AI, creativity, and copyright: finding the right balance
As the UK Government's consultation on Copyright and AI draws to a close, techUK outlines the key considerations for a framework that supports both technology and creative sectors.
AI will be a major driver of economic growth, generating £14 billion in revenue and supporting over 64,500 jobs (GOV.UK, 2024), with projections suggesting it could add £550 billion to GDP by 2035 Microsoft UK Stories (2024). Yet its impact goes far beyond economics. It embodies human creativity, born from our innate desire to innovate and improve the world, and it has already brought profound benefits: from helping to detect diseases more quickly to providing early warning of natural disasters.
Generative AI is general purpose technology that is already having broad transformational effects. The tech sector itself has been at the forefront of disruptive change and is moving fast to adapt to the opportunities and challenges of this new technology. The relationship between AI and copyright law is one of the many complex challenges that has emerged. The existing framework creates uncertainty for both creators and tech innovators.
The Government was right to bring forward a consultation to seek views on how the interests of technological innovation and property rights can be balanced in a way that is beneficial to the whole of the UK economy and society. Without modernisation, there is a risk that innovation will happen outside the UK. A balanced approach can reinforce the UK’s position both as a global AI leader and a global powerhouse of creativity.
The false dichotomy: moving beyond "machines vs. creative minds"
To find the right path forward we need to move beyond the false narrative that pits AI and creative industries in a zero-sum contest. This “machines vs. minds” dichotomy fundamentally misunderstands how technological and creative evolution have always been intertwined. AI, like the printing press or photography before it, is itself a profound expression of human creativity and ingenuity.
History consistently demonstrates that new technologies expand rather than diminish artistic evolution. When the printing press emerged, it broadened literature’s reach. Similarly, photography did not replace painting, but freed painters to explore new styles. When digital tools transformed animation, traditional artists embraced these innovations to create works of unprecedented scope and imagination that hand-drawing alone could never achieve. The music industry, similarly, witnessed the same pattern: digital production democratised creation while enabling new genres previously unimaginable. In each case, technology didn't substitute human creativity – it catalysed it, enabling creators to achieve new heights of expression. AI represents the next chapter in this ongoing partnership.
This isn’t theoretical – according to a 2023 survey by It's Nice That, 83% of creatives who responded to their survey are already using machine learning tools, with almost half (49%) having used these tools in the past week alone.
Today, AI frees creators from repetitive tasks and opens up new markets. Music producers use AI for mastering tracks, sound design, and even collaborative composition. In visual arts, creative professionals are exploring AI-assisted tools for ideation and production. Separately, many tech companies are also major rights, underscoring that innovation and creativity fuel one another. Indeed, technology services account for over 40% of creative industry jobs and almost 40% of the sector’s GVA (House of Lords Briefing, 2025). Therefore, it is a mistake to view the issue of AI copyright as a zero-sum game in which there can be only one winner. The UK's tech and creative industries are deeply intertwined.
The transformative potential of AI
In the past two years, AI has evolved with unprecedented speed. While traditional AI focused on efficiency and automation, breakthrough technologies – particularly foundation models and generative AI – now promise far-reaching impacts on the UK economy and society.
The economic impact is substantial: AI already generates £14 billion in revenue, £5.8 billion in GVA, and supports 64,500 jobs (GOV.UK, 2024)—– numbers that continue to grow. As part of the £1 trillion (HSBC Innovation Banking UK and Dealroom, 2025) technology sector, AI is expanding at almost twice the rate of the broader economy. Projections suggest it could boost UK economic growth by up to 16%, potentially adding £550 billion to GDP by 2035 (Microsoft UK Stories (2024).
The economic stakes are particularly high when it comes to copyright and AI policy. According to research from UK Day One (2025), adopting an overly restrictive licensing-only approach for copyright could result in the UK economy losing at least £29.9 billion within the next 5 years, with losses growing to £75.9 billion over 10 years and a staggering £182 billion over 20 years. These figures underscore the critical importance of getting the copyright framework right.
Yet AI’s most profound applications are deeply human in their benefits:
-
Saving lives through early diagnosis – AI detects diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s years earlier, improving survival rates;
-
Restoring lost voices – AI-powered speech synthesis gives people with motor neuron disease or throat cancer the ability to speak again;
-
Predicting disasters, protecting communities – AI models forecast hurricanes, wildfires, and floods with unprecedented accuracy;
-
Preserving cultural heritage – AI helps restore lost manuscripts, reconstruct ancient languages, and revive voices of long-silenced artists.
These breakthroughs underscore the urgent need to nurture AI so that its transformative power continues to serve society at large.
Finding a balanced path forward
As noted in the Government’s consultation, it is clear that the current status quo benefits neither the UK tech companies nor creative industries. The government has put forward four possible options:
-
Option 0 – maintaining the status quo;
-
Option 1 – adopting a licensing-only based approach;
-
Option 2 – introduce a broad data mining exception;
-
Option 3 – establish a Text & Data Mining (TDM) exception with opt-out
However, there has been a regrettable lack of appetite from rights holders to engage in this discussion and a tendency to mischaracterise the government's proposals.
To be clear, failure to strike a workable compromise will not hold back the development of AI. It will simply mean that the UK will miss the opportunity to shape AI development, as innovation may shift to countries with clearer regulatory frameworks. The government is right to push for a better outcome and should be commended for bringing forward a consultation on such a contested issue.
techUK believes that Option 2 – the broad TDM exception – would provide the strongest competitive advantage for the UK's AI sector and create significant opportunities for economic growth and will be the preferred option of many. Indeed, UK Day One’s analysis (2025) projects a potential positive impact of £22.16 billion over 5 years, £56.73 billion over 10 years, and £131.61 billion over 20 years.
However, we support the Government's aims of finding a workable compromise between the positions of tech and creative industries. Therefore, we are of the view that Option 3 – while a big compromise for the tech sector, could be a viable compromise, provided that a number of areas are addressed. However, we stress that it represents the very minimum needed to remain competitive with the EU and global peers.
A successful AI copyright framework must be:
✅ Scalable and practical: To ensure practical implementation, the framework must allow AI developers to detect, track, and comply with rights reservations at scale. It will be important that opt-outs can be reliably detected at the point of data ingestion; machine-readable, allowing automated compliance at scale; and legally clear, defining what constitutes "reasonable efforts" for AI developers.
✅ Support industry-led standards and practical implementation: Rather than imposing strict rules that risk becoming outdated quickly, the government should encourage collaborative standard-setting. A number of protocols, such as “robots.txt,” TDMRep, the International Standard Content Code (ISCC), and C2PA – already provide practical, machine-readable ways to manage rights, however, we note that further development and standardisation will be important.
✅ Market-led licensing and thoughtful transparency: The landscape of content licensing evolves organically and should be nurtured. At the same time, transparency requirements must be meaningful yet proportionate – informative enough to protect rights without discouraging AI model training or harming smaller developers.
✅ Avoid making the UK an outlier: AI is a global phenomenon, and the UK cannot afford to diverge too far from emerging international norms. Misaligned or overly restrictive rules could make the UK less attractive for AI investment and talent, undermining both the tech and creative industries in the long run.
The UK should also avoid extraterritorial copyright obligations on AI models trained abroad, which would introduce legal uncertainty and deter local development.
A moment of opportunity
The UK stands at a pivotal moment—poised to shape an AI copyright framework that supports both technological innovation and creative expression. By embracing a balanced approach that provides legal clarity while enabling innovation, the UK can strengthen its position as a leading hub for both AI development and creative production.
techUK remains committed to supporting the development of a fair, practical, and forward-looking framework that works for all stakeholders in the UK's digital economy.
The Government’s consultation paper is clear that the current AI Copyright status quo benefits neither the UK tech companies nor the creative sector. The government has put forward four possible options in its consultation and its favoured approach would seek to build a workable compromise between the positions of tech and creative industries. We believe that the option of a broader TDM exception with an opt-out mechanism, could provide a constructive way forward bringing the UK into line with the EU and other major economies around the world. Failure to resolve this issue will simply mean that innovation in Generative AI takes place outside the UK with no additional benefit for creative companies. The government is right to seek a better outcome for the UK and should be commended for bringing forward a consultation on this complex and contested issue.
Authors
Antony Walker
