Copyright and A.I. consultation: how to respond

DACS has produced a guide to completing the UK Government's consultation on Copyright and artificial intelligence, to help you respond and express your views on the Government's proposals.

For further information on the consultation, see our summary of what visual artists and rightsholders need to know.

Guide: Completing the consultation

You can access the consultation here. You can also submit your response by email to: copyrightconsultation@ipo.gov.uk

The deadline to respond is 11:59pm on Tuesday 25 February 2025.

You are not required to answer every question in the consultation. Below, we highlight what we believe are the key questions where the views of visual artists and rightsholders must be taken into account.

Copyright and AI Consultation: Key questions for visual artists and rightsholders

You may wish to copy and past the below questions and suggested responses into an offline document, to refer to whilst you complete the online form.

Question 4: Do you agree that option 3 – a data mining exception which allows rights holders to reserve their rights, supported by transparency measures – is most likely to meet the objectives set out above?

In your response, you should state whether you agree that option 3 will ensure control for right holders, access for AI firms and trust and transparency across parties.

DACS does not agree that option 3 will achieve this. We need a strong copyright framework that provides artists with fair remuneration for their work and a safe online environment centred around control of content, both of which are jeopardised by a rights reservation system.

Copyright arises the moment an artist creates their work, and no further formalities are needed. Artists making their work available online rely on the copyright subsisting in their work to know this is protected. An opt-out scheme reverses the law, meaning artists would actively have to take steps to prevent each work they post online from being scraped for AI training.

The feasibility of rights reservation mechanisms are simply not workable, and we’ve seen a failure in their application in EU countries where artists have not been able to control any secondary uses of their work.

If we want AI to be a force for change, and to improve productivity, it is clear that an unworkable, burdensome rights reservation system won’t do this. We need to enable artists to continue to contribute to the creative economy through transparency and licensing, and to encourage people’s engagement and enjoyment of art. A system that places more burdens on artists and the art sector simply won’t achieve that aim.

Question 5: Which option do you prefer and why?

• Option 0: Do nothing: Copyright and related laws remain as they are
• Option 1: Strengthen copyright requiring licensing in all cases
• Option 2: A broad data mining exception
• Option 3: A data mining exception which allows right holders to reserve their rights, underpinned by supporting measures on transparency

In your response, you should state which option from the above list you prefer. You may wish to mention how your preferred option would allow you to continue to receive royalties through licensing, and retain control over uses of your work.

DACS' preferred option is Option 1 - Strengthen copyright requiring licensing in all cases. This would provide rightsholders with the necessary control over how their works are used and enhance mechanisms for resolving and remedying non-compliance, as well as licensing, to ensure they receive remuneration for their use. AI developers can therefore continue to access content whilst being subject to stronger rules for avoiding infringement

Question 6: Do you support the introduction of an exception along the lines outlined above?

In your response, you should state your views on the proposed data mining exception (option 3). You may wish to mention:

• How you feel this exception could impact you as an artist or rightsholder.
• What you feel could be lost if the government takes this approach.
• Issues you foresee enforcing your rights, in the proposed rights reservation system.

DACS does not support the introduction of a text and data mining exception as outlined in the Consultation. We believe that in addition to their social and cultural contributions, the creative industries’ direct and quantifiable contribution to the UK economy would be lost if the TDM exception is introduced, which cannot be justified by the speculative anticipated economic benefits of the proposed exception. There is no evidence that the current licensing regime, underpinned by world leading copyright laws, is deterring UK AI innovation in any way.

The Government’s approach puts UK creativity and human expression at risk. The idea that UK artists could have their entire output copied then badly mimicked by AI algorithms, which then compete with them for their livelihoods, is a deeply dystopian one. The Government should not be supportive of this.

Question 8: What other approach do you propose and how would that achieve the intended balance of objectives?

You may wish to use this section to explain what is important to you as a visual artist or the beneficiary of an artists’ estate. You may like to include:

• The ability to control how your work is used, easily and effectively without additional administrative burdens on your working time, or incurred costs.
• To be fairly paid for any uses of your work.
• The ability for licenses to be negotiated via existing organisations.
• To have transparency on how your work has been used for AI if you do give permission.

Question 9: What influence, positive or negative, would the introduction of an exception along these lines have on you or your organisation? Please provide quantitative information where possible.

You may wish to use this section to explain how the Government’s proposal (Option 1) may affect you or the estate of which you are a beneficiary. You may like to include:

• Income you currently get from licensing your work.
• Any challenges you foresee in effectively opting out of AI training under the proposed model.
• Difficulties the Government’s proposal (Option 3) would create in ensuring you are fairly paid for your work and, if you are an individual or small business, the difficulties in policing how your works are used, if there is no requirement for AI companies to ask permission.

Question 22: Do you agree that AI developers should disclose the sources of their training material?

In your response, you should state your views on transparency. You may want to mention that improved transparency measures could reduce copyright infringement by AI developers and allow rightsholders to enforce their rights. You may also want to explain what specific information you would want to obtain from AI companies seeking to use your work.

DACS believes that transparency measures will be an essential mechanism for AI developers to demonstrate compliance with copyright law. They will support licensing and remuneration structures for creative works along the value chain and, where necessary, enable rightsholders to enforce their rights. Appropriate transparency regulation must be meaningful to ensure:

• Permission is sought by AI developers for use of copyright-protected work prior to its use.
• Meaningful transparency requirements are delivered to rightsholders.
  

Any company using artists’ works as part of the AI training process should be required to maintain technically detailed records of works scraped and used in pre-training, training and fine-tuning.

Question 40: Do you agree that generative AI outputs should be labelled as AI generated? If so, what is a proportionate approach, and is regulation required?

In your response, you should state your views on the labelling of AI outputs. DACS is supportive of calls to implement the simplest and fairest approach whereby all outputs that include material from a generative AI model are labelled. Regulation is required as it is not currently being done voluntarily by AI companies.

You can access the consultation here. You can also submit your response by email to: copyrightconsultation@ipo.gov.uk, The deadline to respond is 11:59pm on Tuesday 25 February 2025.

Read more

• Copyright and AI Consultation: what visual artists and rightsholders need to know.
• Our Artificial Intelligence and Artists' Work report.