View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jimmy Page (@jimmypage)

Page detailed his own journey from session musician to one of the most famous guitar players in the world, and said his path “was not paved by algorithms or data sets” but by spontaneous improvisation and the human spirit. He also described the government’s plans as a “free pass for AI to exploit creativity without consequence” and called for legislation that protects the rights of the artist.   

Page is just one of many UK musicians to voice their concerns, including Sir Paul McCartney, Elton John, Thom Yorke, Kate Bush, and Gary Numan. The former Beatle appeared on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg in January to voice his concerns, saying, “If they take the incentive away by not protecting the copyrights, I think you’d see a loss of creativity. That’s a great pity because it brings so much joy to the world.” 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Musicians’ Union (@wearethemu)

The Musicians Union has also voiced their own concerns and released a statement last month. “The MU’s position is to oppose the exception and rights reservation system, and request that copyright be strengthened with the introduction of a new AI training right in UK copyright law.”

The proposal comes as part of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is currently in the committee stage in the House of Commons. The changes, which have been described as the governments’ preferred approach, would allow AI companies to data mine copyrighted works without permission under an opt-out system, which as Page pointed out, is impossible in reality.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is headed by Dame Caroline Dinenage, who has described the government’s opt-in, opt-out stance as “the legislative equivalent of the hokey-kokey.” The Labour government’s own MP, James Frith, spoke out about the importance of copyright, enabling those who create art to also be able to make a living from it.

There is one week left to respond to the Government’s Copyright & AI consultation, which sets out damaging proposals to the UK’s world-leading creative industries.

Find out how you can voice your opposition here https://t.co/vhaVYD0htq pic.twitter.com/iA93EkYPYC

— BPI (@bpi_music) February 18, 2025

The debate has been growing, and just last week, over 1000 UK artists put their name to a silent album. ‘Is This What We Want?’ sent a stark message to legislators, with a track listing that spelled out ‘The British Government Must Not Legalise Music Theft To Benefit AI Companies’.  

Peter Kyle, Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology, one of the sponsors of the Bill, has defended the proposals. He told LBC that the aim is to create a market in the UK where AI companies respect domestic laws, arguing that loopholes are already being exploited in other countries.

“I will not be made to choose one industry over another.”@peterkyle speaks on @LBC about the recent AI Copyright Consultation pic.twitter.com/YTcr3OgHER

— Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (@SciTechgovuk) February 28, 2025

 The committee stage allows for amendments to be proposed based on various industry consultations. As the Bill moves into the report stage, it will be opened up to be debated in the House of Commons, further allowing refinements.

With time running out, the input of artists like Page will be crucial in shaping the Bill into something that works for those who rely on the protections offered by copyrights.

Elton John and a chorus of creative elites are urging the UK government to rethink AI copyright proposals.

Why it matters? The current plan could allow AI to mine creative works *without* permission, risking a blow to artist rights and economic growth.

Creative icons like…

— AI News (@DailyAITechNews) February 22, 2025

The proposed changes introduce an “opt-out” system, meaning artists and creators would need to proactively prevent their work from being used by AI systems. Opponents argue this unfairly shifts the responsibility onto artists, rather than requiring AI companies to seek permission before using copyrighted material. Earlier this month, the House of Lords has rejected the proposed copyright law changes, meaning the UK government’s attempt to relax copyright protections has been blocked for now. However, if the House of Commons strongly supports the changes, they may attempt to override the Lords’ decision. Alternatively, public and industry pressure could influence future policymaking.

Sir Elton John expressed his deep concern over the potential impact on the UK’s creative sector to the Daily Mail, stating that these reforms could “destroy the UK’s leadership that has been hard won” and “give it all away for nothing”. With this new statement, the musician joins the likes of Ringo Starr and Kate Bush to speak about the worrying dangers of AI in the music industry. The former Beatles member Sir Paul McCartney has also previously voiced concerns over AI exploitation of artists’ work, emphasising that the profits from AI-generated works should rightfully go to the original creators.Music mogul Simon Cowell has also voiced his opposition, warning that AI, if unregulated, could “wipe out” musicians, songwriters, and industry professionals. He stressed that maintaining strong copyright protections is vital to ensuring that creative individuals receive fair compensation for their work. Bestselling author Kate Mosse has spoken out from the literary perspective, warning that AI’s access to published works without consent could have devastating consequences for writers.

The UK government has launched a consultation on the proposed changes, seeking to balance innovation with the protection of creators. In January 2025, a government spokesperson stated that they aim to “deliver legal certainty through a copyright regime that provides creators with real control, transparency, and helps them license their content”.

As discussions continue, the unified stance of these influential artists highlights the growing concerns over AI’s potential to disrupt the creative industries. Their call to action underscores the urgent need for policies that safeguard the rights of musicians, writers, and other artists in an era of rapid technological advancement.

The House is now sitting, starting with questions to @SciTechgovuk ministers.

Watch today’s proceedings live

— UK House of Commons (@HouseofCommons) January 8, 2025

Responding to East Thanet MP Polly Billington, Bryant emphasised: “We are absolutely determined to make sure that copyright and intellectual property is protected, as it always has been in this country. Our consultation is designed to do two specific things: ensure legal certainty for AI developers and creative industries alike, and to increase licensing of copyrighted material by AI developers.”  

When pushed by Billington on how those who rely on copyrighted works will still make a living if companies that train AI could use their work, Bryant used the Artist’s Resale Right (ARR) as an example of how this government would ensure “that there is a future revenue stream for every artist in this country”. In its current form, the ARR applies to physical art such as sculptures, paintings and ceramics, and is only enacted when those pieces are sold through an official market or auction. It allows for a continuous revenue stream, even after they sell their work.

The UK government AI and Copyright Consultation opens today. We want to hear from a wide range of voices. Respond to the consultation to share your views. [Link]: https://t.co/0Aq3JNwyTp pic.twitter.com/bnbXPKTrLV — Intellectual Property Office UK (@The_IPO) December 17, 2024

As part of the government’s response, they have launched a ten-week consultation, promoted by various government accounts on X, in order to gather opinions on how they should respond to the threat AI poses to the UK’s creative industries. One piece of supplementary material provides the government’s objectives, and outlines the four approaches they have considered. 

Their objectives are split into three ideals: control, access, and transparency.

Control protects the artist, allowing them to choose what work is available for data mining, and also control over the licensing agreement. This will benefit smaller AI companies who may not have the funds to license material from an artist like Dua Lipa, but could find an agreement with a smaller artist.

Access is about allowing these data mining companies access to high-quality material, without legal and administrative headaches, and therefore making the UK a more attractive place to establish an AI presence.

The final objective, transparency, aims to benefit both sides, with the artist having a full understanding of how they can license their work, and how exactly AI companies can use said work. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Musicians’ Union (@wearethemu)

As part of this consultation, the government revealed that their preferred approach would be an “opt-out” licensing system, explaining that this approach achieves all three of their objectives. This approach has drawn criticism from high-profile figures in the creative industry, including Sir Paul McCartney and Kate Bush, who argue it undermines artists’ control over their work. Many advocate for an “opt-in” system, requiring explicit consent before materials can be used for data mining, thereby ensuring artists fully understand the risks and benefits, and can come to their own agreements on how their work is used.

The government’s consultation is set to close on March 15, and the results could shape the future of both AI and copyright laws in the UK. While the debate will continue, there is mounting pressure to ensure that an opt-out system will benefit creators, and allow them to continue making a living from their art.

In 2020, while running for re-election, the former President used Electric Avenue in a campaign video and posted it to Twitter (now known as X). After issuing a cease and desist letter to the Trump campaign asking for the video to be removed, it finally was taken down. In that time, it had been viewed over 13 million times. Eddy Grant sued Trump for copyright infringement.

Trump’s defence attempted to argue they were permitted to use the song, as outlined in US copyright law, under ‘fair use’, which allows the limited use of copyrighted material without asking for permission. However, four years later, according to BBC News, “a federal judge in Manhattan ruled Mr Trump breached Mr Grant’s copyright for his 1983 hit, and is now liable for damages as well as paying for the singer’s legal fees”.

The case highlights longstanding issues within the music industry about the need to compensate artists for the use of their work and a trickier conversation about how their work gets used by others. Trump’s campaign thought it would be appropriate to use a song written about the 1981 Brixton riots, simply for these lyrics: “Now in the street, there is violence, and a lots of work to be done”. Juxtaposed to imagery in their video of a red “Trump-Pence” train speeding ahead of a handcar operated by an animated likeness of then-candidate Joe Biden, as described by Copyrightlately.

Eddy Grant can celebrate his win but he is part of a long list of artists who have taken action against Trump and are opposed to him using their music. These include:

ABBA
Adele
Aerosmith
A-ha
The Animals
The Beatles
Beyoncé
Bruce Springsteen
Celine Dion
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Earth, Wind & Fire
Eddy Grant
Elton John
Everlast
Foo Fighters
Free
Guns N’ Roses
Isaac Hayes
Johnny Marr
Leonard Cohen
Linkin Park
Luciano Pavarotti
Neil Young
Nickelback
Nico Vega
The O’Jays
Ozzy Osbourne
Panic! at the Disco
Pharrell Williams
Phil Collins
Prince
Queen
R.E.M.
Rihanna
The Rolling Stones
Sinéad O’Connor
Spinal Tap
Tom Petty
Twisted Sister
Village People
The White Stripes
Yoann Lemoine

Furthermore, a group of artists, in collaboration with the Artist Rights Alliance, which includes: Mick Jagger, Lorde, Sia, Blondie, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Lionel Richie, Elvis Costello, Keith Richards, Steven Tyler and Rosanne Cash have signed a letter demanding that politicians seek permission before playing their music at campaign rallies and public events.

Collective action like this might change the impetus to use copyrighted material without permission in future. At present, the outcomes for the above cases against Trump are still pending.

Sheeran took to his socials after the victory, summarizing, “where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there’s no basis for the claim.” Adding, “It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry. There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify. That’s 22 million songs a year and there’s only 12 notes that are available.” At the ruling, Judge Antony Zacaroli completed proceedings by saying, “similarities between the one-bar phrase [share] such similarities are only a starting point for a possible infringement”, concluding, “differences between the relevant parts [of the songs, which] provide compelling evidence that the ‘Oh I’ phrase.”.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Ed Sheeran (@teddysphotos)

This result comes with a great sigh of relief for Sheeran, who back in 2017 took the particularly unusual step of counter-suing Sami Chokri and Ross O’Donoghu in an attempt to clear himself of any charges. This ultimately failed.

On the subject of copyright lawsuits, pop sensation Dua Lipa was being sued by Florida reggae band Artikal Sound System; the group claimed that in reference to their own track “Live Your Life”, it was “highly unlikely that ‘Levitating’ was created independently.”. The case is still in process, and I don’t have enough background to comment, but in a conversation with Rolling Stone, Musicologist Joe Bennett weighed in on the situation. While the melodies may be similar, copyright infringement is about confluence – and according to Bennett “In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I think this is a coincidence.”

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) claims it acquired US court documents which allegedly confirm the 8-page lawsuit filed by Integral Images on 6th July 2021. Within them, it states that Lipa allegedly shared a photo on a social media platform which depicted the singer at the airport wearing a big hat with her ticket and passport in hand in February of 2019, Lipa was surrounded by her fans in the photo. Lipa allegedly shared the photo to the social media site on 7th February 2019 with the caption “I’ll be living under big fluffy hats until further notice“, any potential social share of this image has since been deleted

A potential amount of money could be asked to cover the legal costs and attorney costs that could potentially occur. Integral Images’ legal team are also allegedly looking for a jury trial and an order to stop the singer from performing alleged other acts of infringement. The court documents claim the singer profited alleging as the singer’s Instagram is “monetised in that it contains content designed to accumulate followers who are directed to, via link and/or advertisement, consume and purchase [her] content“. The Grammy award singer has been contacted for a statement from the BBC, NME and other representatives of the press but the singer is yet to comment on the alleged claims.

Lipa is not the only star to stumble into claimed copyright infringement trouble, many artists have also been sued by photographers and their representatives. American superstar Jennifer Lopez was sued in sued in 2019 by Splashy news and its picture agency after the singer shared a picture to Instagram. The companies claiming the dispute later dropped the complaint, the photo in question was of herself with Alex Rodriguez, her boyfriend at the time.

In other news from Lipa’s camp, the singer has now turned her attention to acting. The ‘We’re Good’ number one singer will be staring in the new spy film ‘Argylle’. The singer will make her acting debut alongside Henry Cavill, Catherine O’Hara, Sam Rockwell, Samuel L Jackson, John Cena, Bryan Cranston and Bryce Dallas Howard. The new film which is being directed by Matthew Vaughn will also feature Lipa’s music, the singer will be penning the film’s soundtrack and score.

Since voting to pass the most controversial amendments of the EU’s #copyright directive, some MEPs have claimed that they accidently voted the wrong way. More on this story from @guardian: https://t.co/u2Ak7cNDo8

— SmartFrame (@SmartFrame) April 2, 2019

So what’s actually happened over the past three weeks in the European Parliament. Explaining the voting error in The Guardian Alex Hern writes: “The most controversial aspects of the law are two provisions, originally known as articles 11 and 13 and referred to as the “link tax” and “upload filter” respectively by opponents.

As passed, article 11 strengthens the copyright protections for news publishers against the re-use of their stories by internet companies, while article 13 greatly increases the responsibility internet companies have to prevent their platforms being used for copyright infringement.

Before the final vote on the directive, MEPs had a vote on whether to allow one last batch of amendments. If that vote had passed, a separate vote on articles 11 and 13 would have been allowed, in which MEPs could potentially have voted to remove the controversial clauses from the final directive.

The vote on whether to allow the batch of amendments failed by five votes, 312 to 317. But shortly after, in the European parliament’s official voting record, 13 MEPs asked for their vote to be recorded differently: 10 said they meant to support it, two meant to oppose it, and one meant to not vote at all. If those were counted, the result would have gone the other way. Despite the updated record of votes, however, the initial result still stands”.

Why should we care about this vote however, what sort of impact will this have on music? Noah Yoo writing in Pitchfork magazine explains “Even with licensing agreements in place, it is impossible for large sites like YouTube to obtain authorization for every single piece of music ever uploaded to their servers. This fact, coupled with their possible liability under the new rule, will lead to stricter “upload filters” when it comes to these platforms. This will have consequences for all manners of music that might be difficult to obtain a license for: DJ mixes, remixes, music that is out of print, and other music could be blocked as a result of the filters.”

Earlier in the week the EU Parliament released this video via Twitter. In the video the new rules and regulations for copyright law are displayed and explained. As well as how the law will effect everyday European citizens and allegedly make things fairer for content creators.

Parliament has endorsed new rules that will ensure long-standing rights and obligations of copyright law also apply to the online world. Watch the video to learn what the new rules are about pic.twitter.com/3NyvSfpnmv

— European Parliament (@Europarl_EN) March 27, 2019