Lords reject UK AI copyright bill again

The UK government has faced another setback in the House of Lords over the controversial Data (Use and Access) Bill. In a decisive vote, peers supported an amendment led by Baroness Kidron that demands greater transparency from artificial intelligence developers and stronger protections for artists whose works are being used to train AI systems.

Baroness Kidron, a filmmaker and prominent advocate for digital rights, criticised the government for yielding to the influence of major tech firms. She accused ministers of allowing these companies to ‘redefine theft’ by using copyrighted material without consent. Her amendment seeks to require AI developers to disclose the sources of their training data and obtain permission from rights holders before using their content.

Despite previously rejecting the amendment on the grounds that it would lead to fragmented legislation and interfere with ongoing policy consultations, the government’s position was met with strong opposition across party lines. Members of the Lords described the current unregulated use of copyrighted material by AI models as a form of ‘burglary,’ warning of the threat this poses to the UK’s creative industries.

Support from well-known artists, including Sir Elton John, Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, and Kate Bush, fueled the debate, with Sir Elton publicly criticising the government’s stance as enabling theft.

The bipartisan support for the amendment reflects a broader concern that the UK, once a leader in intellectual property rights, risks undermining its own legal standards. Labour’s Lord Brennan cautioned against creating a ‘double standard’ for AI firms, while Lord Berkeley emphasised the urgency of intervention to avoid long-term damage to the creative sector.

Responding to the vote, Technology Minister Baroness Jones argued that no country has yet resolved the complex relationship between copyright and AI. She warned that the proposed amendment could introduce further uncertainty into an already challenging regulatory space.

Nonetheless, the Lords voted 287 to 118 in favour of the amendment, returning the bill to the House of Commons with a renewed call for enforceable rules on transparency and rights protection.

Why does it matter for digital standards?

The UK amendment signals a move toward stricter digital standards, emphasising the rights of creators and the need for AI transparency. If adopted, it could (even) influence international discussions on responsible AI development, aligning digital standards more closely with human rights and intellectual property frameworks. It also raises the bar for how nations balance innovation with ethical and legal obligations, pushing back against the narrative that technological progress must come at the expense of creators’ rights.