{"id":493230,"date":"2026-03-24T20:41:12","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T20:41:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/493230\/"},"modified":"2026-03-24T20:41:12","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T20:41:12","slug":"unfinished-works-uk-government-kicks-ai-copyright-reform-down-the-road-patent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/493230\/","title":{"rendered":"Unfinished Works: UK Government Kicks AI Copyright Reform Down The Road – Patent"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

LS<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Lewis Silkin<\/p>\n


\n <\/a><\/p>\n

More<\/p>\n


\n <\/p>\n


\n \"Lewis
\n <\/a><\/p>\n


\nWe have two things at our core: people \u2013 both ours and yours – and a focus on creativity, technology and innovation.
\nWhether you are a fast growth start up or a large multinational business, we help you realise the potential in your people and navigate your strategic HR and legal issues, both nationally and internationally. Our award-winning employment team is one of the largest in the UK, with dedicated specialists in all areas of employment law and a track record of leading precedent setting cases on issues of the day. The team\u2019s breadth of expertise is unrivalled and includes HR consultants as well as experts across specialisms including employment, immigration, data, tax and reward, health and safety, reputation management, dispute resolution, corporate and workplace environment. \n <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n


\n On Wednesday, Liz Kendall (the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology) published a written statement, together with a Report and Impact Assessment, on the Government’s ‘progress’ towards… \n <\/p>\n


\n United Kingdom
\n Intellectual Property \n <\/p>\n


\n To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. \n <\/p>\n

Article Insights<\/p>\n

Oliver Fairhurst\u2019s articles from Lewis Silkin are most popular:<\/p>\n

Lewis Silkin are most popular: <\/p>\n


\n within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s) <\/p>\n

On Wednesday, Liz Kendall (the Secretary of State for Science,
\nInnovation and Technology) published\u00a0a written statement<\/a>, together with a\u00a0Report and Impact Assessment<\/a>, on the
\nGovernment’s ‘progress’ towards addressing the
\napplication of UK copyright law to the training of AI
\nmodels.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Since the end of 2024, the Government has “engaged
\nextensively with creatives, AI firms, industry bodies, unions,
\nacademics and AI adopters, and that engagement has shaped our
\napproach”, has made a strong commitment to “do what is
\nright for the whole British economy” and is “determined
\nto make progress on these issues”.\u00a0<\/p>\n

After all that engagement, what is the Government’s
\nlong-anticipated approach to resolving the tension between AI
\ndevelopers and copyright owners? Following an extensive
\nconsultation process with over 11,500 responses, the establishment
\nof four technical working groups with stakeholders, and a
\nprotracted period of lengthy consideration and debate – the
\nGovernment now “no longer has a preferred option” for
\nlegislative reform on AI training. The anticlimactic conclusion:
\nmore consultation, for an indefinite period.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The report and impact assessment follow the\u00a0Copyright and AI consultation<\/a>, which was
\nlaunched by the Government in December 2024. The consultation’s
\naim was to resolve the ongoing tension between copyright law and
\nartificial intelligence, and to consider how UK law should balance
\nthe interests of copyright owners against the interests of AI
\ndevelopers. In its initial consultation document, the government
\nset out a preferred option: a new text-and-data mining (TDM)
\nexception to copyright that would allow AI companies to use
\ncopyright-protected works for AI training purposes, provided the
\nrightsholder had not “reserved their rights” (or
\n“opted out”).<\/p>\n

The 2024 consultation’s preferred option of a broad TDM
\ncopyright exception subject to opt-out was intended to bring UK
\ncopyright law broadly in line with the EU approach, but was
\nstrongly opposed by the UK’s creative industries. Particular
\nconcerns were raised about the lack of technical standards for
\nexpressing rightsholder opt-out preferences. Opposition boiled over
\nduring the passage of the\u00a0Data (Use and Access)
\nBill\u00a0in mid-2025, where the House of Lords sought to
\ninsert provisions on transparency for copyright owners regarding
\nthe use of copyrighted works for AI training. Those transparency
\nproposals were rejected, but\u00a0as a concession<\/a>\u00a0to enable the Data Bill
\nto pass, the government committed to publish a report and impact
\nassessment within 9 months of the Data (Use and Access) Act
\n(“DUAA”).\u00a0<\/p>\n

What does the government update address?<\/p>\n

The topics required to be covered in the report and impact
\nassessment were outlined in\u00a0sections 135-136 of the DUAA<\/a>. This included an
\nobligation to consider and make proposals in relation to:<\/p>\n


\naddressing the copyright and AI policy options discussed in the
\n2024 Copyright and AI consultation document;
\n
\ntechnical measures and standards to control the use of
\ncopyright works to develop AI systems;
\n
\nthe effect of copyright on the access to data by developers of
\nAI system;
\n
\nthe disclosure of information by developers of AI systems about
\ntheir use of copyright works in the development process; and
\n
\nthe licensing of copyright works to AI developers for training
\nand enforcement.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

The DUAA required the government to “make proposals”
\nabout a range of topics. A cynic might suggest that the government
\nhas instead only proposed to continue to monitor and consult. For
\nexample, on the issue of technical standards that enable
\nrightsholders to express how their work can be accessed and used,
\nthe government concludes that:<\/p>\n

“We propose to keep the need for regulation of
\ntechnical tools and standards under review, and to continue to
\nmonitor international developments. We propose to work with experts
\nand industry to support best practice and adoption of market-led
\ntools and standards.”<\/p>\n

In addition to the topics mandated by the DUAA, the report also
\naddressed\u00a0section 9(3) of the Copyright Designs and Patents
\nAct<\/a>, which provides protection for literary, dramatic, musical
\nor artistic works which are computer-generated; and the extent to
\nwhich existing law adequately addresses deepfakes or digital
\nreplicas – the use of AI to replicate or mimic the appearance or
\nvoice of individuals. Again, the report does not reach a concluded
\npolicy provision on either of these issues. On section 9(3) the
\ngovernment intends to continue to monitor the use and impact of the
\nprovision, but indicates that it may repeal it. On digital
\nreplicas, the government identifies support for enhanced
\nprotections for a person’s image and voice, but that there is
\nno single view on what form that protection should take, and
\ncommits to launching a consultation on the issue of digital
\nreplicas in summer.<\/p>\n

What next?<\/p>\n

The issue of the relationship between copyright and AI is
\ncomplex, but the UK creative industry will be disappointed that,
\ndespite considering the issue for over a year, the Government has
\nbeen unable to meaningfully set out firm legislative reform
\nproposals to address the pressing issues identified in the
\nDUAA.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The creative sector will welcome the conclusion reached by the
\nGovernment in the Report that various stages of the development and
\ndeployment of AI models are likely to infringe copyright law if
\ncarried out in the UK without permission of copyright
\nowners.\u00a0<\/p>\n

While the Impact Assessment notes that “[s]ome aspects of
\nUK copyright law and its application to AI training are
\ndisputed”, the main source of uncertainty over the past year
\ncan arguably be traced back to the Government itself -
\nspecifically, its past approach of setting out a ‘preferred
\noption’ reform proposal that would have weakened UK copyright
\nlaw. The Report acknowledges that the legal position in the UK in
\nrelation to copyright and AI is one of several “uncertain
\nfactors” which has affected the extent to which the licensing
\nmarket has developed; and consultation respondents highlighted that
\nuncertainty created by the Government proposals for change
\n“has a direct adverse impact on the current market for
\nrightsholders”.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Despite this, the Government has not definitively ruled out the
\nintroduction of a new TDM exception with an opt-out reservation of
\nrights mechanism, as the\u00a0House of Lords Communications and Digital Select
\nCommittee urged it to do last week<\/a>. Ruling out such a TDM
\nexception would place UK copyright owners in a stronger position
\nwhen negotiating licensing deals with AI developers, but for now
\nrightsholders have been left to fend for themselves under existing
\nprinciples of UK IP law \u2013 with government indecision looming
\nlarge in the background.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
\nguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
\nabout your specific circumstances.<\/p>\n

[View Source] <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" LS Lewis Silkin More We have two things at our…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":15222,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[59,57,58,50,56,54,55],"class_list":{"0":"post-493230","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-kingdom","8":"tag-gb","9":"tag-great-britain","10":"tag-greatbritain","11":"tag-news","12":"tag-uk","13":"tag-united-kingdom","14":"tag-unitedkingdom"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/493230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=493230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/493230\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15222"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=493230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=493230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=493230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}