A letter to the government
Sir Paul McCartney entering Bowery Ballroom in NYC. Photo: MJ Kim for MPL Communications Ltd.
Andrew Lloyd Webber, Kate Bush, Sir Paul McCartney and Barbara Broccoli are among artists calling on ministers to prevent AI companies “stealing” copyright from Britain’s creative industries. They were joined by Ed Sheeran, Sir Stephen Fry, Helen Fielding, Sir Simon Rattle, Dua Lipa, Sir Tom Stoppard, Sir Elton John, Simon Le Bon, Sting and other leading creatives in opposing plans to change copyright laws.
The government is planning to change 300-year-old copyright laws to make it easier for AI companies to operate in the UK. In a letter to The Times, the artists warn that the proposals “represent a wholesale giveaway of rights and income from the UK creative sectors to big tech”.
The government’s proposal to exempt Silicon Valley from adhering to creative copyright in building its AI platforms would represent a wholesale giveaway of rights and income from the UK’s creative sectors to Big Tech. It would smash a hole in the moral right of creators to present their work as they wish and would undermine our 300-year-old gold-standard copyright system, which supports individual artists and creative businesses, large and small.
The proposal is wholly unnecessary and counterproductive, jeopardising not only the country’s international position as a beacon of creativity but also the resulting jobs, economic contribution and soft power — and especially harming new and young artists who represent our nation’s future.
The UK’s robust copyright system is one of the main reasons why rights holders work in Britain, bringing much-needed inward investment. The creative industries contribute £126 billion to the UK economy annually and employ 2.4 million people, 70 per cent of whom live outside London. They drive tourism, contributing to our standing across the globe, and they bring joy and community spirit to our people, while forging a culture in which we are all reflected.
The government should embrace the Kidron amendments introduced by the House of Lords into the Data (Use and Access) Bill. They are fair and they represent the best interests of the UK and its creative industries without undermining the development of AI. In fact, they harness the power of copyright to drive innovation in the age of AI.
Britain’s creative industries want to play their part in the AI revolution, as they have with new technologies in the past. But if this is to succeed, they need to do so from a firm intellectual-property base. If not, Britain will lose out on its best growth opportunity.
There is no moral or economic argument for stealing our copyright. Taking it away will devastate the industry and steal the future of the next generation.
It’s a little complicated. UK used to be part of EU and thus accepted their copyright laws. Now they will have their own taking care of artists being UK citizen. But what about foreign artist operating in UK and what about UK law overturning EU or US or other laws?
Unfortunately, they can write as many letters as they like, send as many petitions in etc. But they’ll just go straight in the shredder. When governments decide they are going to do something, especially this one, they’ll do it regardless of the outcry. They have already decided to change these 300 year old copy-write laws and so they will arrogantly press ahead and do just that I’m afraid, governments no longer pay heed to reason or protests once they have made up their minds, whatever side of the house they sit.
As others have said, writing letters does nothing. Paul didn’t get cannabis laws altered in 1967 with one, no letter stopped the Gulf War and so forth. Creaitivity is already coming to an end. Some time back, Miscrosoft dropped Co-Pilot into my computer, and just this very day, as I am fine-tuning my latest lyric anthology, what seems like each key stroke, up pops ‘What do you want to write?’ Well, my new song is called ‘It’s Time To Leave’, it’s an incredibly personal song, to my two young children – I am in the end stage of Functional Motor Neurological Disorder – and this thing want to ‘co-pilot’ my words, what the heck. ‘This might be better…’ ‘ ‘Did you mean…?’ No, I didn’t’ leave me alone! But now, some 14-year-old can type in ‘a 4-verse song that sounds a bit like The Beatles with Kate Bush harmonies and a Mick Ronson guitar solo’ – and out pops something in 5 minutes. Whether it’s good or bad is immaterial, it’s the almost complete absence of human creativity. Amazon at least have a check on books, when I upload a manuscript it asks ‘Was AI used in creating words or images?’, but it’s too open-ended to be overly helpful (in theory, spell-check is AI). Damage limitation is the best we can hope for, maybe in music an AI chart. It might actually help Beatles/old guard sales, as people strive to hear what humans created with sweat, tears and heartache. But the copyright laws have never been helpful to artists, ever, 50 years, 70, it’s like you building a house for you and your family and then after 70 years anyone who wants to can move into it.
I think we’ll grow tired very quickly of Beatles clones or Paul McCartney soundalikes. Once the floodgates open, I imagine the novelty will wear off very quickly. And then, at last, people might start looking for something new again. And it will be about time: Same in films, I imagine: how many Star Wars remakes will they be able to produce using AI princess Leias and Han Solos before the thrill fades, and people will stop being interested. 2? 3?