NO, we don’t want to give up copyright protection

Follow these tips and tricks to complete the AI consultation in no time at all (and sign our open letter!)

Image Copyright ALCS - from newsletter on completing the consultation

Have a second? Please sign our OPEN LETTER

19/02/25 **** UPDATE! **** AOI has released brand new, brilliant, TIPS

on how to respond to the consultation - specific for ILLUSTRATORS!

Access the AOI tips page

***

Dear friends in the creative industries, if you are here you probably already know about our predicament.

As the deadline for the consultation - February 25th - gets near, I thought I’d collate and share some tips and shortcuts that will help you tame this seemingly intractable beast into completion.

We know that the consultation has been designed to put us off engaging with it, but there is no reason to fall for this trick: thankfully ALCS and Ed Newton-Rex have made our life very easy!

To summarise, here’s the gist of it:

TIP #1 - You DO NOT need to answer all the questions!

ALCS has indicated that, out of 52, the most important ones are ONLY NINE - that sounds better, doesn’t it?

I have copied the sample answers below.

You don’t need to answer all the questions in one go either - you can save and get back to it in more than one sitting.

TIP #2 - Check out Ed Newton-Rex’s TEMPLATE RESPONSES.

Ed is himself a music composer, as well as a former AI developer. He knows the industry inside out and is a committed campaigner for artist’s copyright, he really is in a unique position to advise us on this matters.

I recommend reading his answers before moving onto completing the rest of the consultation: it will really help to make sense of the questions.

TIP #3 - ALCS specifies that ‘These points are to provide general guidance for submitting a response. If you are a member of a writers’ union, you may wish to consider consulting with them for more specific guidance relating to your sector before submitting your response.’

So, please read through the following sample answers, think them over, and then, if you can, rewrite your own response informed by these examples.

Click here to access the GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION PAGE

or mail your answers at copyrightconsultation@ipo.gov.uk

Questions 1

You will need to provide your name, your email address and the organisation you represent. When asked which organisation you represent, you can simply state your occupation, for example “author”.

Question 4 – Do you agree that option 3 – a data mining exception which allows right holders to reserve their rights, supported by transparency measures – is most likely to meet the objectives set out above?

We believe the answer is a firm no. Our concerns around this option are:

• A model which requires individual creators to “opt-out” is both deeply unfair and unworkable from a technical perspective.

• This option puts the onus firmly on the creators to reassert their existing legal rights, rather than on the tech companies to ask for permission.

• Creators cannot reasonably be expected to track every use of their work online to enforce their rights by opting-out.

• This is likely to result in many rightsholders having their works unknowingly/unwillingly used for commercial purposes without any renumeration.

Question 5 – Which option do you prefer and why?

We believe that ‘Option 1: Strengthen copyright requiring licensing in all cases’ is the best approach to achieve a favourable outcome for creators. However, for this to work effectively, it is essential that this approach is allied with new transparency rules detailing which works are being used for training AI systems. For the following reasons:

• Existing copyright laws do already require AI developers to obtain permission for the commercial use of copyrighted works, the issue is that these laws are not being observed.

• A flourishing licensing market for the use of creators’ works is the best way to ensure that creators rights are respected and that they can secure fair remuneration if that is what they choose, whilst not restricting technological innovation.

Question 6 – Do you support the introduction of an exception along the lines outlined in section C of the consultation?

No, we believe that a copyright exception would be unfair to creators such as writers for the following reasons:

• Copyright isn’t broken, it’s just inconvenient for the people that want to use writers’ works for free.

• A copyright exception requires evidence of market failure, of which there is none.

• The Government has not yet provided an opportunity for a functioning marketplace that can deliver growth to develop.

• The tech companies pay for their electricity and their staff, why shouldn’t they pay for the data (writers’ works) that they use too? Broadcasters and publishers are required to pay to access copyright material, why should AI companies be exempt?

Question 8 – If not, what other approach do you propose and how would that achieve the intended balance of objectives?

We believe that the following suggestions would constitute the best approach:

• Compensate creators for the widespread, unauthorised, use of their works that has already taken place.

• For the Government to support a framework for a dynamic and adaptable licensing market for the future use of copyrighted works as training data.

This approach gives creators a genuine choice over whether and how their works are used, and provides them with the opportunity to receive remuneration if that is what they choose. At the same time, it provides a means for AI developers to fairly acquire the data they require.

Question 9 – What influence, positive or negative, would the introduction of an exception along these lines have on you or your organisation? Please provide quantitative information where possible.

We believe a copyright exception would have a negative impact on authors. Please use this opportunity to outline the ways in which unauthorised uses of your work to train AI may harm or has already harmed your livelihood as a writer.

Question 16 – Does current practice relating to the licensing of copyright works for AI training meet the needs of creators and performers?

We believe it is important to note that:

• Rights to use works to train generative AI are a recent and novel concept. Contracts should expressly deal with these rights, setting out the type of uses covered and the remuneration for them. As a novel right, writers should have the choice over how and if they license their works.

Question 18 – Should measures be introduced to support licensing good practice?

Yes, we believe the Government should support the development of a framework for an adaptable licensing system.

Our suggestions for this would be:

• New regulations requiring transparency on uses of copyright works for AI training is an essential precursor to a good practice in licensing.

• Support for a centralised online hub providing access for AI companies to a marketplace for permissions, licences and usage rights, akin to a previous Government-sponsored initiative known as the Copyright Hub.

• Upholding existing copyright laws, which forbid the unauthorised use of copyrighted works for commercial purposes, would also do much to encourage the development of a flourishing licensing market.

Question 22 – Do you agree that AI developers should disclose the sources of their training material?

We strongly believe that transparency to a high standard is essential for any effective solution to this issue. AI developers must be transparent about what works have been used and the nature of such uses.

In our survey of members, you told us that transparency around the use of your works was both severely lacking and desperately needed.

• Greater transparency is necessary to ensure writers know when their work has been used and to subsequently empower them to exercise choice around such uses.

---

If you still have trouble get in touch using the comments below. Thanks for taking part!