• Technology
• Visit Article Link

• BBC Tech
• Mon Jun 2 2025

Government AI copyright plan suffers fourth House of Lords defeat

2 June 2025 Share Save Zoe Kleinman ? @zsk Technology editor Share Save

PA Media The government's plans to allow AI developers to access copyrighted material to train their systems has sparked backlash - and protests - by British creatives.

The House of Lords has dealt a fourth defeat to the government over its plans to allow tech companies to use copyrighted material to train their models. The Lords, who are looking for more protections for artists from AI, rejected the latest amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill on Monday. Peers backed calls for greater transparency after musicians such as Sir Elton John warned of the threat to creative industries. It will now be returned to the Commons where it could be discussed as soon as Tuesday - though that has not been confirmed.

Defiant peers again voted 242 to 116 to a change to the legislation that would introduce transparency requirements, aimed at ensuring copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by whom. This is despite similar measures being repeatedly rejected by MPs in the Commons, where the Government has a majority. It's highly unusual that neither side has backed down by now or shown any sign of compromise; in fact if anything support for those opposing the government is growing rather than tailing off. This is "uncharted territory", one source in the peers' camp told me. The argument is over how best to balance the demands of two huge industries: the tech and creative sectors. More specifically, it's about the fairest way to allow AI developers access to creative content in order to make better AI tools - without undermining the livelihoods of the people who make that content in the first place. What's sparked it is the Data (Use and Access) Bill. This proposed legislation was broadly expected to finish its long journey through parliament this week and sail off into the law books. Instead, it is currently stuck in limbo, ping-ponging between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. A government consultation proposes AI developers should have access to all content unless its individual owners choose to opt out. But 242 members of the House of Lords disagree with the bill in its current form. They think AI firms should be forced to disclose which copyrighted material they use to train their tools, with a view to licensing it. Sir Nick Clegg, former president of global affairs at Meta, is among those broadly in support of the government's plans on AI and copyright. He has argued that asking permission from all copyright holders would "kill the AI industry in this country". Those against include Baroness Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer and former film director, best known for making films such as Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. She says ministers would be "knowingly throwing UK designers, artists, authors, musicians, media and nascent AI companies under the bus" if they don't move to protect their output from what she describes as "state sanctioned theft" from a UK industry worth ?124bn. She's asking for an amendment to the bill which would include Technology Secretary Peter Kyle giving a report to the House of Commons about the impact of the new law on the creative industries within 15 months of the Bill becoming law.

Getty Images Baroness Kidron's recent amendments to the Data Bill have been backed by her peers in the Lords, but knocked back by MPs.

Mr Kyle also appears to have changed his views about UK copyright law. He said copyright law was once "very certain", but is now "not fit for purpose". Perhaps to an extent both those things are true. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology say that they're carrying out a wider consultation on these issues and will not consider changes to the Bill unless they're completely satisfied that they work for creators. If the "ping pong" between the two Houses continues, there's a small chance the entire bill could be shelved; I'm told it's unlikely but not impossible. If it does, some other important elements would go along with it, simply because they are part of the same bill. It also includes proposed rules on the rights of bereaved parents to access their children's data if they die, changes to allow NHS trusts to share patient data more easily, and even a 3D underground map of the UK's pipes and cables, aimed at improving the efficiency of roadworks (I told you it was a big bill). There is no easy answer.

How did we get here?