View this post on Instagram

A post shared by WomenHoldtheKey (@womenholdthekey)

This collective call to action has been strategically timed to coincide with the UK-US tech pact and the second state visit of Donald Trump, with talks expected to brush over the thornier aspects of copyright protections. Joining Trump in his entourage are technology heavyweights from Nvidia’s Jensen Huang to OpenAI’s Sam Altman. With Labour’s AI Bill yet to be materialised, the UK has become reliant on voluntary codes and arbitrary advice from external bodies, inadvertently stoking a sense of fear due to the lack of available safeguards across the creative industries.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by POLITICO Europe (@politicoeurope)

In their letter, the artists warn that AI companies have been “harvesting songs, recordings, and lyrics to create synthetic outputs that compete with original works without credit, permission, or payments.” For veterans like McCartney, whose catalogue spans decades, and for independent musicians, this signals an existential crisis of originality and leaves artists to wage a losing battle against the rising capabilities of Generative AI models. Without safeguards, the fear is that a whole generation of songwriters could see their economic bases being eroded, just as they begin to establish themselves.

This is not the first time musicians have challenged the government over technology. The last decade was characterised by fights over streaming royalties, Spotify’s opaque algorithms, and the ever-persistent ticket resale scandals. The artist’s expectations of the Labour government are heightened, given Starmer’s past support for a £1 ticket levy, a proposal designed to reinvest in grassroots music venues. This prior stance on protecting the economic infrastructure of the industry suggests a precedent for his willingness to intervene on behalf of artists. Yet, the stakes are higher this time as Starmer finds himself at a crossroads: whether to position the UK as a global leader in AI innovation or bring the unpleasant side of regulation and copyrights to the table. To thread the needle, it will require more than platitudes as artists continue to demand legal clarity towards bringing in safeguards in a digital economy that has too often exploited them.

It is not just the UK that is facing this looming reckoning. In the US, Universal Music Group has sued the Amazon-backed AI company Anthopic over using copyrighted lyrics in training datasets. The UK’s AI-copyright conundrum debate is riddled with complexities, and its decisions in the coming months will create ripples far beyond its borders. For now, the artist’s chorus rings clear and lies on Starmer’s desk: Will the UK defend those who have shaped the country as a cultural powerhouse, or would it allow itself to be drowned out by machine-made echoes?

These proposals would have permitted AI developers to train their models using artistic work, without the required consent from music creators. Suggested a controversial ‘rights reservation’ system, this framework would require creators to explicitly reserve their rights to prevent AI firms from using their work freely. 

Drawing widespread criticism, many argued that this approach undermines the foundation of copyright law and contradicts international copyright law. 

The @UKHouseofLords has voted to extend #copyright law to cover #AI training, sending a bill back to the commons to be debated again #GenAI #tech https://t.co/SOnb657R5J

— AI Media News (@AI_Media_News) January 30, 2025

Sir Paul McCartney, bass guitarist and pianist for the Beatles, has been one of the loudest voices in the fight against these proposals. Speaking to Laura Kuenssberg in a BBC interview, he shared “You get these artists coming through who write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, they don’t have anything to do with it, and anybody can rip it off. The truth of it is that the money is going somewhere. When it makes its way onto streaming platforms, somebody is getting the money, and it should be the creator rather than some tech giant.”

Thankfully, in a vote of 145 to 126, the House of Lords passed amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill which reinforces copyright protections against unauthorised AI use. 

Crossbench Peer Baroness Kidron, who proposed these amendments, stated, “It surely goes without saying that our United Kingdom copyright law has to counter the increasing theft of intellectual property by artificial intelligence companies.” 

She went on to compare the Government’s approach to a shopkeeper being required to opt out of shoplifting and challenged the claim that AI could contribute £400 billion to the UK economy by 2030, revealing that this figure originated from an AI lobbying group funded by Google.

Paul McCartney Speaks Out on AI and Artist Rights The legendary Beatle urges the UK government to protect creators from AI misuse! McCartney warns that proposed copyright law changes could allow tech companies to exploit artists’ work without fair compensation. … pic.twitter.com/B4pMTlOSVF — TechAmerica (@techamericaofcl) January 25, 2025

McCartney, Kate Bush, and others have long campaigned for stronger AI regulations. A petition he signed last year, calling for stricter AI copyright protections, has garnered over 40,000 signatures including other artists like ABBA’s Bjorn Ulvaeus and Kate Bush. 

Beyond the policy, McCartney warns of AI’s broader impact on artistic expression, stating “If they take the incentive away by not protecting copyrights, I think you’d see a loss of creativity. That’s a great pity because it brings so much joy to the world.”

This issue extends beyond copyright – it’s about the future of music and culture. The UK’s creative sector generates £125 billion annually, which fuels the UK’s soft power and is essential to the nation’s global influence, with these new amendments highlighting the Government’s commitment to protecting the creative industries and putting artists first. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by BrooklynVegan (@brooklynvegan)

This debate brings to light a broader struggle between technological developments and the rights of human creators. While AI presents opportunities for innovation, it must not come at the cost of artistic integrity. Moving forward, a balanced approach – one that fosters AI development while ensuring creators are properly recognised and rewarded – will be crucial in preserving the nation’s culture.

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.

Brown and Linzer went online to address the complaints, stating that, “Defendants have levitated away plaintiffs’ intellectual property, plaintiffs bring suit so that defendants cannot wiggle out of their willful infringement.” No pun intended. They also go on to explain how Lipa highlighted in numerous interviews that her album (Future Nostalgia, obviously) was intentionally emulating the sounds of a different era. They also go on to explain that Lipa’s success with the song came through the shortness of the allegedly infringed hook and its relation to the inherently short nature of any viral TikTok breakout, “Because video creators frequently truncate the already brief snippets of sound on TikTok, the signature melody often comprises 50% or more of these viral videos.”. See ‘Wiggle and Giggle All Night’ below to make up your own mind.

The case is set to go against Lipa, her record label (Warner Music Group), a host of other songwriting and production parties, and even DaBaby – who featured on the song’s remix that came out 6 months later. Lipa is yet to comment on either of the cases. 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.

Speaking to TMZ songwriters Konstantine Lois and Shane Williams of American XO claim that Eastside, co-written by Ed Sheeran and featuring Halsey, Khalid and Nathan Perez, is a ‘carbon copy’ of their song Loveless from 2015. Losi and Williams told TMZ that they found similar “note dyads, note intervals, similar tempos and an all-around familiar beat” in Eastside and Loveless.

The team behind Eastside are now being sued by the American XO songwriters for copyright infringement, in a battle which levels the blame not just at co-writer Sheeran but at everyone involved in the song’s production, from record labels to featured artists Khalid and Halsey.

Sheeran has run into trouble with copyright infringements with multiple other songs of his – perhaps most famously, he was sued for $100 million  in 2018 over similarities between Thinking Out Loud and Marvin Gaye’s Let’s Get It On. The Lego House singer’s previous problems with copyright litigation has been highlighted by Sam Chokri. Chokri, who is building a copyright court case against Sheeran for allegedly lifting parts of the chorus from his song Oh Why in the runaway hit Shape of You, has collected a list of songs he claims Sheeran has allegedly borrowed from. 

You can listen to Loveless and Eastside here:

It is reported in The Guardian Newspaper that Committee chair, MP Julian Knight said that it would inquire as to whether, “The economics of streaming could in future limit the range of artists and music that we’re all able to enjoy today.” He went on to describe the way that music is being promoted for the rising UK talent as a “blunt tool to operate in a creative industry with emerging talent risking failing the first hurdle.”

Streaming has changed the music industry – but do the economics of music streaming work for everyone?

We’re launching an inquiry into the economics of music streaming today and want to hear from you.

Find out more and submit evidence here: https://t.co/tj3lUEVnZ2 pic.twitter.com/7fov9s99of

— Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (@CommonsDCMS) October 15, 2020

The investigation has been launched after the, ‘Keep Music Alive’ campaign was founded by the Musician’s union and Ivors Academy due to insufficient royalties given to creatives and performers in the music industry. The Daily Mail reported that Chief Executive of the Ivors Academy, Graham Davies stated,

“On behalf of all music creators we are delighted that Government will investigate the streaming market so it can work for all parts of the music industry. Most creators cannot make a living from streaming, it simply does not pay enough and millions of pounds each year is not properly allocated due to poor data. Following our campaigning with the Musicians’ Union, performers and creators to Fix Streaming this is an opportunity to create a transparent, fair and equitable approach.”

According to the Ivors Academy, noted by the Daily Mail, the UK brings accumulates over £1 billion a year in revenue and bringing in over 114 billion pounds in revenue for music streams in the last year. Companies such as Spotify pay as littles as £0.002 and 0.0038 per stream. Apple music pays £0.0059.

MP’s are requesting written documents from industry professionals from experts with the music sector, music labels, streaming platforms and artists themselves to address the business tools being used to promote the music and the long term affect these could have on the industry without changes being pursued.

Deezer, a French streaming company is currently the only leading streaming platform which uses a user centric payment system (UCPS) which ensures subscriber’s that revenues go direct to the artists. However, this is a growing platform, which is not currently a dominant feature in the way to download music.

Alexander Holland from Music Ally, a glowing streaming platform told The Guardian, “This can only happen in the context of agreement with our label partners. We cannot unilaterally introduce UCPS.”

The piracy of digital music has spiked since lockdown from the coronavirus in the spring and the government is keen to look at the consequential effect this could have long term for the industry. It will be looking at the EU copyright opposed to the UK equivalent to see if changes can be made to support the industry in these challenging times to protect the industries future.

According to the BBC, Google -who have been the proprietors of YouTube since 2006- have been planning to launch a new music subscription service to rival similar services such as Spotify, Deezer and Beats Music.

These rumours began when Android Police noticed “Music Pass” appearing in YouTube’s Andriod app, which boasted that it would be launched later this year and have a monthly subscription fee for ad-free streaming.

In an interview with the Financial Times, YouTube’s executive Robert Kyncl admitted that plans for a new subscription service was legitimate, but did not comment on the likelihood of YouTube’s threat that it would literally ban independent music from their current video streaming service unless the bands signed up to their unfavourable contract.

The Guardian Newspaper interviewed YouTube back in May when these allegations were beginning to be shared. They commented saying “”YouTube provides a global platform for artists to connect with fans and generate revenue for their music. We have successful deals in place with hundreds of independent and major labels around the world, however we don’t comment on ongoing negotiations.”

As of last night a Google Spokesman has stated that “Our goal is to continue making YouTube an amazing music experience, both as a global platform for fans and artists to connect, and as a revenue source for the music industry” which appeared opaque. It was once more with the Financial Times that Robert Kyncl admitted “The Google-owned Company will start blocking videos in a matter of days to ensure that all content on the new platform is governed by contractual terms.”

YouTube has often been at the forefront of copyright law due to its nature of providing easy and free streaming of shared media on a global scale. However taking notes from the BBC, RT, Guardian and The Financial Times amongst many other notable sources it appears that dark days may be ahead with the consequences of how we stream our music online.

With many independent musicians feeling the brunt of the decline CD and mp3 sales due to our ever growing demand for fast library-based streaming, and with YouTube at the epicentre of these threats to disembowel the potential use of free media to share music and ideas, it appears that music, art and even literature is being forced into a contractual nightmare.

At best we can hope that these rumours are just that.