U.K. Creatives Push for Stronger Protections Against AI Data Mining
The latest U.K. consultation on copyright and AI drew more than 11,500 responses-and the message from creatives is loud and clear: tighten protections. Most respondents want AI developers to license content before using it for training, not rely on sweeping exceptions.
This consultation was conducted by DSIT, DCMS, and the IPO. It reflects a growing consensus across the arts that consent, credit, and compensation must be standard practice for AI use of creative work.
Key numbers you should know
- 88% supported a licensing requirement for any AI usage.
- Only 3% backed the government's preferred path: a copyright exception with an opt-out for rights-holders.
- Just 0.5% supported a broad exception with no opt-out at all.
Respondents included artists, estates, academics, researchers, cultural heritage organisations, and lawyers. Tech sector voices were split, with many pushing for non-legislative approaches, lighter regulation, or broader exceptions to speed development.
Government officials stressed balance: "Copyright laws must protect creative works, whilst also ensuring the U.K. reaps the transformational benefits of AI." Still, the numbers show clear support for artists' rights over an AI-first approach.
Timing and reaction
Artists' Union England criticised the near-Christmas release of the "long awaited" results, arguing the announcement won't get the visibility it deserves. DSIT secretary Liz Kendall told Parliament the government needs time to "get this right," noting there's no global consensus yet.
From industry, the message is firm. Edward Whitley of Bridgeman Images urged the government to "take a strong stance," adding that AI developers "must be instructed that creators' rights have to be respected and copyright clearance and remuneration has to be sought in advance."
What this means for your practice
If you're a working creative-illustrator, photographer, designer, writer-policy is moving your way. Expect more pressure on AI firms to license datasets, disclose sources, and respect opt-outs.
That said, the door is still open for exceptions. If you want control, you'll need clear contracts, visible licensing terms, and practical opt-out signals across your portfolio.
Practical steps to protect your work
- Set terms publicly: Add plain-language licensing and "no AI training without permission" language to your site, social profiles, and portfolio pages.
- Use technical signals: Apply "noai" and "noimageai" tags or headers where possible, and configure robots.txt to limit scraping. It's not bulletproof, but it sets expectations and supports enforcement.
- Update contracts: Specify AI training as a separate licensed use with clear fees and audit rights. Add warranties that your work won't be used for model training without written consent.
- Register and document: Keep timestamps, originals, and draft files. Good records make takedowns and claims faster and stronger.
- Collectively organise: Join unions, rights groups, or image licensing agencies that negotiate at scale and pursue test cases.
Where policy may be heading
Licensing-first is gaining traction, but expect heated debate over opt-out vs. opt-in and how transparency should work in practice. The tech sector will keep arguing for lighter rules to maintain speed.
Your edge: be proactive. The artists who set clear terms now will be in the best position to license, enforce, and get paid as rules tighten.
Helpful resources
Skill up without giving up your rights
Learning how to use AI in your workflow doesn't mean handing over your IP. Build skills on your terms and use tools that respect attribution and licensing.
See AI courses by job at Complete AI Training to strengthen your practice while keeping control of your work.
Your membership also unlocks:
