Generative AI technology uses vast amounts of human-created content to produce new text, images, and audio, opening the door to exciting new opportunities, but, it also raises critical questions about originality, copyright, and its broader impact on creative industries. These issues took centre stage on 20 February at the British Library, where thought leaders gathered for the event, Creativity and AI: Friend or Foe?. The discussion, chaired by writer and broadcaster Timandra Harkness, came at a crucial moment as the UK government considers reforms to copyright legislation
A David and Goliath Battle
The UK’s AI Opportunities Action Plan aims to position the UK as a global powerhouse in artificial intelligence, with promises of economic growth and transformed public services. Yet, while Westminster dreams of algorithms boosting productivity, creative industries are already feeling the squeeze. A 2024 survey by the Society of Authors found that over a third of illustrators had seen their income dwindle due to generative AI. Indian filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has said he will swap human musicians for AI-generated scores, and Harvard Business Review reported that demand for roles such as writers, graphic designers, and 3D modellers has declined – victims of tools like DALL-E.
Tim Flagg, COO at UKAI and an AI entrepreneur, presented this as a ‘David and Goliath’ scenario. While he recognised the importance of innovation, he emphasised the need for balance, suggesting that supporting technological growth should not come at the expense of protecting the creative industries from powerful tech firms.
Matt Rogerson, Director of Global Public Policy and Platform Strategy at The Financial Times, highlighted the potential benefits of AI, noting that while AI is not without its challenges, it also offers significant opportunities to empower small businesses. He pointed out that there are areas where AI can add real value—most of us appreciate personalised marketing—but cautioned that none of us want fake news.
Drowning in AI Content
One of the biggest challenges highlighted was the sheer volume of AI-generated content flooding the market. With platforms like Spotify’s ‘Ghost Artist’ strategy replacing human talent and Udio enabling the creation of ten tracks per second, human creators face the increasingly daunting challenge of being heard above the algorithmic din. Given that attention is already a scarce resource, it is becoming even more difficult for human-created work to capture and retain an audience.
Copyright Controversies
Central to the debate was the UK government’s consultation on AI and copyright. While tech companies are investing billions into AI models and offering eye-watering salaries to engineers, they often expect to access creative data for free.
The government’s proposed shift from an opt-in to an opt-out model—where tech firms could use copyrighted material unless rights holders explicitly object—was met with firm resistance. Panellists argued that this approach would undermine the UK’s creative sector, stripping artists, writers, and musicians of control over their work.
Not everyone was entirely opposed to reforming copyright legislation. Dr Caterina Moruzzi, a Chancellor’s fellow in Design Informatics, University of Edinburgh whose research focuses on the intersection between the philosophy of art, human and artificial creativity, proposed expanding definitions of authorship to accommodate the collaborative nature of human and AI-generated works. It would have been nice to hear more from Dr. Moruzzi about distributed models of attribution.
Battery-Farmed vs. Free-Range AI
In a particularly passionate moment during the debate, Ed Newton-Rex, founder of the non-profit Fairly Trained, asked if we wanted the equivalent of battery-farmed AI, or would we prefer an ethical, free-range version? His analogy drew a parallel with food ethics, underscoring the choices available to consumers when deciding which AI practices to support. The implication was clear: just as consumers can choose ethically sourced food, so too should they be able to choose ethically trained AI models.
The discussion then turned to the role of government procurement policies, with Matt Rogerson questioning whether the UK government should be purchasing AI models from companies that breach UK copyright laws. Highlighting the need for ethical considerations not only in AI development but also in how public funds are allocated.
Time for Government to Step In?
A member of the audience pointed out that expecting consumers to choose ethical AI is unrealistic. With the complexities involved, few people have the time or expertise to make informed decisions, suggesting the onus should be on governments to introduce clear, enforceable regulations.
Matt Rogerson built on this point, stressing the need for transparency within AI systems, particularly around ‘policy engines’—the algorithms that decide how AI models prioritise data and apply moderation. He appeared to be referencing Grok, a model that prioritises ‘free speech’ and aims to counter perceived biases, as an example of why government oversight might be necessary.
A Nuanced Approach Needed
Ultimately, the panel found common ground on the importance of AI literacy. As Dr Moruzzi succinctly put it, we need to focus on why we’re using AI, not simply adopt it out of fear of missing out. The overarching message was one of balance. Rather than embracing or rejecting AI wholesale, we must engage in a thoughtful and nuanced debate. As the UK adapts to this emerging technology, the decisions made now could have a lasting impact on its cultural and economic landscape.
Have Your Say on AI and Copyright Legislation
The UK government’s Copyright and Artificial Intelligence consultation period is set to conclude on 25 February 2025. If you would like to contribute your views, you can respond directly via the official consultation page: Consultation on Copyright and AI.
Several organisations have published guidance to help creatives and industry professionals navigate the consultation process:
