Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

James Frith Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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)).

Social Media Use: Minimum Age

James Frith Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and the petitioner for bringing this vital debate.

Since being elected to this place in July, I have spoken about children’s safety online several times, including in this Chamber. For too long, our children’s development and protecting them from harm from predators, inappropriate and disturbing content and from each other, have been treated as an afterthought. As legislators, it falls to us to protect our children, but we are way behind where we need to be.

In my constituency of Darlington, this issue came up time and again on the campaign trail as parents, siblings and grandparents all reported feeling ill equipped to fulfil their most important role of giving their children a safe and healthy childhood. It is vital we understand that parents are asking for our support now, because for many of them, the fight and pressure from their own children to allow them the latest phone, more screen time, or access to an adult version of a game and much more, feels relentless.

This debate is about social media, but it is also about the digital age of consent. My view is that children under 16 should not be given the responsibility to permit or to deny companies’ access to their data. The risks are too high, and the long-awaited children’s codes from Ofcom are not yet in place; we do not know what impact the measures in the Online Safety Act will have on children’s behaviour and experience online. We should, therefore, stipulate that 16 is the age of digital consent.

Last week I visited Firthmoor primary school in Darlington for an assembly on online safety. It was exceptional; the children had songs, raps, roleplay and helpful tips for staying safe online. These children, aged between four and 11, are online already. I was struck by their understanding of passive screen time versus active screen time. Passive screen time includes scrolling aimlessly through suggested content, and active screen time is about learning. These children are trying to protect themselves, but it cannot just be left to them. I do not think that we can ban children from accessing screens, but we must safeguard them from harm until they are old enough to navigate the risks themselves.

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

My wife and I regret ever getting a smartphone for our two eldest children. We have four, and we are wondering what to do when the third expects access to the same rights. Smartphone management is something we continually get wrong. My hon. Friend has talked about screen time. It cannot be beyond the wit of our smartphone creators to give parental controls better intuitive use, so that they cannot be undermined so easily by the smart children using the smartphones. Does she agree that while we need to strengthen the role of Ofcom in rooting out the toxic content that our children are pushed towards, the smartphone manufacturers also have a job to empower parents? It is a real concern, because children’s use of smartphones and their access to social media is a daily battle for their parents.

[Lola McEvoy]

I fully support what my hon. Friend says. Lots of parents in Darlington have said that although the default setting may be that children cannot access chat rooms on games or a more violent version of a game—because it is not just the phones and devices, but what they are accessing on those devices that really matters—they just lose the battle. When it comes to the crunch and their child is arguing that they want to go on the device and they are going to have a tantrum, they just allow them to go on it. Parents need more support from us as legislators, which is basically my point.

Children should be able to enjoy games and access safe and engaging educational content. Platforms should not be allowed to target them with suggested content. That is where the problems are coming in—with suggested content, children are exposed to harmful and unhealthy things. Platforms should have children-safe search engines, and features including live location and chat rooms should be designed to be transparent and child-friendly, with their safety at their heart. Accessing certain social media features, such as chatting with adults who they do not know or sharing content, should be solely for those who have been strictly age-verified as over 16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course; my hon. Friend is always intervening on me.

[Mr Frith]

I thank the Minister; as ever, he has been very generous and is making excellent remarks. Away from the emergency—the toxicity and the worst aspects of this—the mundane sapping of hour after hour after hour is just as dangerous when we consider social media use and our ineffective guardrails for smartphone use. Yes, we all agree that the content the Minister has described should be done away with and prevented, but what is his reflection on the mundane drip and sapping away of the energy and attention of our young people and the doomscrolling ethos that has developed in their expectation of their everyday lives?

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want to be a hypocrite; this 63-year-old engages in all those things as well. In fact, it is a shocking shame for me every time I get that notification that says, “You spent on average x number of hours a day on your mobile phone.” I can make justifications—I have to find out what an hon. Member’s seat is, I have to send things back to my private office on WhatsApp and all of those kind of things—but the truth is that if somebody had said to us 40 years ago that they were going to invent something that would make us all, in an addictive way, spend hours and hours and hours looking at a phone rather than engaging with other human beings, we would have said, “Maybe not, eh?”

I was really struck by that when I went to a primary school in Blaengarw in my patch. The headteacher was saying that one of the difficulties is that all the parents waiting to pick up their kids were on their mobile phones outside, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) mentioned earlier. Whatever they did inside the school, the message that every single child got was that life was about being on a mobile phone. As has been said, one of the most important things that a parent can do is engage eye to eye with their children. If they are engaging eye to eye only with their phone, I would argue that that is as much of a problem. I will come on to some of the issues, but I do not want to be hypocritical about it.

I think we all accept that we have to do more. One thing that was not included in the list of things that someone might do if they did not have a mobile phone to spend all their time on was reading a book. I would love more young people to read a book. That longer attention span is one of the things that is an admirable part of being an adult human being.

Several hon. Members referred to the fact that legislation needs to keep up. I will put this very gently to Conservative Members: we argued for an online safety Act for a long time before one ended up becoming legislation. It went through a draft process, and there were lots of rows about what should and should not be in it, and whether we were impinging on freedom of speech and all those kinds of things, but the legislation did not end up on the statute books until the end of 2023. Even then, the Act provided for a fairly slow process of implementation thereafter, partly because Ofcom was taking on powers that, on that day, it simply would not have had enough staff to engage with. The process has been difficult, and I am absolutely certain that the Online Safety Act will not be the end of this story. That is why the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said clearly that everything is “on the table”, and that is why today’s debate is so important.

Of course, legislation has to be proportionate, balanced, based on evidence—I will come to that in more detail in a moment—and effective. That is why the Online Safety Act will require all platforms that are in scope, including social media platforms, to set up robust systems and processes to tackle the most egregious illegal content or activity proactively, preventing users from encountering it in the first place. Platforms will be required to remove all other illegal content as soon as it is flagged to them.

The Act will also require platforms easily accessed by children—this goes to a point made by several people—to deploy measures to protect children from seeing content that is harmful to them. That includes the use of highly effective age assurance to prevent them from seeing the most harmful types of content, such as that which promotes, encourages or provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms will also be required to provide age-appropriate access for other types of harmful content, such as bullying, abusive content or content that encourages dangerous stunts or serious violence.

Additionally, under the Act, providers that specify a minimum age limit to access their site must specify how they enforce that in their terms of service and must do so consistently. As many Members have said, this spring will be a key moment in the implementation of the Act, and that is an important point for us to recognise: later this year, things will change, because of the implementation of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom has already set out its draft child safety codes of practice, which are the measures that companies must take to fulfil their duties under the Act.

Ofcom’s draft codes outline that all in-scope services, including social media sites, will be required to tackle algorithms that amplify harm and feed harmful material to children. I would argue that that includes the process of trying to make something addictive for a child. Services will have to configure their algorithms to filter out the most harmful types of content from children’s feeds, and to reduce the visibility and prominence of other harmful content. In January, Ofcom published its guidance for services to implement highly effective age assurance to meet their duties, including the types of technology capable of being highly effective at correctly determining whether a user is a child.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

James Frith Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her offer of advocacy for the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I have never known him to lack a voice for self-advocacy. However, should the time arise, I know that she will be on his speed dial. The issues that she has raised are of profound importance. As I have said, I recognise not just the economic issues but the personal connection that creatives have with the art and work that they create. I have absolutely no intention of disempowering them in that relationship, and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of taking away any rights from those individuals without any consultation.

We recognise that people in the creative arts sector are making representations, as they absolutely should be, and I listen carefully to them, but this country has the third largest AI market in the world. There are young people currently studying in schools, colleges and universities around the country who aspire to work in the technology sector, and they should not have to leave the country and work abroad in order to fulfil their potential. Of the people who have contributed so much to our economy, of course those in the creative arts are absolutely front and centre. Alongside them is the technology sector, which is providing enormous opportunities in job creation, wealth creation and innovation right across the country. Parts of this country are becoming a magnet for talent, not only from this country but from around the world, and I do not want anybody to feel that they have to leave the country to seek opportunities to exploit their talent and potential as individuals. I believe there is a way forward, and I assure the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that, whatever people think of the consultation, I am listening very closely. The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has been engaging fully, and we take these issues incredibly seriously. We will continue to do so in Committee and beyond.

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

I am a great admirer of the Secretary of State, and I admire his belief in his cause today. The creative sector will have heard his commitment to listen, and I thank him for ensuring the openness and engagement of his Ministers on this issue. In the spirit of listening, will he agree from the Dispatch Box today to meet those creatives who are keen to have an audience with him on this significant issue?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s work on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in scrutinising these areas and for being a voice for the sector. It goes without saying that I would be delighted to meet the people he references, and the same goes for Members on both sides of the House. Whether I can fit every one of the 2.5 million people who work in the sector into my office, I do not know. It is a bigger office than I had seven months ago, but I am not sure I can fit everyone in. However, I will do my absolute best; I am here to listen and learn, as I have been from the outset, and I am here to find a way through. It is time to reconcile these issues and to give certainty to people in both the creative arts sector and the technology sector. I believe the Bill is the moment for this House to provide the certainty that both sides need as we move forward.

Fifthly and finally, let me say a word on Lord Lucas’s amendments. People will use digital identities to buy a house, to rent a car and to get a job. The intention of clause 45(6) is to force public authorities to share whether someone’s information, such as their sex, has changed when disclosing information under clause 45 as part of a digital verification check. That would mean passing on an excessive amount of personal data. Sharing such changes by default would be an unjustifiable invasion of people’s privacy, and I am unable to say that clause 45(6) is compatible with human rights law, which is why we will seek to overturn the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

The Conservatives want Britain to be a science and technology superpower, and that means fully unlocking all the benefits of data. As a country, we must make the appropriate use of data more widespread. That would cut red tape, make research easier, create new jobs, deliver economic growth and enable people to access public services more efficiently.

A data-enabled economy and society is good for everyone, which is why we introduced the groundbreaking Data Protection and Digital Information Bill before the last election and progressed it through all Commons stages, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) rightly said. We still believe in those reforms and call on the Government to build on them, but we also recognise the concerns around individual rights, privacy, AI and copyright that have been raised in relation to Labour’s Bill.

When the previous Government left office last July, we had turned Britain into one of the world’s leading tech economies. We were home to more tech unicorns than any other European country, and more than France and Germany combined. Britain had become the world’s third largest AI ecosystem, with pioneering start-ups creating new jobs and innovative products. We led the way on developing safe AI through the world’s first AI safety summit and AI Safety Institute.

Our original Bill complemented those achievements and would have accelerated Britain’s progress towards becoming a highly data-enabled economy and society. In particular, our proposals for a digital verification services framework are replicated in this Bill. It is also clear that this Bill has been informed by consultations carried out under the last Conservative Government on the governance of digital identities.

Similarly, putting the national underground asset register on a statutory footing is a Conservative idea, and we welcome its inclusion in this Bill. More than 700 different organisations dig holes to install and maintain underground assets every year. Expanding and standardising the digital map of pipes and cables will help local councils, utility providers and others to better co-ordinate their activities, hopefully reducing the 60,000 accidental damage incidents that occur every year. However, the security of the register must be of the highest possible standard, given that the information is highly sensitive. The amendments tabled on register security by Viscount Camrose and Lord Markham in the other place should be taken seriously by the Government.

While the asset register provisions will turn our aim of joined-up thinking into reality, this Labour Government’s approach to AI and copyright is a total failure, and no joined-up thinking has happened at all. Last December, the Government finally launched their consultation, just as the Christmas break started. Why did Labour wait six months when this area of policy moves so quickly, with AI firms, the creative industries and the public needing legal certainty and firm answers? When the consultation finally arrived, the creative industries sector was unanimous in describing Labour’s proposals as completely unfit for purpose. For the sector, Labour’s idea of imposing a requirement on creatives, such as journalists, songwriters and film makers, to proactively opt out of data mining is not the solution. Labour’s proposal could align the UK’s approach closely with the EU regime under the digital single market copyright directive, which has produced widespread uncertainty about what constitutes a valid reservation of rights.

Labour’s approach to copyright and AI is the ultimate test of its credibility on tech and creative industries issues, and it has failed—the entire sector knows it. Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem.

[Mr Frith]

I know the hon. Member fancies himself as a bit of a tech bro, but he should recognise that much of the anxiety in the creative industries sector is caused by the dither and delay of the Conservatives’ time in Government and their failure to grasp the issue. As ever, we on the Government Benches are doing the hard work.

[Alan Mak]

The last Conservative Government left Britain with a world-class creative industries sector. It is Labour’s dither and delay that is causing huge anxiety, as I will go on to say.

Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem. One way to resolve that is to accept the Conservative proposal, tabled in the other place, to develop international technical standards for watermarks, which the Secretary of State referred to. We welcome the agreement by the Minister in the other place to take that work forward, and both Houses look forward to the outcome with great interest.

As I have said, the creative industries sector is valuable. It is worth £124 billion to the UK economy and employs over 2.4 million people. They will all be damaged by Labour’s approach and they all deserve better, so why has an impact assessment not been published at the same time as the consultation? What has Labour got to hide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee. She is absolutely right. Her Committee has a central role in looking at these issues and I wish her well in any of the inquiries she launches. It is particularly disappointing that Google and other AI companies will not come to her Committee. I hope that she uses the powers that I know, as a former Select Committee Chair, can be used to oblige reluctant witnesses to come in front of her. I am pretty certain that somebody who is as determined an individual as she is will be able to secure that.

[Mr Frith]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, as ever, and I agree with much of what he is saying. Does he agree with me that we should be ready to point out where those who contribute to this debate are proxies or funded by tech companies not appearing in public to make the case, but instead making arguments through smaller organisations that can be a little bit more assertive and nimble-footed, and not quite as accountable?

[Pete Wishart]

That is a very interesting contribution from the hon. Gentleman. It would be a useful exercise to find out who is speaking on behalf of certain companies, if they are reluctant witnesses. We should not have reluctant witnesses in this House. People should have an obligation to appear for parliamentary scrutiny. It does not matter whether it is the biggest tech brothers or the smallest company in our constituencies. He is right that that type of transparency would be really useful.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute further on this important Bill. I thank Ministers, particularly the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, for their ongoing attention and for being in listening mode, particularly on the copyright matters that have been so dominant so far.

The Bill rightly modernises data regulations, which will spur growth and improve public services, making everyday life better. When put to good use and used fairly and effectively, data can enhance efficiency across sectors, from food supply chains and commercial forecasting to healthcare. It is a powerful prospect with enormous benefits. The challenge is in ensuring that those benefits reach everyone. Given the demands placed on the Bill by the amendments tabled in the other place, I hope that it proceeds into Committee. As it does so, we will gain insight from the Government’s ongoing and related consultation on copyright and AI.

Today’s debate is concerned with the use of data to drive progress; it speaks to how we can live better, and how we can live best, with AI. We do not need to accept the false choice of innovate versus regulate. In considering the countries either side of us, it can feel as though there are only two options—one or the other; zeroes or ones—but the UK must act now. This is a national cause with international consequences. Faced with demands for innovation while others call for regulation, we should bid for harmonisation. Harmony is the language not of compromise, but of complement—a value greater than the sum of its parts. We must understand the strength of all contributions to that harmony.

No country has got this right yet, and this is our chance to learn from a blend of approaches. International examples should be observed. AI should be harnessed to be an honest broker, which is why transparency is key. In silicon valley, exceptions have been made to the US’s general approach, and the creative and tech industries are balanced accordingly. The UK should embrace transparency and maintain the strengths of both sectors. Europe understands the role of transparency, though there is little evidence that this has led to more licensing for copyright holders. We must not assume that one will automatically lead to the other, or that this will alleviate the concerns of our creative sector. Singapore has a broad AI training exception, but it has a minimal creative sector. The UK, with its proud creative industry, should not make flawed comparisons with a country without the same creative strengths, outputs and exports.

Just as transparency is demanded in our supply chains, so too must it apply to our code chains. Arguments suggesting that transparency would be too burdensome feel disingenuous. In Select Committee hearings, the argument for transparency, which represents a giant step forward in resolving the tension between AI and creators, seems to have been deliberately opposed by those seeking to excuse themselves, as well as those they represent by proxy, from paying for the work of others.

The Government’s commitment to an industrial strategy includes our brilliant creative industries, but discussions with those industries should focus on how we advance and enhance them. We risk making this about how we can protect their very existence if we do not take seriously the deep alarm voiced by creators over the threat posed by AI. We also risk losing the very things that make life richer.

I urge the Government to introduce a requirement for transparency. If an AI system is trained on the works of thousands of musicians, authors and film makers, they have a right to know and a right to be paid. This could include a register. We do not tell manufacturers, energy providers or tech firms that their products should be freely used to build billion-dollar businesses without compensation. The same principle must apply to creative work. Copyright is not a barrier to innovation; it is the foundation that allows creativity to thrive.

This threat to creators’ livelihoods is particularly acute for smaller rights holders who lack the means to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. These independent creators are the backbone of our creative ecosystem. More than 70% of them are based in our towns and regions, away from the cities, where for them, levelling up means making up. Without them, the UK’s creative engine will begin to fray and diminish. Creativity thrives not just through the marquee names but through the countless independent voices, expressions and creations that enrich our experiences.

The argument that restricting AI’s access to copyrighted works will stifle progress and leave us trailing behind other territories is incorrect. I ask again: what progress are we pursuing if it undermines the position of strength that we start from? I have seen no economic impact assessment that states that exempting music and other creative content from licensing, or introducing AI training exceptions, will boost the economy. Yes, jobs in data centres will be welcome, but they are minimal in comparison to those sustained by our creative industries. At its heart, AI is about capability and capacity. It should not facilitate the casual but disastrous dismantling of copyright. The job gains must come from skilled input and employment that puts AI to work. The harnessing of AI must be human-tethered.

We must remember that AI is a great enabler, and for our advantage. It is not a stand-alone sector; it is a transformative technology for all sectors. Our focus must therefore be on its use, not on sweeping legal exceptions that weaken copyright and risk hollowing out the very industries we are committed to growing. If there is a technological answer—a digital fingerprinting solution or a pay-as-you-go AI model—we should keep an open mind, but it is a leap to expect these solutions to come soon enough for the urgent issues at hand. The anxieties I have outlined cannot be left unresolved while we wait.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is, like me, a musician. Is it any wonder that creatives, particularly musicians, are concerned even by the language that has been referred to across the Chamber? “Ingestion” speaks of consuming, and let us not think what else it speaks of. “Scraping” is also a horrible word. Hopefully we can reach a situation, through the consultation that the Minister and others are engaged in, where we can use better language in this space that gives more reassurance to the creative sector. Instead of “ingest” we could use “collaborate,” for example, and instead of “scrape” we could use “reward.” We might then protect our wonderful creative sector.

[Mr Frith]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, and I suspect he is a better musician than I am.

[Chris Bryant]

He is, yes.

[Mr Frith]

The Minister got the memo.

AI is giving the creative sector indigestion, frankly, and this is the problem we are facing, so aiming for a smoother future through collaboration is absolutely right.

As with previous technological shifts, such as the introduction of the internet or indeed the printing press, laws should be based on use, not on the technology itself. The principle of tech neutrality should be reaffirmed as a guiding principle for our laws and culture.

In the absence of a clear solution, we must return to first principles and stand for transparency, fairness and the fundamental right to be paid for one’s work. Or will we entertain the risks of an opaque system, built on unnecessary secrecy, freely extracting value from copyrighted works without payment? We are in a defining moment. Innovation should uplift, not exploit. The future of AI must be built on trust, so I urge this House and this Government to ensure that AI innovation does not come at the cost of our world-leading creative industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall get on to those points when I talk about the consultation that is currently under way.

We need to ensure that the benefits of AI are managed and that our creators are properly protected. This is a £120 billion industry, which employs more than 2 million people. It is an expression of who we are and contributes to our understanding of ourselves and each other, and it takes us on a journey where we can walk in somebody else’s shoes and build a more tolerant, cohesive and engaged society. If we do not get this right, all that is threatened. That would be bad not just for the global stars, the household names and the people whose records, CDs and downloads we have in our homes—

[Mr Frith]

And cassettes.

Creative Industries

James Frith Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It has been heartening to hear colleagues underscore the significance of the creative industries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer identified them as one of the eight drivers of economic growth, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister here today have spoken passionately about their being our cultural and economic superpower. As representatives of the immense talent in Greater Manchester, the Secretary of State and I know well the enormous value brought by film, TV, gaming, publishing and, of course, music—a sector particularly close to my heart as a former musician, and singer of the only Manchester band nobody has heard of.

Across the UK, our creative industries are an ecosystem. Mutually supportive and interdependent, they are among the fastest-growing industries and have extraordinary potential to drive our nation’s No. 1 mission: economic growth. But the ecosystem is fragile and needs to be nurtured and supported in order to flourish, so we must take seriously, and respond to, the creative sector’s reaction to the Government’s consultation on AI in the sector.

Those in the sector are confused, alarmed and deeply concerned. Central to their fears is the framing of “rights reservations”—an opt-out system that threatens to rip the rug from under our prized sector, with sweeping changes proposed to copyright law. What is “rights reservations”? That which we call an opt-out system by any other name will still sound the alarm. Creators see it for what it is: an upheaval of the copyright protections they depend on, which threatens to do lasting damage to the sector. Copyright does not inspire hit songs, smash-hit movies or classical texts, but it is the lifeblood of our creative industries. It is what feeds investment, enabling musicians, writers, actors, designers, and businesses large and small, to earn a living from their work. Copyright is the foundation of what makes our creative industries what they are and could become.

Creativity is not an easy, anodyne process, and we should not outsource it to a method that reduces it to such. It takes blood, sweat, tears and countless hours. It does not just carry the creator’s joys or perceptions, their struggles or vulnerabilities, but often speaks to our own. What connects us to our creative industries is the human emotion they embody. Yes, AI can, will and already does assist creators. Musicians and artists have embraced technological innovation throughout history, and AI holds exciting potential to help consumers discover and engage with creative works. But to forfeit the humanity it takes to create, and suggest that AI can replace it, insults and will ultimately cost those who pour their lives into their craft, as well as those of us who love to soak it all up.

Proposals for new, broad exceptions to copyright, and the burden of opting out of having one’s life’s work taken without permission, undermine the very principles of copyright and, frankly, of trade and commerce. The proposals are a threat to the livelihoods of creators, especially smaller rights holders who lack the resources to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. Those smaller, independent creators form the bedrock of our creative ecosystem. Without them, the intricate web that sustains the sector will unravel. The richness of our cultural landscape depends not only on headline acts, but on the countless independent creators who bring diversity and depth to this sharing industry.

Proponents of unfettered AI access to copyrighted works, who say that denying it will stifle progress, leaving us behind other territories, describe a false choice and present a regressive argument that suggests we should sacrifice creators’ rights for tech advances. What advance are we willing on, if it undermines the position of strength we start from? We already have divergence between territories on copyright, and the UK leads with strength here. Innovation should uplift us, not exploit. We do not need to weaken our cultural integrity and creative capital for a technological right of way.

All of us can find a space to love produced by our creative industries. In affirming this view, I wish also to distinguish between consumers and creators. Consumers engage with creations at the finish line; they need not understand the hours of labour behind their creation or the securities on which they are created. That is absolutely fine, but legislators, policymakers and industry leaders must heed the creator’s voice and recognise the existential threat that AI poses to their livelihoods if we forfeit copyright as we know it.

We must protect, cherish and celebrate the human spirit behind every brushstroke, investigation, edition, publication, note, verse and chorus, for they carry the joy, the struggle, the love and the loss, the hit and the miss. They express and emote. They relate and reflect to us our human condition: this human creativity—authentic, irreplaceable, deeply connected, often nebulous—defying the precise definition of AI. Artificial cannot replace authentic. Learned behaviour cannot replicate the human condition.

I hope this debate will amplify the voices of AI leaders who are advocating for the transparency and copyright frameworks that favour creators. The Government’s consultation is absolutely right to highlight the need for transparency. AI firms should have to disclose what they are using in their training datasets. This will enable fair licensing arrangements, with the burden on the purchaser of creativity and not on the producers of it.

This is a pivotal moment for our creative sector. It comes down to this: will we protect copyright and creators’ rights, or will we defer entirely to AI? We must not let proposals such as opt-out systems dismantle the protections that allow creativity to flourish. Let AI revolutionise our public services, productivity, precision and efficiency, but let the creative sector remain the authentic space that we all enjoy, as one of human expression. Creativity is not just a process; it profoundly connects us to one another and provides us with a shared humanity—not of just moments and movements but of memories that we live with forever. It falls to us to protect the muse, the struggle and the joys that define these marvellous creative industries. Let us ensure that creators, not algorithms, remain the first and last word in determining our cultural, economic and human advances.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

James Frith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will just make the point that I can see that this is very technical and complicated. It might require long answers, but I am not sure it required that level of input from not-Adele.

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

Can the Minister clarify the difference between his term “rights reservation” and previous reports of the Government’s preference for an opt-out system? Those systems have already been called out and considered unjust by our creators. There are AI leaders who recognise the need for fair licensing. What assurances can the Government provide to support both human and AI innovation? Does the Minister, with his creative industries hat on, agree that respecting copyright would see the introduction of an opt-in system as essential?

[Chris Bryant]

Again, this is another false dichotomy being presented to us between opt in and opt out. That is why we have landed on the term “rights reservation”. A lot of the material out there is not copyright. That is either because it is long out of copyright—the law for most works lasts for 70 years after the death of the author or the first publication of the work—or because some artists have categorically decided not to retain their copyright. Tom Lehrer, the author of many satirical songs from the 1980s and 1990s, such as “The Vatican Rag” and “The Masochism Tango”, has deliberately surrendered his copyright.

This is a world where we want to make sure that the vast majority of rights holders, whether they be the record label, the individual photographer, the artist or whatever, have the right of control over their copyright—over whether it is used and how it is used—and if it is going to be used, they should be remunerated. I urge my hon. Friend, who I know has a great interest in this subject in his role on the Select Committee, to make sure that that false dichotomy between opt in and opt out is abandoned. We talk about rights reservation, because then, opt out might look remarkably like opt in.