The government is facing another challenge in the House of Representatives regarding proposals that would permit artificial intelligence firms to utilize copyrighted materials without authorization.

An amendment to the data bill, which required AI companies to specify which copyrighted content is used in their models, received support from peers despite government resistance.

This marks the second instance in Congress where a Senator has requested that a tech firm clarify whether it has used copyrighted material.

The vote took place shortly after a coalition of artists and organizations, including Paul McCartney, Janet Winterson, Dua Lipa, and the Royal Shakespeare Company, urged the Prime Minister to “not sacrifice our work for the benefit of a few powerful foreign tech companies.”

The amendment, represented by Crossbench Peer Baroness Kidron, garnered 125 votes, achieving a total of 272 votes.

The bill is now poised to return to the House of Representatives. Should the government eliminate Kidron’s amendments, it will create yet another point of contention for the Lords next week.

Baroness Kidron stated: “We aim to refute the idea that those opposing government initiatives are against technology. Creators acknowledge the creative and economic benefits of AI, but we dispute the notion that AI should be developed for free using works that were appropriated.”

“My Lords, this poses a substantial threat to the British economy, impacting sectors worth £120 billion. The UK thrives in industries central to our industrial strategy and significant cultural contributions.”

The government’s copyright proposal is currently under reviews in this year’s report, but opponents are using the data bill as a platform to voice their objections.

The primary government proposal would allow AI companies to incorporate copyrighted works into model development without prior permission. Critics argue that this is neither practical nor feasible, unless copyright holders indicate they prefer not to use their works in the process.

Nevertheless, the government contends that the existing framework hinders both the creative and technical sectors and necessitates legislative resolutions. They have already made one concession by agreeing to an economic impact assessment of their proposals.

Peter Kyle, a close aide to the technical secretary, mentioned this month that the “opt-out” scenario is no longer his favored path, and various alternatives are being evaluated.

A spokesperson from the Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology stated that the government would not rush into copyright decisions or introduce relevant legislation hastily.