The UK government has issued its report and impact assessment on AI and copyright under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. This follows the recent report by the House of Lords Communications and Digital Sleect Committee.
In a written statement to the UK parliament, Liz Kendall, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology highlighted the key parts of the report, which runs to 150 pages.
In late 2024, the UK government consulted on copyright and AI. At that stage, the government’s preferred way forward was to enable AI developers to train on copyright works, but to give rightsholders the ability to opt out of this regime. This was overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of the creative industries.
As a consequence, the government has engaged extensively with creatives, AI firms, industry bodies, unions, academics and AI adopters, and that engagement has shaped its approach – or rather, lack of an approach, as it no longer has a preferred option. A broad copyright exception with opt-out is no longer the government’s preferred way forward.
The government’s work programme
The government has identified four areas where it will focus the next phase of this work.
- Digital Replicas. ‘Digital replicas’ can be a powerful tool, including for the creative industries. However, when someone’s likeness is replicated without their permission it can be harmful. The government will launch a consultation in the summer to seek views on how it can address these harms, while protecting legitimate innovation.
- Labelling AI-generated content. It can be helpful to consumers to understand whether content has been made using AI. It may also help protect against disinformation and harmful deepfakes. The government will establish a taskforce to put forward proposals for government on best practice for labelling AI-generated content, with an interim report to be published in autumn.
- Creator control and transparency. It will publish a review of the mechanisms available for creators to control their works online. This will include standards, technical solutions and best practice on input transparency. This review will inform where there are gaps and whether there is an appropriate role for government in addressing them.
- Independent creatives. It will launch a working group on independent and smaller creative organisations to explore whether there is a role for government to support their ability to license their content.
It has also said that copyright should incentivise and protect human creativity. There is minimal evidence that protection for computer-generated works is actively used, or that it has a material impact on creativity and innovation. It proposes to continue to monitor the use and impact of this protection. However, in the absence of evidence of its ongoing value,it proposes that it should be removed.
In addition, the UK Government is committed to establishing a Creative Content Exchange (CCE) as set out in its Creative Industries Sector Plan. The intention is for the CCE to be a trusted marketplace for digitised cultural and creative assets. The CCE is supported by funding from UKRI and is sponsored by DCMS. A pilot phase has been launched with an early adopter cohort of public institutions.
The report concludes by saying that the government considers the UK’s framework for enforcing copyright to be effective and capable of adapting to developments in AI. It will not introduce regulatory oversight on transparency and other measures at this time. It proposes that no new regulator should be created specifically to oversee matters of AI as it relates to copyright, and that no regulatory duties relating to these matters be imposed on existing regulators. It will continue monitoring and assessing regulatory and enforcement approaches taken in other jurisdictions, including the EU, paying specific attention to building a clear evidence base regarding the effect of different enforcement mechanisms on the development and deployment of AI models, and the accessibility of effective redress for right holders of all sizes.
