The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee (the Committee) and the government have recently examined how UK copyright law should respond to the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (AI).

The House of Lords Committee report is here (the Committee report) and the government’s report is here. The two publications highlight growing consensus on the need to balance AI innovation with the protection of creators’ rights, the government having consulted on this topic earlier in 2025.

The government has now formally announced that it is abandoning its previously preferred proposal to introduce a commercial Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception with a 'rightsholder opt-out' for AI training, following intense scrutiny from representatives of the creative industries, who are already experiencing tangible harm from the current deployment of generative AI.

Key takeaways from the reports

1. A commercial TDM exception with an opt-out model is no longer the preferred option

The Committee concluded that the evidence available did not demonstrate that a TDM exception would in itself, significantly expand the AI sector. In addition, pressing ahead with a TDM exception, even with an opt out, would present a predictable harm to rightsholders and would materially risk the work and livelihood of individuals creators. Instead, the focus should be on strengthening the incentive to license copyrighted works for AI training, transparency and enforcement within existing frameworks.

Despite the Committee’s report putting clear pressure on the government to move beyond consultation and deliver reforms that rebalance the relationship between the creative industries and the AI sector, the government has decided not to make any legislative changes at this stage. Instead, it will take the time to get it right and in the next 12 months, publish a final decision on its approach to AI and copyright law. Existing copyright law will therefore remain in place as it stands, with disputes to be resolved through the courts.

2. Strengthening creators’ rights beyond copyright – a new ‘personality’ right?

Generative AI has made it possible to produce and disseminate convincing, low-cost digital replicas of an individual’s likeness, voice, or personality with relative ease. Such replicas (often referred to as 'deep fakes') can have beneficial uses in the creative industries, but when this is done without consent or a licence, it can cause significant harm.

At present, the UK does not have a standalone image or personality right. Copyright would not be engaged where the AI output does not reproduce a specific protected work but instead exploits a person’s 'likeness'. Currently, protection is drawn from areas such as passing off, data protection, online safety regulation or defamation, which are applicable only in certain circumstances.

The Committee calls on the government to introduce protections against unauthorised digital replicas and 'in the style of' uses. Any new framework should give creators and performers clear, enforceable control over the commercial exploitation of their identity, while appropriately balancing freedom of expression and other legitimate uses.

Whilst there is no immediate plan to implement a new statutory right, the government has concluded that realistic impersonation presents both risks and opportunities for performers and the general public, and will consider whether a new personality right may be appropriate in the future.

3. Transparency and labelling

Rightsholders have reported that it is often difficult or impossible to identify whether their work has been used in the training of an AI model, and that this is the main barrier to enforcing their rights, and/or supporting licensing discussions.

There is currently no mandatory requirement in the UK requiring AI developers to disclose the sources of training data used to build models, and transparency practices vary significantly between developers. Although AI developers are broadly supportive of greater transparency, they favour high‑level, industry‑led commitments.

The UK does not currently regulate the labelling of AI‑generated content, although some developers and service providers offer labelling tools on a voluntary basis or to comply with overseas regulatory requirements. Most respondents to the consultation supported the labelling of wholly AI‑generated outputs, while views were more divided in relation to AI‑assisted works.

The government proposes to work with the industry to develop good practice on input transparency and labelling, with the aim of establishing balanced and effective approaches that promote consumer confidence and public trust, aligned with international standards.

4. Licensing

The Committee notes that a market for licensing creative content for AI use is already beginning to develop and emphasises the role of collective management organisations in facilitating access to licences for creators and AI developers of all sizes. It stresses that any licensing framework must be fair, inclusive and accessible to individual creators of all sizes.

Consultation responses from both the creative industries and the AI sector strongly indicated that licensing should remain a matter of commercial negotiation between the parties. In light of this consensus and given the lack of sufficient evidence to justify intervention, the government proposes not to intervene in the licensing market at this stage.

Next steps

While the government’s plan for a commercial TDM exception with opt-out has been halted, it will continue to gather evidence and monitor closely the interaction between copyright law and generative AI, and take the time needed to consider any legislative reform.

Both reports identify many areas for further development, particularly in relation to transparency, labelling and the possible development of a new statutory personality right to protect against unlicensed digital replicas.

Although the pressure is mounting for legislative changes, there is no immediate reform on the horizon.

 

Holly Webb is a senior associate and Harriette Alcock is a trainee solicitor in the IP disputes team at Burges Salmon

Topics