Paul Mccartney's Ai Battle Could Spark A Copyright Revolution

Unsurprisingly, artists hate the idea, which reverses a fundamental principle of copyright law: you ask for permission before using someone's work. Trade groups say the proposed changes would threaten the livelihoods of singers and publishers and lead to the rabid exploitation of work without compensation.

The furor among artists is not a great look for the UK government, nor that it framed its proposals as part of a "consultation" with creative industries when it already appeared ready to bow down to technology firms. But there's hope for a solution. Maybe even a profitable one. Instead of running headfirst into rewriting the law, the Brits should try experimenting with ways to build a new commercial market for licensing. Focusing on pushing tech firms to be more transparent would be a good start.

Tech giants such as Google, Meta Platforms and OpenAI should, for instance, respond to requests from book publishers or movie studios for disclosure of any content used to train an AI model. Once they answer, both sides can start talking about fair compensation. That would build on some of the ad hoc contracts OpenAI and other tech firms have already established with publishers like News Corp and Axel Springer, worth tens of millions of dollars.

"I appreciate that's a difficult commercial conversation on all sides," says Dan Conway, who runs the UK Publishers Association. "That requires some good management."

That ambition became sidelined more recently in favour of AI as a driver for growth, and earlier this month, the UK joined the US in declining to sign an agreement issued by a global AI summit, held in Paris, which pledged an open and ethical approach to AI.