Homepage

UK Music AI Consultation – Cribsheet for Music Industry

Everything you need to know and what you you need to do to support us is in our cribsheet below.

Page actions

You are here

Below is some information to help you get across the key points to make sure the Government listens to the music industry and protects our livelihoods when it comes to AI.

“You may find it helpful to copy and paste the below text into a separate doc so you can refer to it while you are filling in the online survey”

Consultation Link here

Question 4: Do you agree that option 3 – a data mining exception which allows right holders to reserve their rights, supported by transparency measures – is most likely to meet the objectives set out above?

Answer: No

Option 3: Exception with Rights Reservation would allow AI companies to use all musicians’ and composers’ work, to create competing works without asking for permission from creators / labels / publishers or paying royalties or license fees. We believe it is a major, unjust threat to people’s livelihoods. The proposed “rights reservation” as a way for creators, labels and publishers to “opt out” of AI training and strike licensing deals is completely unworkable in practice.

Question 5: Which option do you prefer and why?

Option 1: Strengthen copyright requiring licensing in all cases is the option preferred by UK Music, because developers must ask for permission before using people’s music, and this would allow music creators, labels and publishers to negotiate licensing deals and get fairly paid for their work.

Please say in your own words why this would be preferable – you may want to mention:

  • The ability for you or your label / publisher to negotiate licensing deals with developers to ensure you get fairly paid for your work.
  • Any kind of exemption would weaken the market for AI training licenses, and your ability to earn income from AI using your work.
  • AI products compete with the work that they are trained on – your music – this is why we need licensing in all cases.

Government’s Proposed Approach – Exception with Rights Reservation

Question 6: Do you support the introduction of an exception along the lines outlined above?

Answer: No

Question 8: What other approach do you propose and how would that achieve the intended balance of objectives?

Explain, in your own words, what would be important to you as a music professional. You may want to mention:

  • The ability to control how your work is used.
  • To be fairly paid for your work.
  • The ability for licenses to be negotiated via the usual channels.
  • To have transparency on how your work has been used for AI if you do give permission.
  • For consumers to know whether music they are buying has been created by AI or a human.
  • Generative AI competes with the work it is trained on – any proposal that allows this without licensing is unacceptable.

Question 9: What influence, positive or negative, would the introduction of an exception along these lines have on you or your organisation? Please provide quantitative information where possible.

Explain, in your own words, what you think might happen if the government goes ahead with its proposal. You may want to mention:

  • Income you currently get from licensing your music or contributing to music that is later licensed or bought out that may be lost.
  • Time and money invested in creating your music (including time and money spent on education and training).
  • That it would be impossible to effectively opt-out of AI training under the proposed model.
  • The difficulties this would create in ensuring you are fairly paid for your work and, if you are an individual or small business, the difficulties in policing how your works are used if there is no requirement for AI companies to ask permission.
  • The possibility of AI creating highly scalable competitors without your permission, in what is already a competitive market.
  • You may also want to highlight that you want to, or have used AI tools in your work, but do not want to infringe copyright that may have been used in the training of these tools, and that this proposal does not address this concern.

Question 22: Do you agree that AI developers should disclose the sources of their training material?

Answer: Yes

You may want to mention that transparency measures could reduce copyright infringement, but only if combined with Option 1 – keeping or strengthening existing copyright.

AI Outputs – Labelling

Question 45: Do you agree that generative AI outputs should be labelled as AI generated? If so, what is a proportionate approach, and is regulation required?

Answer: Yes

All outputs from a generative AI must be labelled – this cannot be voluntary.

AI Outputs – Digital Replicas and Other Issues

Question 48: To what extent would the approach(es) outlined in the first part of this consultation, in relation to transparency and text and data mining, provide individuals with sufficient control over the use of their image and voice in AI outputs?

Answer: The current proposals (option 3) would not give people sufficient control

You may want to mention:

  • The difficulties in policing how your works are used if there is no requirement for AI companies to ask permission.
  • The difficulties in being paid fairly for the use of your voice or image.
  • The potential damage to your reputation as a creator or organisation if your image or voice is used without permission.

Please do respond to any of the other questions in this consultation as you see fit, but there is absolutely no requirement to respond to all.

Consultation Link  here