LABOUR’S AI copyright “opt-out” plan “will force working creators into debt”, experts have warned.
The UK Government’s preferred approach to AI copyright reform has been resoundingly rejected, it has emerged.
Only 3% of over 11,500 consultation respondents supported allowing tech companies to train AI on copyrighted material unless creators opt out.
And 88% demanded strengthened copyright laws requiring explicit licensing agreements in all cases.
The consultation, which ran from December 2024 to February 2025, attracted engagement from creators, AI developers, academics and lawyers.
The Government’s “progress report” published yesterday under the Data (Use and Access) Act confirms it will deliver a full economic impact assessment by March 2026, but does not commit to abandoning its preferred “opt-out” model despite the overwhelming public opposition.
High-profile opposition has come from musicians including Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney and Kate Bush, alongside actors Julianne Moore, Stephen Fry and Hugh Bonneville.
The news industry launched the “Make It Fair” campaign, with Dame Caroline Dinenage MP describing the situation as “the largest copyright heist in the world’s history”.
The Government maintains its reforms aim to balance copyright protection with developing the UK’s AI sector and economic growth.
However, critics warn ministers are prioritising relationships with American tech giants over protecting British creators, particularly after just one UK tech company was invited to AI working groups alongside Amazon, Apple, Meta, Nvidia and OpenAI.
Stop!
Colette Mason, Author & AI Consultant at London-based Clever Clogs AI, urged Labour to rethink the “opt-out” plan.
She added: “Eighty-eight percent voted no. That’s not consultation. That’s Britain’s talented creators screaming ‘Stop!’
“Failing to abandon the opt-out proposal forces freelance photographers, writers and musicians to defuse a career bomb with 1000 live wires blindfolded, whilst tech giants are already ransacking everything they’ve made and profiting whether creators opt in or out.
“The genie’s out of the bottle and spawning clones that cannot be tamed. Artists like McCartney nailed it: decades of blood, sweat and creativity aren’t free raw materials just because they’re findable online. Fighting this policy demands time, money and technical expertise creators don’t possess, whilst their entire livelihoods get strip-mined into AI training datasets.
“If British creative quality makes OpenAI worth billions, this just means UK talent is bankrolling shareholder wealth as the artists fall below the breadline. You have to wonder, was listening ever actually the plan?”
Horse has bolted
Rohit Parmar-Mistry, Founder at Burton-on-Trent-based Pattrn Data, said the AI “horse has bolted”.
He continued: “As someone who implements automation for a living, let me be blunt: the government’s ‘opt-out’ plan is a technical farce. It assumes a level of control that simply doesn’t exist for the average creator. How exactly does a freelance photographer or musician ‘opt out’ of a black-box model that has already scraped the internet three times over?
“The horse has bolted, and ministers are arguing about the colour of the stable door. This policy effectively shifts the burden of protection onto the victim, rather than demanding compliance from the exploiter. We make businesses pay for electricity, servers, and office space.
“Why is the intellectual labour that actually trains these models treated as free real estate? By ignoring 88% of consultation respondents, the government is signalling that it values US tech monopolies over the British creative industries.
“If your AI requires stolen raw materials to function, you don’t have an innovation, you have a racket.”
Debt spiral
Patricia McGirr, Founder at Burnley-based Repossession Rescue Network, said the policy could force creators into debt.
She added: “This policy doesn’t just threaten future earnings, it actively forces working creators into debt right now. When your photography, writing or music gets scraped without permission, you face an impossible choice: spend thousands on legal advice to ‘opt out’ of systems you can’t even identify, or watch your work train the very AI that’ll undercut your rates next year.
“Either way, you’re paying to protect what should never have been taken. Meanwhile, American tech giants building billion-pound valuations on British creativity face precisely zero compliance costs.
“The economics are perverse: we’re subsidising our own replacement, and the Government’s calling it innovation policy. If 88% of any other industry said “this will bankrupt us,” ministers would call it a crisis. But because it’s creatives, apparently they’re expendable.”
Photo by Nikhil Mitra on Unsplash
