The Guardian view on the BBC World Service: this is London calling; The Guardian, February 13, 2026

 Editorial,The Guardian; The Guardian view on the BBC World Service: this is London calling

[Kip Currier: This is the "money quote" for me in this persuasive Guardian Editorial on supporting the BBC World Service:

Accurate journalism is the strongest weapon in the war of information.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/13/the-guardian-view-on-the-bbc-world-service-this-is-london-calling]

With just seven weeks before its funding runs out, the UK’s greatest cultural asset and most trusted international news organisation must be supported

"The programmes will neither be very interesting nor very good,” said the then BBC director general John Reith, when he launched its Empire Service in December 1932. Nearly a century later, the BBC World Service, as it is now known, broadcasts in 43 languages, reaches 313 million people a week and is one of the UK’s most influential cultural assets. It is also a lifeline for millions. “Perhaps Britain’s greatest gift to the world” in the 20th century, as Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, once put it.

But this week Tim Davie, the corporation’s director general, announced that the World Service will run out of funding in just seven weeks. Most of its £400m budget comes from the licence fee, although the Foreign Office – which funded it entirely until 2014 – contributed £137m in the last year. The funding arrangement with the Foreign Office finishes at the end of March. There is no plan for what happens next.

Meanwhile, Russia and China are pouring billions into state-run media. And American news organisations are crumbling under the Trump administration. Last week the Washington Post axed 300 jobs including its Ukraine reporter, and hundreds were lost at Voice of America, the closest US equivalent to the BBC, last year.

Although some question why licence-fee payers should subsidise services largely consumed abroad, it is also loved by many at home. In the small hours, it is a window on a dark world, an alternative to doomscrolling and a pushback against parochialism. Jeremy Paxman summed it up when he compared the World Service to a cords- and cardigan-wearing “ageing uncle who’s seen it all. It has a style that makes understatement seem like flamboyance”. But we should not allow this cosy, slightly fusty image to obscure its purpose.

For many it is not just life-enhancing, but life‑saving. Last month, during the internet blackout in Iran, the BBC’s Persian service provided additional radio programmes over shortwave and medium wave. Emergency services were also launched in response to conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, Gaza and Sudan, and after the earthquake in Myanmar. It remains the only international news organisation still broadcasting inside Afghanistan, setting up an education programme for Afghan children in 2024.

But it has been beleaguered by cuts, closures and job losses. In 2022, radio broadcasts in 10 languages including Arabic, Persian, Chinese and Bengali were replaced by digital services, a decision criticised for disproportionately affecting women, who rely most on radios. Wherever the BBC has been forced to withdraw – for financial or political pressures – propaganda has been quick to fill the gap.

No one doubts the World Service’s value as an instrument of soft power. But, as BBC bosses argue, it is also part of our national security. Accurate journalism is the strongest weapon in the war of information. The World Service must not be allowed to stumble into decline. Mr Davie is right – if optimistic – to urge the government to back it decisively and urgently.

During the second world war, radio was “scattering human voices into the darkness of Europe”, Penelope Fitzgerald wrote in her 1980 novel Human Voices, based on her time working for the BBC. Amid the AI noise and disinformation, the World Service must be enabled to keep scattering human voices in our own dark times."

X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok; BBC, February 3, 2026

 Liv McMahon, BBC; X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok

"The French offices of Elon Musk's X have been raided by the Paris prosecutor's cyber-crime unit, as part of an investigation into suspected offences including unlawful data extraction and complicity in the possession of child pornography.

The prosecutor's office also said both Musk and former X chief executive Linda Yaccarino had been summoned to appear at hearings in April.

In a separate development, the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) announced a probe into Musk's AI tool, Grok, over its "potential to produce harmful sexualised image and video content."

X is yet to respond to either investigation - the BBC has approached it for comment."

Grok blocked from undressing images in places where it’s illegal, X says; AP, January 15, 2026

 ELAINE KURTENBACH , AP; Grok blocked from undressing images in places where it’s illegal, X says

"Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok won’t be able to edit photos to portray real people in revealing clothing in places where that is illegal, according to a statement posted on X. 

The announcement late Wednesday followed a global backlash over sexualized images of women and children, including bans and warnings by some governments. 

The pushback included an investigation announced Wednesday by the state of California, the U.S.'s most populous, into the proliferation of nonconsensual sexually explicit material produced using Grok that it said was harassing women and girls.

Initially, media queries about the problem drew only the response, “legacy media lies.” 

Musk’s company, xAI, now says it will geoblock content if it violates laws in a particular place...

Malaysia and Indonesia took legal action and blocked access to Grok, while authorities in the Philippines said they were working to do the same, possibly within the week. The U.K. and European Union were investigating potential violations of online safety laws."

Britain seeks 'reset' in copyright battle between AI and creators; Reuters, January 13, 2026

Reuters; Britain seeks 'reset' in copyright battle between AI and creators

"British technology minister Liz Kendall said on Tuesday the government was seeking a "reset" on plans to overhaul copyright rules to accommodate artificial intelligence, pledging to protect creators while unlocking AI's economic potential.

Creative industries worldwide are grappling with legal and ethical challenges posed by AI systems that generate original content after being trained on popular works, often without compensating the original creators."

 

Government's AI consultation finds just 3% support copyright exception; The Bookseller, December 15, 2025

MAIA SNOW, The Bookseller ; Government's AI consultation finds just 3% support copyright exception

"The initial results of the consultation found that the majority of respondents (88%) backed licences being required in all cases where data was being used for AI training. Just 3% of respondents supported the government’s preferred options, which would allow data mining by AI companies and require rights holders to opt-out."

I called my recipe book Sabzi – vegetables. But the name was trademarked. And my legal ordeal began; The Guardian, December 4, 2025

Yasmin Khan, The Guardian ; I called my recipe book Sabzi – vegetables. But the name was trademarked. And my legal ordeal began

"Vegetables, in my experience, rarely cause controversy. Yet last month I found myself in the middle of a legal storm over who gets to own the word sabzi – the Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Persian, Dari and Pashto word for cooked veg or fresh greens. It was a story as absurd as it was stressful, a chain of delis threatened me with legal action over the title of a book I had spent years creating. But what began as a personal legal headache soon morphed into something bigger, a story about how power and privilege still dominate conversations about cultural ownership in the UK.

When the email first landed in my inbox, I assumed it must be a wind-up. My editor at Bloomsbury had forwarded a solicitor’s letter addressed to me personally, care of my publishers. As I read it, my stomach dropped. A deli owner from Cornwall accused me of infringing her intellectual property over my cookbook Sabzi: Fresh Vegetarian Recipes for Every Day. Why? Because in 2022, she had trademarked the word sabzi to use for her business and any future products, including a cookbook she hoped to write one day.

My jaw clenched as I pored over pages of legal documentation, written in the punitive and aggressive tone of a firm gearing up for a fight. I was accused of “misrepresentation” (copying the deli’s brand), damaging its business and affecting its future growth, and they demanded detailed commercial reports about my work, including sales revenue, stock numbers and distribution contracts – information so intrusive that it felt like an audit. Buried in the legal jargon was a line that shook me. They reserved the right to seek the “destruction” of all items relating to their infringement claim. Reading the threat of my book being pulped was nothing short of devastating. It was also utterly enraging.

Because sabzi isn’t some cute exotic brand name, it’s part of the daily lexicon of more than a billion people across cultures and borders. In south Asia, it simply means cooked vegetables."

Two AI copyright cases, two very different outcomes – here’s why; The Conversation, December 1, 2025

Hayleigh Bosher, Reader in Intellectual Property Law, Brunel University of London , The Conversation; Two AI copyright cases, two very different outcomes – here’s why

"Artificial intelligence companies and the creative industries are locked in an ongoing battle, being played out in the courts. The thread that pulls all these lawsuits together is copyright.

There are now over 60 ongoing lawsuits in the US where creators and rightsholders are suing AI companies. Meanwhile, we have recently seen decisions in the first court cases from the UK and Germany – here’s what happened in those...

Although the circumstances of the cases are slightly different, the heart of the issue was the same. Do AI models reproduce copyright-protected content in their training process and in generating outputs? The German court decided they do, whereas the UK court took a different view.

Both cases could be appealed and others are underway, so things may change. But the ending we want to see is one where AI and the creative industries come together in agreement. This would preferably happen with the use of copyright licences that benefit them both.

Importantly, it would also come with the consent of – and fair payment to – creators of the content that makes both their industries go round."

Minister indicates sympathy for artists in debate over AI and copyright; The Guardian, November 23, 2025

 Robert Booth, The Guardian; Minister indicates sympathy for artists in debate over AI and copyright

 "The technology secretary, Liz Kendall, has indicated she is sympathetic to artists’ demands not to have their copyrighted works scraped by AI companies without payment and said she wanted to “reset” the debate.

In remarks that suggest a change in approach from her predecessor, Peter Kyle, who had hoped to require artists to actively opt out of having their work ingested by generative AI systems, she said “people rightly want to get paid for the work that they do” and “we have to find a way that both sectors can grow and thrive in future”.

The government has been consulting on a new intellectual property framework for AI which, in the case of the most common large language models (LLMs), requires vast amounts of training data to work effectively.

The issue has sparked impassioned protests from some of Britain’s most famous artists. This month Paul McCartney released a silent two-minute 45 second track of an empty studio on an album protesting against copyright grabs by AI firms as part of a campaign also backed by Kate Bush, Sam Fender, the Pet Shop Boys and Hans Zimmer."

Paul McCartney joins music industry protest against AI with silent track; The Guardian, November 17, 2025

 Robert Booth, The Guardian ; Paul McCartney joins music industry protest against AI with silent track

"At two minutes 45 seconds it’s about the same length as With a Little Help From My Friends. But Paul McCartney’s first new recording in five years lacks the sing-along tune and jaunty guitar chops because there’s barely anything there.

The former Beatle, arguably Britain’s greatest living songwriter, is releasing a track of an almost completely silent recording studio as part of a music industry protest against copyright theft by artificial intelligence companies.

In place of catchy melodies and evocative lyrics there is only quiet hiss and the odd clatter. It suggests that if AI companies unfairly exploit musicians’ intellectual property to train their generative AI models, the creative ecosystem will be wrecked and original music silenced.

McCartney, 83 and currently touring North America, has added the track to the B-side of an LP called Is This What We Want?, which is filled with other silent recordings and will be pressed on vinyl and released later this month."

Getty Images v. Stability AI- Intellectual Property Rights in the Age of Generative AI; The National Law Journal, November 14, 2025

Nathan Smith, Anita Hodea Katten   , The National Law Journal; Getty Images v. Stability AI- Intellectual Property Rights in the Age of Generative AI

"Key Takeaways

• Getty succeeded only in part, and narrowly, on its trade mark infringement claims. Findings were confined to specific examples of outputs from early versions of the Model involving "iStock" and "Getty Images" watermarks.
• Getty's secondary copyright infringement claim failed. The court held that the Model’s weights were not an "infringing copy" of Getty's works because the Model did not at any time contain or store a copy of the underlying Getty images.
• The judgment leaves critical questions unanswered relating to the relationship between IP rights and generative AI, particularly whether the use of copyright protected works to train AI models constitutes copyright infringement. It was hoped that these issues would be addressed by the court, but this element of the claim was withdrawn during trial.
• Looking ahead, the UK government's ongoing work with expert groups from both the creative and technology sectors will be closely watched, as it seeks to balance the protection of human creativity with technological innovation."

Stability AI’s legal win over Getty leaves copyright law in limbo; The Verge, November 5, 2025

Robert Hart , The Verge; Stability AI’s legal win over Getty leaves copyright law in limbo

"Stability AI, the creator of popular AI art tool Stable Diffusion, was largely victorious against Getty Images on Tuesday in a British legal battle over the material used to train AI models. The case originally looked set to produce a landmark ruling on AI and copyright in the UK, but it landed with a thud and failed to set any clear precedent for the big question dividing AI companies and creative firms: whether AI models need permission to train on copyrighted works.

The case, first filed in 2023, is the first major AI copyright claim to reach England’s High Court, though the verdict offers little clarity to other AI companies and rightsholders."

AI firm wins high court ruling after photo agency’s copyright claim; The Guardian, November 4, 2025

Robert Booth , The Guardian; AI firm wins high court ruling after photo agency’s copyright claim

"A London-based artificial intelligence firm has won a landmark high court case examining the legality of AI models using vast troves of copyrighted data without permission.

Stability AI, whose directors include the Oscar-winning film-maker behind Avatar, James Cameron, successfully resisted a claim from Getty Images that it had infringed the international photo agency’s copyright.

The ruling is seen as a blow to copyright owners’ exclusive right to reap the rewards of their work, with one senior lawyer, Rebecca Newman, a legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, warning it means “the UK’s secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators”."

Larry Ellison Wants to Do Good, Do Research and Make a Profit; The New York Times, August 12, 2025

 Theodore Schleifer and Nicholas Kulish, The New York Times; Larry Ellison Wants to Do Good, Do Research and Make a Profit

"Mr. Ellison has rarely engaged with the community of Giving Pledge signers, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. He has cherished his autonomy and does not want to be influenced to support Mr. Gates’s causes, one of the people said, while also sensitive to any idea that he is backing off the pledge.

But the stakes of Mr. Ellison’s message on X are enormous. His fortune is about 10 times what it was when he signed the pledge as the software company he founded, Oracle, rides the artificial intelligence boom. Mr. Ellison controls a staggering 40-plus percent of the company’s stock...

“Oxford, Cambridge and the whole university sector are under pressure to capitalize on intellectual property because of long-running government policy belief that the U.K. has fallen behind economically,” said John Picton, an expert in nonprofit law at the University of Manchester."

Getty drops copyright allegations in UK lawsuit against Stability AI; AP, June 25, 2025

 KELVIN CHAN, AP; Getty drops copyright allegations in UK lawsuit against Stability AI

"Getty Images dropped copyright infringement allegations from its lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Stability AI as closing arguments began Wednesday in the landmark case at Britain’s High Court. 

Seattle-based Getty’s decision to abandon the copyright claim removes a key part of its lawsuit against Stability AI, which owns a popular AI image-making tool called Stable Diffusion. The two have been facing off in a widely watched court case that could have implications for the creative and technology industries."

The copyright war between the AI industry and creatives; Financial Times, June 23, 2025

 MARTIN WOLF, Financial Times ; The copyright war between the AI industry and creatives

"One is that the government itself estimates that “creative industries generated £126bn in gross value added to the economy [5 per cent of GDP] and employed 2.4 million people in 2022”. It is at the very least an open question whether the value added of the AI industry will ever be of a comparable scale in this country. Another is that the creative industries represent much of the best of what the UK and indeed humanity does. The idea of handing over its output for free is abhorrent...

Interestingly, for much of the 19th century, the US did not recognise international copyright at all in its domestic law. Anthony Trollope himself complained fiercely about the theft of the copyright over his books."

Getty Images Faces Off Against Stability in Court as First Major AI Copyright Trial Begins; PetaPixel, June 10, 2025

Matt Growcoot , PetaPixel; Getty Images Faces Off Against Stability in Court as First Major AI Copyright Trial Begins

"The Guardian notes that the trial will focus on specific photos taken by famous photographers. Getty plans to bring up photos of the Chicago Cubs taken by sports photographer Gregory Shamus and photos of film director Christopher Nolan taken by Andreas Rentz. 

All-in-all, 78,000 pages of evidence have been disclosed for the case and AI experts are being called in to give testimonies. Getty is also suing Stability AI in the United States in a parallel case. The trial in London is expected to run for three weeks and will be followed by a written decision from the judge at a later date."

Lawyers face sanctions for citing fake cases with AI, warns UK judge; Reuters, June 6, 2025

 Sam Tobin, Reuters; Lawyers face sanctions for citing fake cases with AI, warns UK judge

"Lawyers who use artificial intelligence to cite non-existent cases can be held in contempt of court or even face criminal charges, London's High Court warned on Friday, in the latest example of generative AI leading lawyers astray.

A senior judge lambasted lawyers in two cases who apparently used AI tools when preparing written arguments, which referred to fake case law, and called on regulators and industry leaders to ensure lawyers know their ethical obligations.

"There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused," Judge Victoria Sharp said in a written ruling...

She added that "in the most egregious cases, deliberately placing false material before the court with the intention of interfering with the administration of justice amounts to the common law criminal offence of perverting the course of justice"."

UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI; The Guardian, June 6, 2025

Eleni Courea and Dan Milmo, The Guardian ; UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI

"Opponents of the plans have warned that even if the attempts to insert clauses into the data bill fail, the government could be challenged in the courts over the proposed changes.

The consultation on copyright changes, which is due to produce its findings before the end of the year, contains four options: to let AI companies use copyrighted work without permission, alongside an option for artists to “opt out” of the process; to leave the situation unchanged; to require AI companies to seek licences for using copyrighted work; and to allow AI firms to use copyrighted work with no opt-out for creative companies and individuals.

The technology secretary, Peter Kyle, has said the copyright-waiver-plus-opt-out scenario is no longer the government’s preferred option, but Kidron’s amendments have attempted to head off that option by effectively requiring tech companies to seek licensing deals for any content that they use to train their AI models."

How AI and copyright turned into a political nightmare for Labour; Politico.eu, June 4, 2025

JOSEPH BAMBRIDGE , Politico.eu; How AI and copyright turned into a political nightmare for Labour

"The Data (Use and Access Bill) has ricocheted between the Commons and the Lords in an extraordinarily long incidence of ping-pong, with both Houses digging their heels in and a frenzied lobbying battle on all sides."

Ministers to amend data bill amid artists’ concerns over AI and copyright; The Guardian, April 30, 2025

 Eleni Courea and Dan Milmo , The Guardian; Ministers to amend data bill amid artists’ concerns over AI and copyright

"Ministers have drawn up concessions on copyright changes in an attempt to appease artists and creators before a crucial vote in parliament next week, the Guardian has learned.

The government will promise to carry out an economic impact assessment of its proposed copyright changes and to publish reports on issues including transparency, licensing and access to data for AI developers.

The concessions are designed to mollify concerns in parliament and in creative industries about the government’s proposed shake-up of copyright rules."