- within Intellectual Property, Finance and Banking and Immigration topic(s)
- in United States
As trailed in its progress statement published in December 2025 and discussed in our previous blog, the UK government published on 18 March 2026 its much awaited full report considering the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems. The report follows the government’s high-profile consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence which ran between December 2024 and February 2025, as addressed in our other previous blog, which attracted an unusually high number of respondents. There was also a high-profile campaign by well-known names in the creative industries lobbying against any changes which would result in copyright materials being used for AI training purposes without explicit consent.
As expected, this report officially confirms that the government has now abandoned the option which it had preferred when it first announced the consultation―so-called “option 3”. That would have allowed AI developers to assume consent to use copyright material for AI training, unless a rights holder objects, subject to developers being transparent about what materials they have used in training.
However, despite having previously stated that doing nothing and leaving current UK copyright and other related laws (all of which were drafted before the dawn of AI) as they are with the courts applying those on the ad-hoc and fact specific basis as already seen in the high profile Getty Images v Stability AI case (see our prior blog here) the government has not outlined any specific alternative option in this latest report.
Instead, the government has announced that what is required is… a further period of analysis and assessment of potential options, building on its current limited evidence base with the report noting that:
“We must take the time needed to get this right. We will not introduce reforms to copyright law until we are confident that they will meet our objectives for the economy and UK citizens. This means protecting the UK’s position as a creative powerhouse, while unlocking the extraordinary potential of AI to grow the economy and improve lives. Any reform must ensure that right holders can be fairly rewarded for the economic value their work creates, and that they are protected against unlawful and unfair use of their work. It must also ensure that AI developers can access high quality content. It is clear through the consultation and our subsequent engagement that there is no consensus on how these objectives should be achieved”.
What will now follow is more evidence gathering, consultation and assessment―with no specific timeline as to when or how any changes will be implemented. On one hand, this announcement has been broadly welcomed by those in the creative industries opposed to the introduction of any sort of specific text or data mining exception to UK copyright law, which would specifically allow use of copyright materials to train AI without consent from the rights holder. On the other hand, those in the AI industry have expressed concerns that the continued uncertainty will undermine the government’s stated commitment to UK AI development and result in developers operating in territories with more enabling laws to overtake those in the UK. Further, as the Getty Images case showed, undertaking such training outside the UK may avoid copyright infringement liability entirely, even if the resulting model is deployed in the UK.
It would appear that the market is increasingly looking to address this uncertainty itself via the sort of collective licensing arrangements which have been common for many years allowing music to be played in bars, gyms and shops. Dr Jo Twist, the chief executive of the trade body for the UK music industry the BPI, told BBC News that there is a “real opportunity” if the licensing market is allowed to thrive “hand in hand” with AI development however. At the same time, the Musicians’ Union has expressed concern that any such licensing schemes must protect individual artists and not just high-profile names.
As such, regardless of whether the government or market find a solution first clarity remains a long way off with uncertainty continuing for the foreseeable future.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
