House of Lords Report: AI, copyright and the creative industries

The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee (the “Committee”) has published its report: AI, copyright and the creative industries, examining how generative AI interacts with the UK’s copyright framework. The report follows the Government’s consultation on whether to reform UK copyright law in relation to AI, which we have written about here and here, with the final report due this month. 

The Committee’s report assesses the implications of using copyright‑protected works to train AI systems and sets out clear recommendations for the Government, including a strong preference for a licensing‑first approach, enhanced transparency obligations for AI developers, and new protections for creators. Its findings add considerable parliamentary weight to the ongoing debate on AI and copyright reform in the UK.

4 key takeaways from the Committee’s report:

1. The Committee calls on the Government to rule out a new commercial text and data mining (“TDM”) exception with an opt-out model: The Committee concluded that there is no sound basis to introduce a new broad TDM exception, including opt‑out models, viewing them as weakening copyright protection and placing unfair burdens on creators. It has concluded that a licensing-first regime should remain the default.
2. Significant impact on creative industries: The Committee notes the economic and cultural importance of creative industries, which contributed £124 billion in gross value added in 2023, compared with a significantly smaller AI sector. The report highlights the real and potential harms to creators from generative AI, and that weakening copyright law for commercial AI training would not in itself significantly expand the AI sector.
3. Transparency is central to enforcement and licensing: A lack of transparency about AI training data is identified as a key problem. The Committee finds that limited disclosure makes it difficult for rights‑holders to know whether their works have been used or to enforce their rights. It recommends statutory transparency obligations for large AI developers, potentially supported by confidential disclosures to a regulator, while avoiding disproportionate burdens on smaller firms.
4. Recommendation to strengthen creators’ rights beyond copyright: The report identifies gaps in protection where AI outputs imitate a person’s style, voice or likeness without reproducing a specific copyrighted work. It recommends new protections against unauthorised digital replicas and certain “in the style of” uses.

Licensing and next steps

The Committee notes that a market for licensing creative content for AI use is already emerging and highlights the role of collective management organisations in supporting access to licences for creators and developers of different sizes. Critically, it must be fair and inclusive and accessible by individual creators. It supports a licensing‑first approach, backed by clearer policy direction, transparency and enforcement. The report calls on the Government to clarify its approach to AI and copyright and to publish a final, evidence‑based position within the next year.

By rejecting a broad TDM exception and emphasising transparency, enforcement and fair remuneration, the report places creators’ rights firmly at the centre of the debate. As the Government finalises its response to the consultation on AI and copyright, the Committee’s findings are likely to play a pivotal role in shaping the future direction of UK policy in this area.

This post was written by Holly Webb and Alice Gillie. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article please contact Tom Whittaker or Holly Webb.

For the latest updates on AI law, regulation, and governance, see our AI blog at: AI: Burges Salmon blog (burges-salmon.com). 

Subscribe to our Concept newsletter and receive the latest intellectual property legal updates, news and event invitations direct to your inbox.