guardian, said peers could table further amendments to the data bill when it returns to the Lords next Wednesday. Industry figures said the government was acting in bad faith by not addressing the Lords' concerns and called for it to make further amendments of its own before MPs vote on it on Tuesday. Kidron said: 'The government has repeatedly taken all protections for UK copyrights holders out of the data bill. In doing so they have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK's second-biggest industrial sector. They have lied to parliament, and they are lying to the sector.' She said the government's action 'adds another sector to the growing number that have an unbridgeable gap of trust with the government'. Owen Meredith, the chief executive of the NMA, said: 'The government's refusal to listen to the strong view of the Lords … risks undermining the legislative process. 'There is still time for the government to do the right thing, and take transparency powers in this bill. This would be a key step towards rebuilding trust with a £126bn industry.' The government's approach to copyright has drawn the ire of major creative artists and organisations including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush and the National Theatre, with Elton John describing the situation as an 'existential issue' this week. Opponents of the plans have warned that even if the attempts to insert clauses into the data bill fail, the government could be challenged in the courts over the proposed changes. The consultation on copyright changes, which is due to produce its findings before the end of the year, contains four options: to let AI companies use copyrighted work without permission, alongside an option for artists to 'opt out' of the process; to leave the situation unchanged; to require AI companies to seek licences for using copyrighted work; and to allow AI firms to use copyrighted work with no opt-out for creative companies and individuals. The technology secretary, Peter Kyle, has said the copyright-waiver-plus-opt-out scenario is no longer the government's preferred option, but Kidron's amendments have attempted to head off that option by effectively requiring tech companies to seek licensing deals for any content that they use to train their AI models.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Peers vote to defy government over copyright threat from AI
Defiant peers have delivered an ultimatum to the government – calling on it to offer artists copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies or risk losing a key piece of legislation. The government suffered a fifth defeat in the House of Lords over controversial plans to allow the AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to force AI companies to be transparent about what material they use to train their models. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning Elton John Speaking at an awards event after the vote, Elton John said copyright protection was an 'existential issue' for artists and urged the government 'to do the right thing'. He added: 'We will not let the government forget their promise to support our creative industries. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning.' Wednesday night's vote prolongs a lengthy standoff between the Commons and Lords over the data bill, which has been used as a vehicle by campaigners to oppose the government's proposed copyright reforms. Resistance to the changes in the Lords has been led by Beeban Kidron, a cross-bench peer and film director, whose amendments have been repeatedly backed by the upper chamber. The data bill now faces the prospect of being shelved unless the Commons accepts the Kidron amendment or proposes an alternative. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, had urged peers to vote against the Kidron amendment after the government offered last-minute concessions in an attempt to stave off another defeat. Before the vote, Jones said peers were 'choosing whether they want the entire bill to fall' and that by voting for Kidron's amendment they would 'countenance the unprecedented – to try to collapse a bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law' but included other important measures including to combat sexually explicit deepfake images. Kidron told peers: 'This is our last chance to ask the government to provide a meaningful solution' and urged ministers to set out concrete steps to subject AI companies to copyright rules. 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the house widespread theft. 'We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Several peers pushed back against the suggestion that the Lords' move was unprecedented and said the government was itself breaking precedent by not compromising. Tim Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the digital economy, offered his party's 'staunch support' for Kidron's amendment. The Lords' move puts the data bill in double insistence territory. This means the Commons and Lords cannot reach agreement over legislation. In this scenario, under parliamentary convention, the bill would fall unless ministers accept the rebel amendment or offer an alternative. A bill falling is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European parliamentary elections bill in the 1997-98 session. Under parliamentary convention, the Commons has primacy as the elected house, and in rare instances where the Lords refuses to back down ministers can resort to the Parliament Act to pass the bill in the next parliamentary session. This would significantly delay the legislation. In concessions offered to peers on Tuesday night, the government said it would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' Jones said in her letter, reiterating that ministers regretted the way the Lords rebels had gone about the changes. Jones stressed that the data bill was expected to generate £10bn of economic benefit by updating data protection law and that it would improve online safety, including by strengthening powers to ask social media companies to preserve data after the death of a child. Kidron said: 'It is in the gift of the government to accept the amendment, or put something meaningful in its place. They have failed to listen to the Lords, they have failed to listen to the creative sector, they have failed to listen to their own backbenchers.' Under the government's proposals, AI companies would be allowed to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner opts out. The plans have been fiercely criticised by creators and publishers including high-profile artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has said he regretted the decision to launch a consultation on changing copyright law with the opt-out system as the 'preferred option'. Campaigners against the changes believe that there is resistance inside Downing Street to making more substantial concessions.
The Guardian
06-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI
Campaigners have accused ministers of lying to parliament and the creative industries after the government signalled it would not force AI companies to disclose how they train their models. Ministers are holding firm in a standoff with the House of Lords, which has called for artists to be offered immediate copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to the data bill that would force AI firms to be transparent about what copyrighted material they use to train their models. In an amendment tabled on Friday, the government dismissed the Lords' request and reiterated its promise to publish an economic impact assessment and technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation. Beeban Kidron, the cross-bench peer and film director who has campaigned on behalf of the industry, said during Wednesday's debate that she would 'accept anything that the Commons does' after this week. 'I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case,' she said. But the News Media Association (NMA), which represents publishers including the Guardian, said peers could table further amendments to the data bill when it returns to the Lords next Wednesday. Industry figures said the government was acting in bad faith by not addressing the Lords' concerns and called for it to make further amendments of its own before MPs vote on it on Tuesday. Kidron said: 'The government has repeatedly taken all protections for UK copyrights holders out of the data bill. In doing so they have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK's second biggest industrial sector. They have lied to parliament, and they are lying to the sector.' She said the government's action 'adds another sector to the growing number that have an unbridgeable gap of trust with the government'. Owen Meredith, chief executive of the NMA, said: 'the government's refusal to listen to the strong view of the Lords … risks undermining the legislative process. 'There is still time for the government to do the right thing, and take transparency powers in this bill. This would be a key step towards rebuilding trust with a £126bn industry.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion The government's approach to copyright has drawn the ire of major creative artists and organisations including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush and the National Theatre, with Elton John describing the situation as an 'existential issue' this week. Opponents of the plans have warned that even if the attempts to insert clauses into the data bill fail, the government could be challenged in the courts over the proposed changes. The consultation on copyright changes, which is due to produce its findings before the end of the year, contains four options: to let AI companies use copyrighted work without permission, alongside an option for artists to 'opt out' of the process; to leave the situation unchanged; to require AI companies to seek licences for using copyrighted work; and to allow AI firms to use copyrighted work with no opt-out for creative companies and individuals. Kyle has said the copyright-waiver-plus-opt-out scenario is no longer the government's preferred option, but Kidron's amendments have attempted to head off that option by effectively requiring tech companies to seek licensing deals for any content that they use to train their AI models.
The Independent
05-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Why Lords are striking a blow for creative industries over new AI bill
Strange to say but a government with a Commons majority of 156 is somehow in danger of losing one of its more important pieces of legislation. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is commonly called the 'data bill' or ' AI bill' because it is central to the regulation of the new world of artificial intelligence; indeed, it is the first act of parliament specifically designed to deal with it. After breezing its way through the Commons, it has encountered unexpectedly stiff resistance in the House of Lords. Peers have five times rejected parts of the bill, and unless the government is prepared to compromise, the AI bill will have to be abandoned. Why is the AI bill in trouble? There are a lot of complicated parliamentary shenanigans involved, but at issue is the right of artists, creatives, authors – and, indeed, journalists – to own and make a living out of their work. Elton John, Kate Bush, Damon Albarn, Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney are just a few members of a formidable coalition of interests who want to stop AI giants 'scraping' their work, undermining their livelihoods, and potentially killing the whole sector. It's the biggest change to the law in copyright and intellectual property in generations, effectively abolishing royalties, and hasn't really been subjected to the kind of national debate that it merits. The artists, writers and musicians have found a doughty defender in Beeban Kidron, a film director (Bridget Jones) who's been leading the guerrilla warfare in the upper chamber. As a lead character, she's been compelling. What do the Lords rebels want? A relatively modest amendment to the bill that would subject AI companies to copyright rules and make them declare when and what material they are using for their own commercial purposes: a duty of transparency. Thus, copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by whom. How determined are the rebels? Very. In the words of Baroness Kidron: 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the House widespread theft. We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both Houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Why won't the government give way? It has offered concessions, but ministers maintain the new law does not weaken copyright law; creatives, who have the most to lose, beg to differ. Obviously, the government is anxious not to lose a whole piece of legislation that also covers, for example: a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking; and a framework for research into online safety. AI is also an important driver of economic growth. More than that, the government has been trying to tread a middle path between the more restrictive European approach and the American policy of laissez-faire. If Britain annoys the Americans, who lead in the sector, it might spoil the trade deal and relations more widely. Can't the government just force it through? Not easily. The deadlock between the Commons and Lords is such that either the bill gets amended to the satisfaction of both sides, or it cannot go forward for final readings and ultimately royal assent. This resistance by the Lords is exceptional and called 'double insistence', arising from the fact that the bill originated in the Lords rather than the Commons. (It must have been assumed to be less controversial.) But in the end, the government could get its way by invoking the Parliament Act, which trumps anything. The new law would be delayed, but the rebels might lose their cause by refusing to compromise. What is likely to happen? A compromise – but with further Lords reform in the way, the rebel peers may feel they have nothing to lose. By delaying the bill, they would force ministers to think again and allow the campaign by Elton John and his formidable creative forces to regroup and build more momentum – the issue still lacks much salience with the public. Either way, it has been tough on the personable Peter Kyle, secretary of state for science, innovation and technology.
The Guardian
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Ministers offer concessions on AI and copyright to avoid fifth Lords defeat
Ministers have offered a series of last-minute concessions on copyright protections in an effort to avoid a fifth defeat in the House of Lords which could threaten the progress of a key bill. The data bill faces the prospect of being shelved amid a tense standoff over plans to allow AI companies to use copyrighted material to train their models. In a letter to all peers late on Tuesday night, the government offered further concessions in an effort to stave off another defeat. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, said the government would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. Jones wrote that ministers intended to move as quickly as possible in this important area and that the amendments would be laid on Wednesday afternoon. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' she said, reiterating that ministers regretted the way they had gone about the changes. Jones stressed that the data bill was expected to generate £10bn of economic benefit by updating data protection law and that it would improve online safety, including by strengthening powers to ask social media companies to preserve data following the death of a child. The bill has been used by Beeban Kidron, the award-winning film director and cross-bench peer, as a vehicle to oppose the government's proposed changes to copyright law. The government's concessions are intended to fulfil changes requested by Kidron. Kidron is preparing to table another amendment to the bill on Wednesday morning. If she puts forward the same amendment which the Commons stripped out of the bill on Tuesday, and the Lords vote for it, it would put parliament in double insistence territory. This means the Commons and Lords cannot reach agreement over legislation. In this scenario, under parliamentary convention, the bill would fall unless ministers accept the rebel amendment. This is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill 1997–98 – and the government could find potential ways to avoid it. Kidron said: 'It is in the gift of the government to accept the amendment, or put something meaningful in its place. They have failed to listen to the Lords, they have failed to listen to the creative sector, they have failed to listen to their own backbenchers. 'I have always been willing to find a route through this, but you have to ask why they feel unable to protect UK interests, and why they are giving away the country's riches and jobs, without ensuring they have the regulatory tools necessary to negotiate a settlement. Ministers keep saying fair: what is not fair is letting one sector steal from another.' Under the government's proposals, AI companies would be allowed to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner opts out. The plans have been fiercely criticised by creators and publishers including high-profile artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard. The Lords dealt a fourth defeat to the government on Monday night, with peers voting 242 to 116 to a change that would introduce transparency requirements to force AI companies to publish how they are training their models. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has said he regretted the decision to launch a consultation on changing copyright law with the opt-out system as the 'preferred option'. Campaigners against the changes believe that there is resistance inside Downing Street to making more substantial concessions.
