The UK’s Data (Use and Access) Bill, introduced to Parliament in October 2024, aims to modernize the country’s data framework by promoting innovation, enhancing public services, and facilitating secure data sharing across sectors like finance, healthcare, and digital identity. I note “Data” is clearly in the title of this bill.
The Bill focuses on data governance and modernising the UK’s data protection framework by building on the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. With the Bill aiming to enhance data protection, it also has significant implications for intellectual property (IP) rights, particularly in the creative industries, given the increased use and power of Artificial Intelligence (AI), because the UK Government has also primed the Bill to harness the potential of data for economic growth. My take in simple terms is that there is a struggle between protecting IP rights and maximizing economic benefits by making data available to train AI, but why, and don’t both have economic benefits?
Data is valuable and fuels AI, which is increasingly used to achieve tasks faster, such as scraping information off the web to create new content and IP. This new content has value, and AI creates efficiencies and new jobs and businesses, which in turn is good for the UK economy. By promoting the wide-scale use of AI, fed on data, the UK Government aims to boost business and the economy. The government encourages this by planning to allow the wider use of copyright works to train AI models through an opt-out model, done by introducing a new ‘text and data mining’ exception. This would allow AI models to use copyrighted materials for training, unless the creator has explicitly opted out. One concern here is that ’opt-out’ carries risks including not realising the need or importance of that tick-in-the-box.
Obstructions to The Bill
So, what is pausing the UK government aside from the risks directly above? Firstly, over 1,000 musicians, including Ed Sheeran, Florence and the Machine, and Sam Fender, have united to oppose these legislative changes, believing they threaten the rights of creators. Their campaign emphasizes the importance of ensuring that artists are fairly compensated and that their works are protected against unauthorized use, especially in the context of emerging technologies like AI. In March 2024, it was recorded that over 93% of business in the creative industries were microbusinesses, that is, they had fewer than 10 employees. It is especially prevalent to consider the protection of these entities as businesses. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has warned that failing to protect UK creatives could harm a sector worth approximately £124 billion a year, with around 6% growth since 2019. Therefore, balancing the interaction between AI and IP rights itself presents as a barrier to the growth of the creative industries. My thought is therefore that both ‘sides’ have an economic argument, but I suspect that many would argue protection of IP is a pillar of modern society, and human authors should be protected for their hard work and investment.
In addition to the opt-out model, the Bill introduces “smart data” schemes, enabling consumers to share their data with authorized third parties. While this could streamline services, it raises concerns about the potential exposure of proprietary datasets, which are often protected under IP laws. Businesses worry that mandatory data-sharing provisions might inadvertently compromise their competitive advantage by making sensitive information more accessible.
Smart Data Scheme
Though both the opt-out model and smart data schemes involve data control, the Smart Data Scheme focuses on data portability and consumer choice, whereas opting out of AI training relates to privacy and preventing your data from being used in AI model development. There is a conundrum for the UK government (and other Governments) because IP protection fosters a fair competitive market (helping a ‘civilised society’), encouraging the development of new ideas and products that benefit society as well as the individual creating. It is essential for maintaining a robust legal framework for innovation and creativity, which drives economic growth and cultural preservation, but AI itself can create and innovate and drive economic growth. Is the point therefore seeking the right balance between protecting the ‘humanity’ in human creativity and making a great economy which should, in theory, create prosperity for everyone.
The Bill has recently been with the House of Lords, and they have voted to back amendments requiring AI developers to disclose all copyright works used in their models. This would give copyright owners significantly more input as to where and how their works are being used in AI training, potentially making it easier for them to object. While the amendments propose more control to the copyright holders, this in turn leaves AI developers with a restriction that could cause hurdles to the development of AI in the UK, thus impacting the economic growth. The balance of Parliament at work.
The government’s preferred approach is to require AI developers to publish a summary of the copyright works rather than disclose them in granular detail. The legislative “ping-pong” continues as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
The implications of the Data (Use and Access) Bill are significant for businesses creating digital content, images, branding, or written materials. AI tools may learn from publicly available data, raising serious concerns, especially for smaller businesses managing opt-out mechanisms. Organizations must be vigilant about the risk of using AI-generated content based on copyrighted material, as this could lead to legal action and reputational damage.
Now is the time for businesses to review their policies and how they protect and label their work, stay alert to developments around opt-out systems, and ensure they document sources and use approved tools to avoid infringement. In this fast-changing landscape, staying updated on legislative changes and case law is crucial to avoid hitting a sour note as the legal tune changes. Businesses shouldn’t assume silence continues to mean safety as the law develops. If you’re dealing with content that intersects with AI, now’s the time to get organized. Stay updated on legislative changes and case law, whether you’re in the creative industry, an IP rights holder, or involved in AI development and usage. “Changes are coming!”
Interesting Footnote: The Bill grants ministers the authority to amend data regulations with limited parliamentary oversight. Critics argue that these “Henry VIII Powers” could lead to changes that undermine existing IP protections without adequate scrutiny. The balance of Parliament, at work again.