The Fight Over AI Is Just Beginning, and Artists Like Elton John Are Leading the Way; Billboard, June 18, 2025

ROBERT LEVINE, Billboard ;The  Fight Over AI Is Just Beginning, and Artists Like Elton John Are Leading the Way

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."

The AI copyright standoff continues - with no solution in sight; BBC, June 2, 2025

Zoe Kleinman, BBC ; The AI copyright standoff continues - with no solution in sight

"The fierce battle over artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright - which pits the government against some of the biggest names in the creative industry - returns to the House of Lords on Monday with little sign of a solution in sight.

A huge row has kicked off between ministers and peers who back the artists, and shows no sign of abating. 

It might be about AI but at its heart are very human issues: jobs and creativity.

It's highly unusual that neither side has backed down by now or shown any sign of compromise; in fact if anything support for those opposing the government is growing rather than tailing off."

'Criminal': Elton John condemns UK's AI copyright plans; Reuters, May 18, 2025

 Reuters; 'Criminal': Elton John condemns UK's AI copyright plans

"The biggest names in the industry, including John, Paul McCartney, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Ed Sheeran and others, have urged the government to change course, saying the proposal will make it even harder for young people to make a living in the creative industries.

"The danger is for young artists, they haven't got the resources to keep checking or fight big tech," John told the BBC. "It's criminal and I feel incredibly betrayed.""

Opt out or get scraped: UK’s AI copyright shake-up has Elton John, Dua Lipa fighting back; CNBC, May 12, 2025

Ryan Browne , CNBC; Opt out or get scraped: UK’s AI copyright shake-up has Elton John, Dua Lipa fighting back

"Celebrity musicians from Elton John to Dua Lipa are urging the U.K. government to rethink controversial plans to reform copyright laws that allow artificial intelligence developers access to rights-protected content.

An open letter signed by John, Lipa and a host of other high-profile artists, this weekend called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to back an amendment proposed by U.K. lawmaker Beeban Kidron to make the legal framework around AI model makers’ use of copyrighted content more strict.

“We are wealth creators, we reflect and promote the national stories, we are the innovators of the future, and AI needs us as much as it needs energy and computer skills,” they said in the letter.

“We will lose an immense growth opportunity if we give our work away at the behest of a handful of powerful overseas tech companies.”"

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."

The real argument artists should be making against AI; Vox, April 16, 2025

 Sigal Samuel, Vox; The real argument artists should be making against AI

[Paywall to access]

A banana taped to a wall? This artist says he did it first. The Supreme Court ignored him.; USA TODAY, April 7, 2025

Maureen Groppe , USA TODAY; A banana taped to a wall? This artist says he did it first. The Supreme Court ignored him.

"California artist Joe Morford tried, hoping the Supreme Court would give him credit for being the first person to tape a banana to the wall in the name of art. But the justices on Monday rejected his fruit suit. 

That leaves in place lower court rulings that Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan, who sold his banana art work, “Comedian,” for about $6.2 million last year, did not rip the idea off of Morford."

Prioritise artists over tech in AI copyright debate, MPs say; The Guardian, February 26, 2025

Rachel Hall, The Guardian; Prioritise artists over tech in AI copyright debate, MPs say

"Two cross-party committees of MPs have urged the government to prioritise ensuring that creators are fairly remunerated for their creative work over making it easy to train artificial intelligence models.

The MPs argued there needed to be more transparency around the vast amounts of data used to train generative AI models, and urged the government not to press ahead with plans to require creators to opt out of having their data used.

The government’s preferred solution to the tension between AI and copyright law is to allow AI companies to train the models on copyrighted work by giving them an exception for “text and data mining”, while giving creatives the opportunity to opt out through a “rights reservation” system.

The chair of the culture, media and sport committee, Caroline Dinenage, said there had been a “groundswell of concern from across the creative industries” in response to the proposals, which “illustrates the scale of the threat artists face from artificial intelligence pilfering the fruits of their hard-earned success without permission”.

She added that making creative works “fair game unless creators say so” was akin to “burglars being allowed into your house unless there’s a big sign on your front door expressly telling them that thievery isn’t allowed”."

Copyright battles loom over artists and AI; Financial Times, February 16, 2025

louise.lucas@ft.com, Financial Times ; Copyright battles loom over artists and AI

"Artists are the latest creative industry to gripe about the exploitative nature of artificial intelligence. More than 3,000 have written to protest against plans by Christie’s to auction art created using AI."

Copyright Office suggests AI copyright debate was settled in 1965; Ars Technica, January 30, 2025

ASHLEY BELANGER , Ars Technica; Copyright Office suggests AI copyright debate was settled in 1965

"For stakeholders who have been awaiting this guidance for months, the Copyright Office report may not change the law, but it offers some clarity.

For some artists who hoped to push the Copyright Office to adapt laws, the guidelines may disappoint, leaving many questions about a world of possible creative AI uses unanswered. But while a case-by-case approach may leave some artists unsure about which parts of their works are copyrightable, seemingly common cases are being resolved more readily. According to the Copyright Office, after each decision, it gets easier to register AI works that meet similar standards for copyrightability. Perhaps over time, artists will grow more secure in how they use AI and whether it will impact their exclusive rights to distribute works.

That's likely cold comfort for the artist advocating for prompting alone to constitute authorship. One AI artist told Ars in October that being denied a copyright has meant suffering being mocked and watching his award-winning work freely used anywhere online without his permission and without payment. But in the end, the Copyright Office was apparently more sympathetic to other commenters who warned that humanity's progress in the arts could be hampered if a flood of easily generated, copyrightable AI works drowned too many humans out of the market...

Although the Copyright Office suggested that this week's report might be the most highly anticipated, Jernite said that Hugging Face is eager to see the next report, which officials said would focus on "the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including licensing considerations and the allocation of any potential liability.""

Paul McCartney: Don't let AI rip off artists; BBC, January 25, 2025

Laura Kuenssberg, BBC; Paul McCartney: Don't let AI rip off artists

"Sir Paul McCartney has told the BBC proposed changes to copyright law could allow "rip off" technology that might make it impossible for musicians and artists to make a living.

The government is considering an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to use creators' content on the internet to help develop their models, unless the rights holders opt out.

In a rare interview for Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Sir Paul said "when we were kids in Liverpool, we found a job that we loved, but it also paid the bills", warning the proposals could remove the incentive for writers and artists and result in a "loss of creativity". 

The government said it aimed to deliver legal certainty through a copyright regime that provided creators with "real control" and transparency."

Icelandic Fishing Giant Wins Copyright Case Against Artist; artnet, November 14, 2024

 Jo Lawson-Tancred , artnet; Icelandic Fishing Giant Wins Copyright Case Against Artist

"The work by the artist known as Odee had publicly impersonated Iceland’s biggest fishing company Samherji, issuing a fake apology for its role in the so-called “fishrot” corruption scandal of 2019. In his ruling, the judge described the artwork as “an instrument of fraud, copyright infringement, and malicious falsehood.”

The case never went to trial but the artist said he plans to appeal the judgement. His defenders have argued that any punitive action taken against him could result in a “chilling effect” that discourages artist’s from daring to critique big corporations for fear of legal action.

Samherji sued Odee, the moniker for 41-year-old Icelandic artist Oddur Fridriksson, over We’re Sorry (2023), for which Odee created the website samherji.co.uk, imitating the company’s brand identity. On this platform, he issued the statement: “Samherji Apologizes, Pledges Restitution and Cooperation with Authorities.”

In Samherji’s complaint filed in London’s high court, it accused Odee of trademark infringement and malicious falsehood. The company’s lawyers applied for a summary judgement to avoid a trial."

‘I’m going to sue the living pants off them’: AI’s big legal showdown – and what it means for Dr Strange’s hair; The Guardian, November 6, 2024

 Steve Rose , The Guardian; ‘I’m going to sue the living pants off them’: AI’s big legal showdown – and what it means for Dr Strange’s hair

"“The intersection of generative AI and CGI image creation is the next wave.”

Now that wave is threatening to flood an unprepared industry, washing away jobs and certainties. How do people in the industry feel? To find out, I attended Trojan Horse Was a Unicorn (THU), a digital arts festival near Lisbon in Portugal. Now in its 10th year, THU is a place where young artists entering these industries, some 750 of them, come to meet, get inspired and learn from veterans in their fields: film-makers, animators, VFX wizards, concept artists, games designers. This year, AI is the elephant in the room. Everyone is either talking about it – or avoiding talking about it...

Andre Luis, the 43-year-old CEO and co-founder of THU, acknowledges that “the anxiety is here” at this year’s event, but rather than running away from it, he argues, artists should be embracing it. One of the problems now is that the people eagerly adopting AI are executives and managers. “They don’t understand how to use AI to accelerate creativity,” he says, “or to make things better for everyone, so it’s up to us [the artists] to teach them. You need people who actually are creative to use AI.”

Luis likens generative AI to ultra processed food: it cannot create anything new; it can only reconstitute what’s already there, turning it into an inferior product. “And a lot of companies are trying to make fast food,” he says. Many see AI as a way to churn out quick, cheap content, as opposed to higher quality fare that has been created “organically” over time, with loving human input...

The democratising potential of AI could usher in what Luis calls “a new era of indie” in films, games, TV. Just as digital technology put cameras, editing and graphics tools into the hands of many more people...

“AI is something that is here,” he tells the young creators at THU, “so you need to adapt. See the opportunities, see the problems, but understand that it can help you do things in a different way. You need to ask yourselves, ‘How can I be part of that?’"

Should You Be Allowed to Profit From A.I.-Generated Art?; The New York Times, September 27, 2024

 Kwame Anthony Appiah, The New York Times; Should You Be Allowed to Profit From A.I.-Generated Art?

[Excerpt]

"We attempt to attribute art whenever we can, and anything that’s only for purchase we either avoid or pay for. This particular piece seems to be available only in an Etsy shop, where the creator apparently uses A.I. prompts to generate images. The price is nominal: a few dollars. Yet I cannot help thinking that those who make A.I.-generated art are taking other artists’ work, essentially recreating it and then profiting from it. 

I’m not sure what the best move is...Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

There’s a sense in which A.I. image generators — such as DALL-E 3, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion — make use of the intellectual property of the artists whose work they’ve been trained on. But the same is true of human artists. The history of art is the history of people borrowing and adapting techniques and tropes from earlier work, with occasional moments of deep originality...

Maybe you’re worried that A.I. image generators will undermine the value of human-made art. Such concerns have a long history. In his classic 1935 essay, ‘‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,’’ the critic Walter Benjamin pointed out that techniques for reproducing artworks have been invented throughout history. In antiquity, the Greeks had foundries for reproducing bronzes; in time, woodcuts were widely used to make multiple copies of images; etching, lithography and photography later added new possibilities. These technologies raised the question of what Benjamin called the ‘‘aura’’ of the individual artwork...

As forms of artificial intelligence grow increasingly widespread, we need to get used to so-called ‘‘centaur’’ models — collaborations between human and machine cognition."

Trump’s other legal problem: Copyright infringement claims; The Washington Post, September 7, 2024

Herb Scribner

 and 

Janay Kingsberry

, The Washington Post; Trump’s other legal problem: Copyright infringement claims

"Music industry experts and copyright law attorneys say the cases, as well as Trump’s decision to continue playing certain songs despite artists’ requests that he desist, underscore the complex legalities of copyright infringement in today’s digital, streaming and licensing era — and could set an important precedent on the of use of popular music in political campaigns."

Artists Score Major Win in Copyright Case Against AI Art Generators; The Hollywood Reporter, August 13, 2024

Winston Cho, The Hollywood Reporter; Artists Score Major Win in Copyright Case Against AI Art Generators

"Artists suing generative artificial intelligence art generators have cleared a major hurdle in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit over the uncompensated and unauthorized use of billions of images downloaded from the internet to train AI systems, with a federal judge allowing key claims to move forward.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick on Monday advanced all copyright infringement and trademark claims in a pivotal win for artists. He found that Stable Diffusion, Stability’s AI tool that can create hyperrealistic images in response to a prompt of just a few words, may have been “built to a significant extent on copyrighted works” and created with the intent to “facilitate” infringement. The order could entangle in the litigation any AI company that incorporated the model into its products."

Record labels sue AI music startups for copyright infringement; WBUR Here & Now, July 8, 2024

 WBUR Here & Now; Record labels sue AI music startups for copyright infringement

"Major record labels including Sony, Universal Music Group and Warner are suing two music startups that use artificial intelligence. The labels say Suno and Udio rely on mass copyright infringement, echoing similar complaints from authors, publishers and artists who argue that generative AI infringes on copyright.

Here & Now's Lisa Mullins discusses the cases with Ina Fried, chief technology correspondent for Axios."

Voice of America (VoA), June 13, 2024

 Matt Dibble, Voice of America (VoA); AI copyright fight turns to disclosing original content

"Artists and other creators say their works have been used to build the multibillion-dollar generative AI industry without any compensation for them. Matt Dibble reports on a proposed U.S. law that would force AI companies to reveal their sources."