Aides to the Senior Minister stated that AI firms would not be required to compensate creators for using their content to train their systems.
Kirsty Innes, recently appointed as special advisor to Liz Kendall, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, remarked, “Philosophically, whether you believe large companies should compensate content creators or not, there is no legal obligation to do so.”
The government is currently engaged in discussions regarding how creatives should be compensated by AI companies. This has prompted well-known British artists, including Mick Jagger, Kate Bush, and Paul McCartney, to urge Kiel’s predecessors to advocate for the rights of creators and safeguard their work.
Innes, who previously worked with the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) Think Tank, has since deleted her statement. In a post on X from February—before her ministerial appointment—she commented:
Additionally, she stated:
The TBI received donations amounting to $270 million (£220 million) last year from Oracle Tech billionaire Larry Ellison. Oracle is backing the $600 million Stargate project aimed at developing AI infrastructure in the U.S. with OpenAI and the Japanese investment firm SoftBank.
Since Labour initiated consultations on copyright law reform, tensions have arisen with the UK creative community. The suggested approach to allow AI companies to utilize copyrighted works without permission from their owners indicates a desire to circumvent the process.
Some content creators, such as The Guardian and The Financial Times, have entered agreements with OpenAI, the creators of ChatGPT, to license and monetize their content for use in the San Francisco startup.
The government now asserts that it no longer prefers requiring creatives to opt out and has assembled working groups from both the creative and AI sectors to develop solutions to the issues at hand.
Ed Newton-Rex, founder of Foally Trained—a nonprofit dedicated to respecting creative rights and certifying generative AI companies—emphasizes his advocacy for creative rights.
“I hope she takes this into account with her advisor. This perspective aligns more closely with public sentiment, which is rightly concerned about the implications of AI and the influence of large technology firms.”
After the newsletter promotion
He noted that Kendall’s appointment presents an opportunity to redefine a relationship that has become increasingly complicated between the creative industry and the dominance of big technology companies. This move appears to reflect the demands from Big AI firms for copyright reform without the obligation to compensate creators.
Both Innes and Kendall chose not to comment.
Beevan Kidron, a crossbench peer who has rallied against the loosening of copyright laws, stated, “Last week, Creative sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to clearly define the rights of individuals in their scientific and creative endeavors, especially in terms of the unintended consequences of government policies that overlook British citizenship.”
Source: www.theguardian.com
