Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to
protect intellectual property rights in relation to artificial
intelligence, in particular large language models, since
discontinuing plans to develop a code of practice.
(Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper and declare my technology interests, as set out
in the register, as an adviser to Boston Ltd.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Con)
My Lords, this is a complex and challenging area. We strongly
support AI innovation in the UK, but this cannot be at the
expense of our world-leading creative industries. Our goal is
that both sectors should be able to grow together in partnership.
We are currently working with DCMS to develop a way forward on
copyright and AI. We will engage closely with interested
stakeholders as we develop our approach.
(Con)
My Lords, our great UK creatives—musicians who make such sweet
sounds where otherwise there may be silence; writers who fill the
blank page with words of meaning that move us; our photographers;
our visual artists—are a creative community contributing billions
to the UK economy, growing at twice the rate of the UK economy.
In the light of this, why are the Government content for their
work, their IP and their copyright to be so disrespected and
unprotected in the face of artificial intelligence?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for the important point he raises,
particularly stressing the importance to the United Kingdom of
the creative industry, which contributes 6% of our GVA every
year. The Government are far from content with this position and
share the frustrations and concerns of many across the sector in
trying to find a way forward on the AI and copyright issue. As I
say, it is challenging and deeply complex. No jurisdiction
anywhere has identified a truly satisfactory solution to this
issue, but we continue to work internationally and nationally to
seek one.
(Con)
My Lords—
(Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. As I
said in my letter last week to the Secretary of State on behalf
of the Communications and Digital Select Committee, the
Government's reluctance to take a clear position on copyright in
the context of AI and large language models is leading to
“problematic business models … becoming entrenched and
normalised”.
The Government urgently need to take a clear position, and soon.
On a practical basis, what support are they giving to market-led
initiatives to improve licensing deals for news publishers and to
get collective licensing regimes off the ground, to ensure that
smaller rights-holders are also not left behind?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend and her committee for that important
letter. First, we must not underestimate the difficulty and
complexity of the issues involved in resolving this question;
there are very problematic jurisdictional and technical issues.
That said, the Government greatly welcome any arrangement between
private sector organisations finding a way forward on this; we
can all learn a great deal from the success of those
arrangements. We believe that a collaborative way forward on both
sides, in partnership, will be a very important part of the
eventual solution.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister was right to say that we should recognise
that AI can bring opportunities to the creative sector. For
example, nearly a decade after a near-fatal stroke, the musician
Randy Travis has released a new song featuring AI-generated
vocals. This has been done with his consent and the involvement
of his record label, but elsewhere, as we have heard, AI tools
are being widely used to create music in the style of established
artists, despite no permission having been given and a total lack
of creative control on the part of those artists and their
representatives. Can the Minister outline how the Government are
actively involving musicians, artists and writers in determining
how best to protect that very precious intellectual property,
while allowing creativity to flourish? I echo the noble
Baroness's theme: this is an urgent matter and we would like to
hear how the Government will address it.
(Con)
The issue raised by the noble Baroness is of deep concern to
everybody. As I say, there are some very serious problems, not
least regarding the jurisdiction where any alleged infringement
may or may not have taken place. Of course, any jurisdiction that
implements rules one way or the other will find that the AI work
she sets out so compellingly is simply offshored elsewhere. The
Government engage very closely with creative groups, including
fair remuneration groups for musicians and many others, and will
continue to do so, looking for a solution to this difficult
problem.
(LD)
My Lords, the noble Viscount told the Lords Communications and
Digital Select Committee that he did not
“believe that infringing the rights of copyright holders is a
necessary precondition for developing successful AI”.
Does he still hold to that view, and does he accept that it
should be the clearly stated view of the Government?
(Con)
I do not believe that the AI industry, in the long term, will
require long-standing copyright infringement for its success.
That is and continues to be the Government's view; any
unauthorised use or copying of intellectual property or
copyrighted material is an infringement. Of course, there is a
range of exceptions to that, and there is the possibility of
giving permission for that to happen. It becomes a very complex
area, both legally and technologically, but, as I say, we
continue to look for a solution.
(Con)
My Lords—
(CB)
My Lords—
Noble Lords
Cross Bench!
(CB)
I am most grateful. AI is already creating IP of its own, but it
is unable to register it because, by law, a human being needs to
register IP. In trying to create a legislative bottle into which
this genie could be reinserted, have the Government taken that
into account?
(Con)
The noble Lord raises a very interesting question. The laws
surrounding the copyrighting of machine-generated content are
getting fairly elderly now and certainly need to be looked at as
part of the overall position going forward.
(Con)
My Lords, it is clear from the questions being raised that this
is a very complex area, not least because we are bringing
together the creative and legal industries and the technologists
who are programming, developing and trying to stay ahead of the
curve on this. What plans do the two departments involved in
developing the code of practice have urgently to engage with
industry—especially over the summer, when there will be a number
of events and activities, including London Tech Week—so that we
can more quickly develop the code and other requirements?
(Con)
Perhaps my noble friend will forgive me if I gaze into a crystal
ball for a moment and predict that the eventual solution to this
will involve three elements: first, some modifications to our
copyright legislation; secondly, some use of technology to enable
a solution; and thirdly, internationally accepted standards of
interoperability in any eventual solution. We engage widely with
techUK and other technology partners, but above all we engage
extensively internationally. I point to our specific engagements
with the World Intellectual Property Organization, the UN agency
the ITU, and of course the follow-up to the AI Safety Summit,
which we are co-hosting in Seoul in a couple of weeks' time.
(LD)
My Lords, what action are the Government taking to compel AI
companies to implement measures to monitor and report IP
infringements?
(Con)
One of the principles we set out in our AI White Paper is
transparency. That principle—repeated across the OECD and in the
EU's AI Act—will go a long way towards doing what the noble
Baroness asks. There are, though, a number of technical
difficulties in implementing transparency—not legally, from our
side, but rather, the computer science problems associated with
processing the very large quantities of data required to generate
true transparency.
(Con)
My Lords, a lot of people are excited by the prospects for AI.
Indeed, this country is in the lead in developing such policies
and the associated opportunities. As one of those involved in
preparing the GDPR in Brussels, I am concerned that the
opportunities and excitement associated with the use of AI must
be balanced against the protection of individual privacy and the
rights of corporate structures and individuals who are worried
about the abuses that might occur unless legislators are up to
date and moving fast enough to deal with these matters.
(Con)
My noble friend makes some important points: AI must advance on
the back of well-executed data protection. Let me take the
opportunity to thank him for his outstanding contributions during
the recently completed Committee stage of the Data Protection and
Digital Information Bill. We continue to share the goal that he
set up.
