MPs Prolong Dispute with Lords over AI and Creative Copyright Laws
The ongoing dispute between MPs and the House of Lords over artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law has shown no sign of resolution, as MPs once again voted to reject proposed amendments intended to bolster transparency within AI model databases. This continuing disagreement has led to what some MPs describe as a legislative deadlock, with each chamber returning the bill to the other in a back-and-forth process known as ‘parliamentary ping-pong’.
On Tuesday, the House of Commons voted by a margin of 317 to 185 to dismiss a recent Lords amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The contentious change would have compelled the Government to introduce new draft legislation, mandating AI companies to reveal if copyrighted material was used in training their models, which would grant copyright owners greater visibility and control over the use of their intellectual property.
Among those urging for stricter protections is renowned musician Sir Elton John. Only last month, he voiced his frustration, branding Government ministers as “absolute losers” who have left creative workers feeling “incredibly betrayed” by the lack of decisive action on this front. His comments echoed widespread concern in the creative community regarding the potential for widespread “theft” as AI systems increasingly mimic or consume artistic material without appropriate recompense.
Dr Ben Spencer, Conservative shadow science minister and the MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, has become one of the most vocal proponents of reform. Invoking the comedy classic ‘Groundhog Day’, Dr Spencer accused the Government of allowing history to repeat itself by failing to tackle the root of the issue. “Copyright law is a toothless instrument if the lack of transparency about the use of creative content in AI models continues,” he warned. He went on to say, “The Government is apparently happy for this to persist on an open-ended basis,” highlighting what he views as the Government’s reluctance to address the interests of both rights holders and technology innovators.
Dr Spencer further argued that the creative sector continues to lose out as a result of this opacity: not only are rights holders seeing their work exploited without payment, but smaller AI companies face hurdles to growth, thus hampering the potential of the UK’s tech sector. According to Dr Spencer, the stalemate is stifling investment and creating uncertainty for both the creative industries and the technology sector.
His concerns were echoed by Conservative backbencher Sir Julian Smith, who criticised the absence of a clear Government commitment to rapidly legislate on the issue. Smith warned of the heavy toll that unchecked AI-driven copyright infringement is exacting on UK creative industries.
On the opposing side, technology minister Sir Chris Bryant defended the Government’s position, arguing that the proposed legislative timetable was impractical. “One could argue that introducing a draft Bill which would then be considered in various different places, followed presumably by a Bill, would actually delay things rather than speed things up,” he stated in the Commons. He also stressed the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, noting that no parliament can bind its successor—a point intended to justify Government resistance to fixed legislative deadlines.
Sir Chris’s position drew criticism from some Conservative colleagues, including Dame Caroline Dinenage, chairwoman of the Commons culture, media and sport committee. She accused the minister of “dancing on the head of a pin” with procedural arguments that, in her view, missed the practical impact of delayed legislation on the industry.
The next step will see the Bill returned to the Lords yet again, perpetuating the ‘ping-pong’ process. Both sides remain under pressure from high-profile figures and industry experts who seek swift, robust, and transparent solutions to issues arising from the intersection of AI and copyright. However, with neither side showing signs of compromise, the impasse looks set to continue for the foreseeable future.
This ongoing debate underscores the complexity of balancing rapid technological innovation with the long-standing rights of creators. As the world of AI accelerates, British lawmakers face rising demands to ensure the nation’s legal framework keeps pace, protecting both the creators who fuel industry and the innovators shaping its future.