The UK government’s plan to use AI technology to “turbocharge growth” in the economy across the coming decade have been criticised by screen sector experts, who warn AI could “decimate” the creative industries.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s adoption of the AI Opportunities Action plan, which “mainlines AI into the veins” of the UK, has caused concern among leading voices on AI in the screen sectors who fear the government has come down too firmly on the side of big tech.
They say not enough is being done to prevent AI models from being trained with data that is not ethically sourced, and to protect the rights of creatives.
“The AI action plan and its response were not written with the film and TV industries for what it is: a complex ecosystem, involving millions of creative workers,” said lawyer and expert on IP, data and ethics Mathilde Pavis.
“Rather, the AI action plan and its response represent the creative industries as data mining farms, without farmers I might add. This is somewhat surprising coming from the Labour party and reads as the extension of plans led by previous Conservative governments.
“The AI action plan’s approach seems to overlook the fact that millions of creative workers rely on copyright and related rights like performers’ rights to make a living,” Pavis continued.
Benjamin Field, founder and executive producer at Deep Fusion Films, a production company with a focus on using AI technology, warned the government’s approach to AI could “decimate” the creative industries.
“It’s horrific the way this could work”
The UK government’s strategy includes appointing AI ‘sector champions’ in key industries such as the creative sectors to work with industry and government and develop AI adoption plans, plus establishing a copyright-cleared UK media asset training data set, which can be licensed internationally at scale. To do this it would partner with bodies that hold valuable cultural data such as the National Archives, Natural History Museum, British Library and the BBC.
The plan also seeks to: “Reform the UK text and data mining regime so that it is at least as competitive as the EU [European Union],” said the government.
“The current uncertainty around intellectual property (IP) is hindering innovation and undermining our broader ambitions for AI, as well as the growth of our creative industries. This has gone on too long and needs to be urgently resolved. The EU has moved forward with an approach that is designed to support AI innovation while also enabling rights holders to have control over the use of content they produce. The UK is falling behind.”
Field and Pavis, who both previously gave evidence on the ethical application of AI in the screen industries during the UK parliament’s film and high-end inquiry on AI in December, agreed the push to follow in the EU’s footsteps regarding copyright protection is deeply worrying. The EU depends on ‘opt-out’ clauses, in which copyright owners must proactively opt-out of their work being used for training AI models.
“The AI plan comes as close to recommending adopting the EU opt-out mechanism as it can without saying the words,” said Pavis. “This is very surprising as we now have evidence the EU system is failing, and most likely in breach of international treaties on copyright protection like Berne Convention binding on both the UK and the EU.”
“The opt-out scheme just doesn’t work,” agreed Field, who is advocating for an ‘opt-in’ approach. “It’s the same as making it perfectly okay for shoplifting – anyone who owns a store can say ‘no’ to shoplifters, however you’ve got to be able to find all the shoplifters who’ve stolen your material and are now selling it, and you have to go to each store individually and tell them it wasn’t okay to take your goods in the first place, all the while those goods could be being re-sold to your customers at a fraction of the cost, and they could be doing it outside your shop.
“It’s horrific the way this could work. If this is the way they’re going to go, they could decimate the creative sector. They don’t seem to have taken into account the subtleties of the data they are trying to give away. Giving away the creative data or making creative work available for data mining is not the same as giving away NHS data. NHS data can be anonymised, and therefore be useful, there is no there’s no copyrightable material within the data itself… You’re making a mockery of the entire copyright system.”
On the plans to partner with bodies such as the BBC to create a UK media data set, Field noted: “Let’s say the BBC owns all the rights to the original episodes of Doctor Who. In the form that it is seen to an audience, they do own the rights to that. But they do not own the rights to [actor who played first incarnation of the Doctor] William Hartnell’s face. You can’t sell the entirety of a piece of work for AI training because it completely tramples all over any likeness rights any individuals have.
”It feels like they [the government] is racing through to have this new AI opportunity, without taking into account any of the underlying copyright issues they are going to bring up for it. They are going to set a precedent for things they have no idea they are setting a precedent for.”
The government’s AI action plan has been issued at the same time as a consultation on how to resolve the tension between copyright law and AI is still ongoing, after launching in December. “It does seem to be making a mockery of the consultation, because the action plan has been published before the consultation ends,” said Field.
“The AI Action Plan makes me wonder whether consultation on AI and copyright currently open is a window dressing exercise,” added Pavis. “I worry it may discourage professionals and organisations in the creative industries from participating for fear that the battle is lost.”
Paul W Fleming, general secretary of performers’ union Equity, noted: “Government is effectively giving the green light to Big Tech to further line their pockets at the expense of our world-leading creative industries. This is an industry that has largely disregarded UK laws and carried out intellectual property theft on an industrial scale.
“Instead of moving forward with their flawed opt-out scheme, we need the government to back an effective licensing market based on UK copyright laws and strengthened performers’ rights,” Fleming continued.
“This would enable both industries to flourish We have copyright regulations and GDPR [legislation] which should be used to protect rightsholders and individuals. The UK government has a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that the creation and use of AI tools are built on legally compliant data. AI can be a powerful positive force but protections must be in place, and creative workers and their trade unions must be part of policy making and future licensing schemes.”
Government is “backing AI to the hilt”
A statement from the government released on January 12 said it was “throwing the full weight of Whitehall behind this industry” and “backing AI to the hilt” by adopting all 50 recommendations set out by Matt Clifford, entrepreneur and co-founder of talent investor Entrepreneur First in his AI Opportunities Action Plan.
The government estimates through adopting the plan the UK’s economy could grow by an additional £400bn by 2030.
“The AI industry needs a government that is on their side, one that won’t sit back and let opportunities slip through its fingers,” said Starmer at the launch on January 12. ”And in a world of fierce competition, we cannot stand by. We must move fast and take action to win the global race.”
No comments yet