Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament as seen from Trafalgar Square in London. Image – Getty: VV Shots
By Porter Anderson, Editor-in-Chief | @Porter_Anderson
Also: A ‘Copyright Exhaustion’ Decision
Marking a disappointing point in the saga of the United Kingdom’s AI-policy Data Bill, the Publishers Association‘s CEO Dan Conway tells the press today (May 22).
As you’ll remember, what have come to be called the “Kidron amendments” are a series of efforts to require generative AI programs to reveal any data used in the training of large language models and other products. This would of course allow rights holders to know when their copyrighted content had been utilized. And that’s at the core of the “transparency” argument that the creative industries—in which British book publishing is playing a major role—has promulgated.
One reason that many have referred to the “ping-pong” of a parliamentary procedure between the House of Commons and the House of Lords is that the former filmmaker Baroness Beeban Kidron—notably an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University—formulated an amendment to the Data Bill that would compel AI companies to open their books to which copyrighted material they were using for LLM training. This, she has been quoted by the BBC as saying, has to do with the “whisperings of Silicon Valley” and the requirement to “redefine theft” if these Big Tech companies refuse to reveal their training sources.
Baroness Beeban Kidron
Even as the Kidron amendments appeared to gain support among Kidron’s peers in Lords in successive strokes of the volley, the Data Bill’s amended form was rejected by Commons repeatedly (the ping-pong), and a third time didn’t do the trick.
Criticism of the loss of the Kidron amendments has been scathing in many quarters. Nevertheless, as written at the moment, the Data Bill permits AI companies to train their models on copyrighted works without permission or payment.
As reported by Lawrence Bonk for MSN and carries by Engadget, “The government’s preferred plan includes the reliance on an opt-out clause. This would give AI companies free rein over any and all content, except in the cases when a creator has explicitly opted out.” And the opt-out approach has been sharply panned from well before the outset by the creative sector.
Dan Conway
And Conway at the Publishers Association, is taking the high road.
Having helped to galvanize support with his reference to the un-amended approach as “the great copyright heist,” he now is saying, “We’ve been very clear throughout that legislating for transparency is the fundamental starting point for getting AI regulation right, either through the Data Bill or otherwise.
“So while we fully understand that it’s the government’s preference to legislate on AI in the round, this latest move has to be seen as a huge missed opportunity to grasp that nettle and set AI legislation on the right track.
“Regardless of the disappointing outcome on the Kidron amendments, the level of engagement the bill received in both houses of parliament is a huge achievement for our industry and we are truly grateful to representatives in the Commons and the Lords for their support.
“When bespoke legislation is finally brought, I think it’s fair to say that the government knows the balance of views, and the strength of opinion, is behind a strong outcome for the creative industries.”
In ‘Copyright Exhaustion,’ a Victory
On a completely different track, you may recall some of our coverage from early 2022 when the busy UK government went into consultation about whether it should change the “copyright exhaustion” regime. Concern about the move was met with vigorous resistance coordinated by the Publishers Association, the Society of Authors, the Association of Authors’ Agents, and the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society with a public “Save Our Books” campaign.
What the copyright exhaustion factor does is set rules for “parallel imports” of copyrighted content and goods into the UK. This can mean that a UK author does not have to deal with non-UK-produced copies of his or her own book inside the UK. So English-language books that originate in the UK can’t be supplanted in sales by copies of the same book from another English-language market or elsewhere. Copyright is “exhausted” by the UK rights holder.
The UK industry sees the government’s final written ministerial decision in the last few days to refrain from changing “copyright exhaustion,” then, as a real relief. The wrong decision, per the Publishers Association, could have:
- “Significantly harmed author incomes;
- “Prompted a relocation of publishing away from the UK; and
- “Further supported online retail giants and damaged the British high street.”
On the news of this decision, Conway says, “We are thrilled that the government has made the right choice to maintain the UK’s gold standard copyright regime in relation to exhaustion of rights.
“The strength of our intellectual property laws directly underpin the success of the publishing industry and the global competitiveness of our world-leading creative industries.
“We have campaigned hard on this important issue with our Save Our Books campaign partners over the past few years and we are very grateful that ministers have listened to authors, readers, and the books industry on this important topic.”
More from Publishing Perspectives on artificial intelligence is here; more on copyright and international book publishing is here; more on the United Kingdom’s market is here, and more on the UK’s Publishers Association is here.