AI vs. copyright: UK Music CEO Tom Kiehl explains why the music industry is fighting back

The battle over AI and copyright has reached a boiling point, with the UK Government’s latest consultation sparking widespread concern across the music industry. At the heart of the controversy is a proposal that could fundamentally weaken copyright protections, allowing AI companies to scrape artists' work without permission or compensation. 

This move has ignited fierce resistance from musicians, industry leaders, and music royalty in Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John, who warn of devastating consequences for the creative sector. As the Government reviews approximately 11,000 responses to its recent consultation, the industry is rallying to push back against what many see as a direct threat to the future of music. 

With campaigns like ‘Make It Fair’ gaining momentum and high-profile figures speaking out, the fight to protect artists’ rights is far from over.

In the recent Commons debate, MPs from across party lines joined forces to denounce the Government's controversial proposal, which would allow tech giants to train their AI systems using material taken from UK creators without compensation or consent. dubbed ‘The Great Train Robbery’ by insiders, UK Music's CEO, Tom Kiehl, minced no words in his criticism, describing the plan as catastrophic for Britain's vibrant creative sectors.

As the debate continues to unfold, the clash between technological advancement and artistic integrity promises to be a defining issue in shaping the future of UK creativity and innovation.

In this interview, Kiehl discusses challenging the UK Government, outlines the ramifications AI could have on the music industry if left unchecked, and outlines what the next steps are.

Now that the Government's consultation on AI and copyright has concluded, what are the most significant ramifications for the music industry based on the proposals put forward?

The biggest issue is this idea about changing copyright rules. The government is proposing to introduce what's called an exception to copyright. 

This has generated a lot of concern around the music industry and other creative industries because it essentially means changing the law so that it makes it much harder for individual creators and music businesses to exert their rights over music in the way it's been scraped by AI systems. 

At the moment, we have a situation where a lot of AI companies are training their systems on copyrighted protected materials. That's a big concern to us, because there is no remuneration; they're not going to get permission from music companies and artists. 

We want greater transparency from those companies so we can actually have a discussion about licensing. However, what the government is proposing is, instead of actually dealing with that issue, they are giving the AI companies an ability to do that without permission. 

That's a grave concern to us. They say that they have built in a safeguard to allow people to opt out if they don't want their work trained in that way. 

We don't think you can easily opt out of such a system, so we don't really see that as a safeguard. We've been working with the music industry to push back on these proposals. 

We need to get back to a real, proper, solid conversation with the government about the existing copyright framework and how it should be improved, particularly in terms of transparency in that regard. The industry is united in what effectively amounts to theft. 

People stealing music in that way shouldn't be legitimised. We very much hope that the government will listen to the concerns of the music industry and rethink these proposals.

AI is developing at such a rate; do you think the government and all involved parties – with the best of intentions – are struggling to keep up with the latest advancements, and in turn, the consequences that AI presents?

Yes. The government, on one hand, wants to be a big innovator. It wants to be a hub of AI activity. It wants to make sure that it doesn't lose its competitive advantage. Our answer to that is that the creative industry is worth 125 billion to the economy – these are very successful UK domestic creative industries. 

You can't change the copyright framework and expect to maintain that success or creativity. Technology changes all the time. Legislation can be a bit of a blunt instrument as well, because it can never quite keep pace with technical developments in the same way. 

We definitely think there's a different style of conversation that needs to be happening with the government at the moment.

What does the music industry need to do next now that the Government's consultation is over?

The Government has been on record saying that they've received something like 11,000 responses to this consultation, which is a huge amount. It was a very technical consultation. It had 50 or so questions. 

So the fact that it generated so much public engagement is a really good thing. We hope and expect that a lot of those 11,000 are individuals and working creators, musicians and performers with big concerns about AI and where it potentially may go, and particularly with regards to the music industry. 

It's going to take them a little bit of time to actually reflect on those responses. I don't imagine that the government will come back immediately with an answer that says, ‘There is a bill which is going through Parliament at the moment.’

There were some amendments put into the House of Lords which are going to come up in the commons in March which are related to some of these issues. So we might get an early sign of whether there's any slight change in the government approach and in the way that they respond to those amendments. 

We very much hope that the government will rethink these proposals. We hope that they'll look at this issue of transparency around AI companies and that we can get back to that discussion. 

Hopefully the government will see this as an opportunity to actually strengthen copyright and ensure that transparency around AI companies is at the forefront.

Following the consultation's closure, what are the immediate next steps for UK Music and the wider music industry?

I very much want to keep this as a big campaign. It's been quite a galvanising issue. Everyone's come together. We've had high profile people like Elton John, Paul McCartney, and individual artists on the red carpet at the BRITs recently who were publicly endorsing the campaigns associated with this. 

We definitely feel we've got a bit of momentum behind us, and we want to maintain that in the coming months. There'll be various other activities that we will be engaged with. The data bill in the House of Commons relates to some aspects of this, and that presents opportunities for us to keep the pressure on. 

This is a very broad coalition that we've assembled over the course of the last few months, not just around music, but news and broadcast media and other other creative industries, so people have not heard the last of this.

What would be the best outcome for creators?

I think the best outcome will be to say that the copyright law is strong and important. We don't need to actually change the copyright law and weaken it. 

Copyright is so important to the music industry; it gives artists and creators the ability to be remunerated through their works, but it also enables businesses to invest in that creativity. Keeping the copyright framework strong is the ultimate outcome of this.

You've described these proposals as potentially catastrophic for the creative industries. What are the specific threats you see to artists' livelihoods and the broader economic impact on the UK's music sector?

The big challenge is the fact that people's work is being used without permission, without credit, and without remuneration. That's a fundamental point. If we don't value the rights of the people who are actually creating the music in the first place, how can you have the basis for a successful industry? 

It's a really big issue in terms of how we value music and creativity as a society. Technology is brilliant. It can really enhance things, and artists create with AI at the moment, and we mustn't forget that. It's very clear that artists and musicians use AI in a positive way, but we don't want to have a situation where people's works are being used without permission. That's where the concerns ultimately exist.

Looking ahead, what do you envision as the future of the music industry if AI companies are allowed to use artists' work without compensation or permission?

The quality of music will not be as great. Human creativity always pushes boundaries. AI systems can only be as good as the thing that it has trained on, whereas the human mind can take you beyond that. One of the things we've been calling for as part of this consultation is around the issue of labeling and making sure that if you get AI-generated works, that it is quite clearly identified as being AI-generated. 

We've done some public polling, which indicates around 70% of people would like to know whether they're listening to something which is human created versus computer-generated: are you listening to the genuine article or not? It also goes into some wider societal issues around deep fakes. 

There's a lot of issues where we can work together as a society to make sure that AI is potentially a good thing to both society and to creativity. But we need to get the balance right.

Algorithms can now mimic any artist. At the moment, would there be anything to stop someone putting out an AI Lady Gaga track, for instance?

It’s all about permission. If Lady Gaga had given permission for her voice to be used in a certain way, then that's fine. The artists need to have been given that right. At the moment, AI companies are not seeking permission. 

The issue is complex, but it all boils down to a simple issue of theft and legitimising theft. No one in normal society should want that, so it should be a no-brainer. We are trying to get to a situation where the government can make sure that the creative industries grow, and that they don't undermine that.

The issue has gained real traction lately – almost every UK national newspaper printed the same ‘Make It Fair’ front page, protesting government proposals that could weaken copyright protections for creative industries in the age of AI. The recent BRIT Awards also saw strong support from a number of artists who backed the ‘Make It Fair: Don't let AI steal our music’ campaign. Is UK Music working with the BPI on this campaign?

Very much. The BPI is one of our UK music members. We worked very closely and collaborated with them on the first campaign. They've been doing some really great work with this wider coalition called CRAIC, which is a broader coalition with other organisations. 

The UK Music membership, which ranges from business bodies such as the BPI, AIM, PRS, The Musician’s Union, The Featured Artists Coalition, the Music Managers Forum, The Ivors Academy and The Music Producers Guild have come together and recognise the real threat and challenges of the government's approach.

Paloma Faith photo credit: BRIT Awards