UK Update On Copyright In The Age Of Generative Artificial Intelligence

The Communications and Digital Committee of the United Kingdom House of Lords recently released its fourth report, AI, Copyright and the Creative Industries, as part of its ongoing inquiry into the interaction between generative artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law.

The report forms part of a multi-year effort by the UK government to respond to mounting concerns from both the creative industries and the AI sector, informed by evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.

While focused on the UK, the report will be of interest to Canadian policymakers and stakeholders. It addresses many of the same issues currently under consideration by the Government of Canada, including in relation to text and data mining (TDM) activities, transparency of the works used to train AI models, and the protection of creators’ economic interests in the age of generative AI.

Recommendations

In the report, the Committee recommends that the UK government take certain actions, with the main recommendations summarized below.

1. Rule out any reform to the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, including a commercial TDM exception.

In an earlier consultation, the UK government identified several possible options for addressing TDM activities. One such option would be to enact a broad TDM exception for commercial uses with or without a mechanism for rightsholders to reserve their rights (i.e., opt out). In the report, the Committee recommends that the government rule out that option.

Unlike in Canada, the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) includes an exception for TDM copies made for the sole purpose of research for non-commercial purposes, provided the content is lawfully accessed and, where practical, sufficiently acknowledged. The CDPA also includes a more general exception for temporary copies of works made as part of a technological process, which bears some similarity to the exception in section 30.71 of the Canadian Copyright Act.

The Committee recommends that the UK government rule out any reform to the CDPA that would weaken incentives to license copyrighted works for AI training. That includes any exception for commercial TDM. The Committee views the technology sector’s calls for a commercial TDM exception as an attempt to lower its litigation risk by weakening copyright protection, rather than a neutral exercise to clarify the law. In the Committee’s view, the large-scale making and processing of copyrighted works for AI model training can be characterized as acts of reproduction and should be assessed under ordinary copyright principles and clearly-defined exceptions.

The Committee urges the UK government to focus on strengthening licensing, transparency, and enforcement within the current legal framework. In the interim, the Committee also urges the UK government to issue a clear a clear public statement setting out an expectation that commercial AI developers operating in the UK should obtain appropriate licences when using copyrighted works to train generative AI models.

2. Close gaps in protection for identity, style and digital replicas, including “in the style of” uses.

The Committee notes that the absence in UK law of a robust personality right or specific protection for digital likeness means that creators and performers lack an adequate basis to challenge harmful outputs that imitate their distinctive styles, voices, or personas without reproducing specific underlying works. To combat this, the Committee recommends introducing protections against unauthorized digital replicas and “in the style of” uses to give creators and performers clear, enforceable control over the commercial exploitation of their identity, while appropriately safeguarding freedom of expression and other legitimate uses.

3. Make transparency about AI training data a statutory obligation.

The Committee finds that high‑level, aggregate transparency disclosures regarding the material AI developers use to train their models do not meet rightsholders’ needs and that more granular transparency reporting is necessary.

Acknowledging that AI developers may disagree on the scope of such disclosures, the Committee recommends that the UK government facilitate discussions between AI companies and rightsholder representatives to develop proportionate and workable proposals. It also urges the UK government to designate an appropriate regulatory body to standardize statutory transparency reporting obligations for large AI developers, and to design these requirements in a way that minimizes incentives for UK‑based developers to move AI training activities abroad, to the detriment of UK creators, innovators, and consumers.

4. Champion the development of technical standards for control, provenance and labelling.

The Committee emphasizes that effective, machine‑readable rights‑reservation mechanisms will form a critical component of any sustainable licensing regime. While existing site‑level reservation tools do not meet the needs of modern AI systems, the Committee notes that industry‑led solutions are emerging and warrant consideration, including signed metadata, fingerprinting, and watermarking.

In the interim, and consistent with the Australian government’s approach, the Committee recommends that the UK government publicly confirm that it will not introduce a new commercial TDM exception based on an opt‑out rights‑reservation model. The Committee also identifies robust and visible labelling of AI‑generated content as a core element of the UK government’s AI and copyright strategy, noting that such labelling can preserve the value of human creativity, improve consumer understanding, and support fair competition in creative markets that prioritize human‑made works.

5. Create the conditions for a fair and inclusive UK licensing market.

The Committee observes that a market for licensing content for use by AI systems is already emerging, as demonstrated by recent agreements between major AI companies and creative businesses. It recommends that a UK AI licensing regime support a range of licensing models accessible to rightsholders and AI developers of varying sizes and highlights the important role that collective management organizations can play in enabling creators to negotiate and benefit from AI licensing arrangements. This could include exploring the introduction of an unwaivable right to equitable remuneration for AI uses of rightsholders’ works and performances as training inputs and, where appropriate, as outputs, all subject to mandatory collective management, and supporting creator-first remuneration models with appropriate transparency and audit arrangements.

6. Prioritise the development and adoption of sovereign AI models.

The Committee recommends that the UK not resign itself to long-term dependence on opaque AI models trained in the US. Instead, the Committee urges that the UK government’s sovereign AI efforts should prioritize the development and adoption of domestically-governed models with transparency built in by design, including clear information about training data and development processes.

Key Developments in Canada

In October 2023, the Canadian government launched its own Consultation on Copyright in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence to gather stakeholder comments and evidence on key copyright issues raised by generative AI, followed by the release of the What We Heard Report summarizing the submissions it received. The Canadian consultation focused on the use of copyright‑protected works in AI training (including TDM), authorship and ownership of AI‑generated content, and liability for copyright infringement by AI outputs. Our comments on those developments can be found here.

The Canadian government’s AI Strategy Task Force has also released its Q1 2026 report, Engagements on Canada’s Next AI Strategy, recommending a national AI talent strategy, AI assurance labs and governance councils, mission‑driven research aligned with public needs, and strong intellectual property protections and structural reforms to support the growth and retention of AI enterprises in Canada.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.