AI vs. artists: BPI's battle to protect music copyright: "AI firms don’t want to pay"

At the BRITS in March, some of the UK’s biggest acts and rising stars came together to call on the government to Make It Fair: Don’t let AI steal our music, joining a campaign protesting government proposals on AI and copyright.

The likes of Myles Smith, Lola Young, Rachel Chinouriri, Nia Archives, The Last Dinner Party, Paloma Faith and many more lent their support to the campaign with red carpet images.

The music campaign, launched by recorded music association BPI, is a continuation of the Make It Fair campaign which launched across news media with the support of the UK’s creative industries on February 25, and also follows the release of Is This What We Want?, a silent album protesting the government’s proposals, supported by over 1,000 musicians.

Here, Sophie Jones, BPI chief strategy officer outlines her concerns regarding the UK Government’s proposed changes to copyright laws and their impact on the music industry in the age of AI.

Can you elaborate on the specific concerns the BPI has regarding the UK Government's proposed changes to copyright laws, particularly as they pertain to AI and its use in generating music?

The UK Government wants to be able to realise the commercial and societal opportunities around AI, and help drive UK growth, which the music industry supports. But currently, it has proposed watering down the UK’s gold-standard intellectual property regime, which, together with our nation’s human artistry, has been the very foundation of our successful creative industries.

The Government is proposing to give AI developers free access to all creative content on which to train their generative AI models, unless rightsholders ‘opt out’ their content beforehand, which is impossible to do in practice.

It seems that the Government has listened to a very small group of big tech companies who believe that the AI revolution, including the investments and advancements that would come with it, will not happen unless copyright is effectively done away with. It’s hard to see how AI companies training their models for free on music catalogues will help to cure cancer, identify potholes or drive down waiting lists. 

The reality is that some AI firms don’t want to pay for the use of creative content when building commercial models and are looking to enrich themselves at the expense of creators and all those who invest in them.

Our industry has always embraced innovation and technology. BPI’s members are digital businesses and are already deploying AI in multiple ways across their business, including artists using this as a creative tool. Record companies are ready and willing to license their content and have already been doing deals.

Licensing gives control and crucial remuneration to rightsholders and artists, but, to be able to do this, the Government needs to introduce transparency obligations on those developing AI so that we can enforce our existing rights and see how our content has been used.

The creative industries have been identified as one of the Government’s eight priority sectors that form part of its industrial strategy for growth. They are worth £125bn annually to the UK economy, employing more than 2 million people.

It is entirely possible for our industries to grow in partnership with tech, but at the moment, the Government’s proposals are heavily tilted in favour of one side. Unless they address this, far from seeing growth, our industries will be severely impacted, which will be to the UK’s detriment too.

How do you foresee these proposed changes impacting artists and the broader music industry in terms of fair compensation and creative control?

Generative AI is already having an impact on artists’ earnings and record company earnings, and the music industry growth this generates. You only need to look at models such as Suno and Udio to see how artists are being impacted. The UK Government’s proposals will only further exacerbate this.

The global music economy is already hyper-competitive. New British artists and music are competing not only with acts from around the world, but also all the music ever created before it.

Streaming has brought much beneficial change to the industry, but it has also brought lower barriers to entry and greater access to music that has been previously released.

Now, artists will have to compete directly with AI-generated music too, including that which has unethically and illegally been trained on human-generated music, without authorisation or permission. If unchecked, the Government’s proposals will make it easier for the music market to be flooded with machine-generated content that will cheapen and drown-out genuine recordings.

Between 2018 and 2023, UK record businesses invested well over £2 billion into supporting artists and new music through A&R and marketing, and this level of investment would clearly be undermined if industry revenue is shrinking.

Could you explain why the opt-out scheme proposed by the government might be ineffective in protecting artists' rights, based on your industry experience?

First and foremost, an opt-out scheme is impossible to implement in practice. There is no jurisdiction in the world that has a successful model, and the Government itself has admitted there are serious questions about the workability of this. The EU is also having challenges in making its existing opt-out scheme workable.

Across the creative industries, there are billions of items of content which would need to be opted out. In the case of music, this is often hosted and used on platforms which rightsholders and creatives do not control, meaning there is no direct ability for rightsholders to opt out. 

It is impossible to locate every ‘downstream’ copy of a sound recording online in order to apply a machine-readable opt-out, and there only needs to be a single copy of a particular work anywhere on the internet, which has not had its rights reserved, for the value of that content to be lost.

An opt-out is also ‘all’ or ‘nothing’, it leaves no flexibility to allow for the use of certain content for certain means. 

And if all content creators and rightsholders are going to opt out in principle, why burden them with such a huge and distracting exercise, that would just be a waste of industry time and energy, and particularly distracting to artists, not least independent ones with limited means, and just want to be able to make music.

Fundamentally, an opt-out changes the principle of copyright, which states that your work is protected from the moment of conception and gives rightsholders control of the use of creative works. 

It puts an unfair and costly administrative burden on the creative industries (many of whom are individual rightsholders) in favour of those companies who wish to use the content. It would undermine the creative process and the UK’s creative industries with it. Artists may feel disincentivised to create, and likewise music businesses to invest in bringing their stories to life.

What are some potential future scenarios for the music industry if these changes to copyright law are implemented as currently proposed?

As noted earlier, human creativity will be directly competing in a market flooded with AI-generated music, which has been illegally trained without authorisation or payment from existing creative works. It will significantly reduce the control and the income that artists and the record businesses that support them can generate from their works. 

This will ultimately necessitate reduced investment and fewer artists coming through, which will usher in a decline of British music at a time when it is already facing growing challenges on the world stage.

How does BPI envision the UK Government balancing innovation in AI with protecting the rights and livelihoods of artists and creators? In your view, what role should the UK Government ideally play in ensuring that advancements in AI technology do not undermine the integrity and value of creative works like music?

The Government does not need to water down copyright to grow the tech industry, but strong copyright is fundamental for the continued success of our creative industries. So, an appropriate balance would be to maintain the existing copyright regime and help rightsholders to enforce this regime.

The single best way that this can be done is by introducing obligations for those developing AI to be transparent about the data they have used to date and a requirement to do this going forward. This will drive industry-led licensing solutions and bring those evasive AI companies to the negotiating table.

The Government also needs to make it clear that AI models that wish to be deployed in the UK must obey UK copyright laws. This means that regardless of where in the world an AI model is trained, it should not be taking creative content without authorisation.

The campaign "Make It Fair: Don't let AI steal our music" has garnered significant support. What are the main objectives and outcomes BPI hopes to achieve through this campaign?

The primary objective of our public campaign is to raise awareness and demonstrate to not only the Government, but all politicians and policymakers, the damage that these proposals could cause.

We supported the ‘Make It Fair’ campaign, heralded by the News Media Association, alongside the rest of the creative industries in the same week as the BRIT Awards. We then brought forward an artist activation at the show under the ‘Don’t let AI steal our music’ strapline.

Alongside this, we developed www.dontletaistealourmusic as a resource point which can help to raise awareness of our industry’s concerns. Along with our members, BPI also played a role in Is This What We Want? – a silent album co-ordinated by campaigner Ed Newton-Rex.

I am proud that the music industry’s voice has been heard very clearly in this debate. The voices of major artists such as Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, Sir Brian May, Jimmy Page, as well as newer artists like Lola Young, Myles Smith and Sam Fender, are incredibly powerful.

Beyond advocacy efforts, what specific actions is BPI taking to engage with policymakers and stakeholders to address these concerns?

Our external campaign and media activity are entirely intertwined with our policy and public affairs activity. Behind the scenes, our team are briefing politicians on a daily basis about the concerns of our industry, as well as having detailed discussions with the Government, civil servants and advisers.

Our work so far has resulted in a growing collective of supportive politicians from all parties and in both Houses. Opposition to the Government’s proposals has been witnessed in recent debates, parliamentary questions, select committees and roundtables.

What are some lessons or examples from other markets that demonstrate the challenges and risks associated with AI and copyright, which the UK should consider in its decision-making?

In its consultation, the UK Government has said that it is looking to the EU model in relation to AI and copyright. 

This jurisdiction’s experience of an exception to copyright is a cautionary tale, not a position the UK should be emulating. There is work still ongoing in the EU to try to make sense of their regime, but it is clear that there are severe challenges with their opt-out.

You will hear some AI developers say that the UK should be adopting a scheme similar to the US. The creative industries are clear that US law says the same as UK law, that training using copyrighted content with authorisation or payment is illegal.

Despite there being no exception in US law, some AI developers are claiming that the concept of ‘fair use’ – a provision in US copyright law – gives them the right to use creative content for free. This is strongly contested by the creative industries, and there are multiple court cases ongoing in the US on this topic.

The Government and wider policymakers should not feel pressured by some AI companies to facilitate a ‘race to the bottom’ in relation to copyright. Whilst a smaller territory like Singapore has introduced a permissive regime, they do not have a creative sector of any significance, and therefore the impact is entirely different.

Looking ahead, what steps do you believe are necessary for ensuring a sustainable and equitable future for the UK's creative industries amidst technological advancements like AI?

We are excited about the possibilities that AI can bring to our industry, including the potential of opening up new revenue streams for artists through licensing. But this can only happen if the creative industries, and the laws that make us so successful (namely copyright), are protected.

Photo credits: BRIT Awards