The long-simmering standoff between artificial intelligence and the UK’s creative sector is finally edging toward a decisive moment. This week, the English government published its Copyright and AI Statement of Progress, and for the music business, the message feels less like a compromise and more like a long-overdue reality check.
At the center of the response is UK Music chief executive Tom Kiehl, who has welcomed the direction of travel outlined in the report. The document maps out what policymakers have done so far, and what still lies ahead, as they prepare a full review of the economic impact of AI on copyright. But the real story is buried in the consultation numbers that underpin it.
More than 11,500 people and organizations weighed in, and the verdict was set in stone. Only a tiny fraction supported the idea of giving AI companies broad permission to ingest copyrighted material under a new text and data mining exception. By contrast, an overwhelming majority argued that creators should be paid and works should be licensed when they’re used to train commercial models.
For Kiehl and the wider music community, that outcome confirms what they’ve been saying all along. The UK’s creative economy shouldn’t be asked to subsidise the AI boom. In his view, the government now has little justification for pressing ahead with a proposal that would weaken the position of artists, songwriters, and rights-holders, and plenty of reason to publicly back one of the country’s most successful export industries instead.
The stakes are bigger than one policy tweak. Music is one of Britain’s cultural landmarks and a serious economic force, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and generating billions each year. The idea that recordings, compositions, and performances could be swept up into AI training systems without permission or payment has been widely seen across the industry as a direct threat to the value of creative work itself.
Looking ahead, Kiehl is also pushing for a more formal rulebook governing how AI companies operate in the UK. That would include clear disclosure about what data is being used, proper labelling of AI-generated material, and firm obligations for tech firms to respect UK copyright law, no matter where in the world their systems are built, if they want access to the British market.
The government’s progress update doesn’t end the argument, but it does suggest the balance of power is shifting. With such a strong consensus behind licensing and copyright protections, the political room for a creator-unfriendly settlement is rapidly disappearing.
For now, the music industry is treating this as an important foothold in a much larger battle. The next phase, turning consultations into concrete law, will decide whether the UK positions itself as a global champion of creative rights in the age of AI, or simply another convenient reservoir of content for machines to learn from.
About the Author
