UK government responds to House of Lords’ report on copyright and AI

On 15 May, the UK government published its response to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee’s (CDC) report on “AI, copyright and the creative industries” (CDC Report).

As readers of this blog will know, the CDC Report was published on 6 March, shortly before the UK government was due to publish its own report on copyright and AI in accordance with its obligations under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (Government Report). The CDC Report was very much a pro-copyright report, favouring licensing and remuneration over broad exceptions, and contained a number of recommendations for the UK government on copyright and AI (see our earlier blog).

In its response, the government replies to each recommendation in the CDC Report, largely reiterating what it said a couple of months ago in the Government Report (see our summary). It does, however, shed a little more light on some of its key focus areas over the coming months and some of the timelines it intends to work to. 

Summary of government response

The government’s response is broadly grouped into the following areas. 

1. Government approach 

The CDC Report called on the government to clarify its approach and timeline for deciding on AI and copyright policy. It also recommended that the government explicitly rule out introducing a broad text and data mining (TDM) exception, that would have permitted the use of copyright works to train generative AI (GenAI) in the absence of a rightsholder opt-out (which had been the government’s preferred option in its consultation (see blog)), as well as any other reform that would remove the incentive to license copyright works for AI training.

Consistent with the Government Report, the response reiterates: 

• that the government no longer has a preferred way forward (but doesn't go as far as explicitly ruling out the introduction of a broader TDM exception);
• the need to balance the interests of both sides of the debate, with the government confirming it will not introduce copyright reforms “unless or until it is confident that they will achieve [its] objectives for the economy and UK citizens”; and
• the importance of continuing to build the evidence base, including assessing how international developments may affect any UK action, before landing on a firm UK approach to copyright and AI.

2. Licensing 

The CDC Report urged the government to set out a clear expectation that commercial AI developers operating in the UK must obtain appropriate licences to use copyright works for training GenAI, and that appropriate mechanisms should be in place to ensure fair remuneration for individual rightsholders.

Whilst the response does not expressly set out the exact statement requested by the CDC, it does note that “AI developers must seek permission and acquire licences for the use of copyright works, unless they can show an existing copyright exception applies” and that “licensing is important to ensure creators are paid when their work is used”. At the same time, it reiterates that the government does not intend to intervene in the licensing market at this stage, although it acknowledges that more might need to be done to support individual and smaller creative rightsholders. It therefore intends to launch a working group to explore whether there is a role for it to play in providing such support.

3. Digital replicas (aka deepfakes) 

One area where the Government Report and CDC Report were broadly aligned was on unauthorised digital replicas, including those mimicking an individual’s image or voice. Both reports expressed concern that the UK’s existing legal framework may not be sufficient to address the harms caused by deepfakes.

The Government Report had already noted the government’s intention to explore options for addressing the risks posed by digital replicas, but the response adds further colour - confirming that the government will launch a consultation on digital replicas this summer.

4. Transparency 

The CDC Report called on the government to set best practice for transparency reporting on the use of data in AI training and to place transparency obligations for large AI model providers on a statutory footing. In line with the Government Report, the response reiterates that, whilst consultation responses showed broad consensus for increased transparency, the views on approach (including the level of granularity) are wide ranging. 

With that in mind, the government intends to continue monitoring the effect of transparency rules in other jurisdictions, such as the EU, and will publish a review of mechanisms available for creators to control the use of their works online, including details of best practice on input transparency, in due course (no timeframe provided). 

5. Technical tools / standards 

The CDC Report also recommended that the government develop interoperable standards for labelling AI-generated content (as well as technical solutions to reserve rights and show content provenance) and consider enshrining labelling requirements for wholly AI-generated content in legislation. In response, the government has said that it will: (i) establish a taskforce on best practices for AI-generated content labelling, with an interim report due this autumn; and (ii) take forward work with experts and stakeholders to support best practice and adoption of market-led tools and standards.

Comment

Whilst, unsurprisingly, the response largely covers the same ground as the Government Report, it has shed a bit more light on what the government’s immediate next steps are going to be, including, in particular, with respect to digital replicas, labelling of AI-generated content and mechanisms available for creators to control their works online.

With the European Commission also having recently launched its call for evidence to support its review of the 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (which contains the EU TDM exceptions), as well as targeted changes to the EU’s copyright framework in the context of AI developments, not to mention the Commission’s ongoing consultation on TDM opt-out protocols and related working groups, this continues to be an area to watch closely.