Music stars push AI copyright transparency in UK law, tout their pro-innovation stance

UK artists and creative industry leaders have mounted a significant legislative push to require AI companies to disclose when copyrighted works are used to train their models. This effort represents a critical juncture in the ongoing global conversation about AI transparency, creative rights, and the economic future of cultural industries in the age of artificial intelligence.

The big picture: The UK House of Lords passed an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill requiring AI companies to reveal what copyrighted works were used to train their models, despite government opposition.

• The amendment, backed by over 200 prominent UK creative figures including Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, Ian McKellen, and Elton John, now returns to the House of Commons where it could be removed.
• The British government has characterized the dispute as “holding back both the creative and tech sectors,” suggesting new legislation is needed instead of this amendment.

Why this matters: The amendment represents a direct challenge to AI companies like OpenAI and Meta, who face lawsuits for allegedly training models on copyrighted materials without permission.

• The UK creative industry, valued at £120 billion according to Baroness Kidron, views this as an essential protection for their economic future and cultural significance.

What they’re saying: Creative industry representatives frame this as a battle for the UK’s economic sovereignty and cultural autonomy in the AI era.

• “We will lose an immense growth opportunity if we give our work away at the behest of a handful of powerful overseas tech companies, and with it our future income, the UK’s position as a creative powerhouse, and any hope that the technology of daily life will embody the values and laws of the United Kingdom,” the open letter states.
• Baroness Beeban Kidron, who proposed the amendment, described the current situation as “an assault on the British economy” happening “at scale to a sector worth £120bn to the UK.”

Between the lines: The creative industry’s push frames the amendment as pro-innovation rather than anti-technology, arguing it would “spur a dynamic licensing market” positioning the UK as “a key player in the global AI supply chain.”

• This approach attempts to reframe the narrative away from creators versus technology toward a model of sustainable co-development through transparency and proper licensing.