Who Owns Creativity? The Policy Shift that Could Reshape AI and the Arts

If you walked past a newsstand on 25th February, the eye-catching view of all the same turquoise front pages with bold black and white letters spelling out “MAKE IT FAIR” might have you in question. Whether it was the Guardian, the Times, or the Daily Telegraph, various UK newspapers had the same sensational front page unanimously. This unprecedented media campaign showed how diverse media outlets voiced the same view against the UK government’s proposed changes to the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

What is the Data (Use and Access) Bill?

The Data (Use and Access) Bill is now proposed to transform the way tech companies can use creative works, from visual arts and literature to music. Developers would be allowed to train their AI models on copyrighted materials without seeking permission from or compensating the creators unless they opt out.

AI businesses rely on extensive datasets to train their algorithms. Creative works are a significant part of such a dataset. Generative AI models, like ChatGPT for text and images, or AI music composers, improve by analysing existing works to identify patterns and styles. The more diverse and high-quality the dataset, the more evolved the AI’s output becomes.

For example, an AI trained on thousands of paintings can generate images that mimic certain styles. You might have seen filters on TikTok transforming photos to Ghibli studio-style images, that’s an example. Similarly, AI trained on journalism can create news briefs, and AI music generators can compose tunes that sound like human creation. Companies profit from these models by offering AI-generated content services to businesses and consumers, monetising creative content as a valuable resource for AI creation.
Currently, if a company wants to use copyrighted materials, they must seek consent from the artist and typically compensate for the rights. The new bill would abolish this requirement for AI training, meaning that creative works, whether they are public domain or behind paywalls, could be used to train AI without involving the creators.

What Does This Mean for Different Stakeholders?

Artists and Copyright Holders
This bill raises concerns about ownership and fair compensation. If their work is used to train AI without permission, is their intellectual property exploited? Many argue that their work, the result of years of effort and creativity, can be devalued if AI models can use it for free without permission and compensation. It is not only the fear of money but also about artistic integrity. Should AI be allowed to replicate creative styles without giving credit or compensation to the original creators?

AI Companies and Developers
The bill offers an opportunity to develop AI models. With increased quality data, AI can develop faster, hence potentially strengthening the UK’s position in the global AI race. From a business perspective, reducing legal barriers to data access makes AI innovation more scalable. However, there is also a risk of their reputations; a negative public perception of AI as a company ignoring creators’ rights can lead to backlash and calls for more regulation.

The Government and Regulators
The UK government has presented the bill as a way of encouraging technological innovation and competitiveness. Through easier access to data, policymakers aim to demonstrate the UK’s image as an AI leader. However, they must cope with opposition from the creative sector and potential legal challenges. Is this bill a ticket to a world in which artists and technology companies make new types of licensing agreements? Will it push legislators to reconsider copyright law as AI evolves?

The Role of Governance: Human vs AI? More like Human vs Human

Most of the public debate on AI and creativity has been seen as a battle between man and machines, creators versus algorithms or job loss versus technology advancement. However, the core issue is who has the authority to shape AI’s role in society. Governments and institutions are responsible for making the decisions that will determine the balance between technological progress and artistic rights.
The changes in the bill highlight that it is ultimately the policymakers who decide how creative works may be used and who benefits from it. The controversy shifts from a simple narrative of human creativity versus AI to a broader question of governance. Whose interests are prioritised? How do these choices shape the future of industries and technology? This is a question of how society wishes to share the rewards and burdens of technological transformation.

Words by Jacqueline Wong

Cover Image Credit: Fort George G. Meade Public via Flickr