UK’s Lords urge IP Minister to tackle AI regulation
House of Lords asks Viscount Camrose for an update on “important discussions” during debate over risks of the technology | Members propose creation of an AI department in the style of ARIA | Risks to copyrights, actors, and issue of AI inventorship raised.
Members of the UK’s House of Lords questioned the AI and IP Minister’s lack of AI regulation in a debate on the technology’s risks on July 24.
The negative impact on copyright owners, the AI inventor issue, and the creation of an AI department was also discussed as what one member described as the “bones of an AI bill” was discussed.
Throughout the debate members of the House of Lords posed questions to AI and IP Minister, Viscount Camrose.
Opening the debate, Lord Ravensdale, full name Daniel Mosley, who proposed the motion, described AI as “the most important technology of our generation”.
“It will cause significant upheaval right across the economy, good and bad. We in Parliament need to be thinking about this area and talking about it a lot more than we are. It should be right at the top of our agenda,' said Mosley.
Viscount Camrose responded to the debate on behalf of the government by saying: “We are taking action to establish the right guardrails for AI. The AI regulation White Paper, [ A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation] published this March, set out our proportionate, outcomes-focused and adaptable regulatory framework...We will ensure that there are protections for the public without holding businesses back from using AI technology to deliver stronger economic growth.”
Concerns over IP and AI in the creative sector
Baroness Stowell of Beeston spoke of the concerns in various industries, with “those in the creative sector, particularly news publishers” being “worried about intellectual property.”
Building on this, Lord Clement-Jones, member of the Lords AI in Weapon Systems Committee, said there were “many other issues” relating to performing rights, copying of actors, musicians, artists and other creators’ images, voices, likenesses, styles and attributes.
“These are at the root of the Hollywood actors and screenwriters’ strike as well as campaigns here from the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain and from Equity,” said Clement-Jones.
“Responsible AI developers seek to licence content which will bring in valuable income. However, many of the large language model developers seem to believe that they do not need to seek permission to ingest content,” he added.
AI content: Why would studios pay humans?
Stowell outlined the issue of content creators already seeing their work being used to train generative AI models.
“If studio businesses can get movie scripts, images or computer-generated background artists for free, why would they pay?” she questioned.
The Baroness highlighted the IP Minister’s acknowledgement of the significance of IP policy and its relevance to AI development.
She said she would be “grateful” if Viscount Camrose updated the HoL on the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) working group, “which is developing government policy so that news organisations, publishers, writers, artists, musicians and everyone else whose creations are being used by the tech firms to develop [large language models] (LLMs) can be properly compensated, and commercial terms established that are fair to all.”
Clement-Jones proposed three questions to the Viscount Camrose; “What discussion has the Minister, or other Ministers, had with these large language model firms in relation to their responsibilities for copyright law?”
“Can he also make a clear statement that the UK government believe that the ingestion of content requires permission from rights holders, and that, should permission be granted, licences should be sought and paid for?”
“Will he also be able to update us on the code of practice process in relation to text and data-mining licensing, following the government’s decision to shelve changes to the exemption and the consultation that the IPO has been undertaking?”
Risk that AI becomes ‘larceny’
During the debate, the Earl of Devon, Charles Peregrine Courtenay, introduced his speech by highlighting how the technology is “complicated, poorly understood and thus intimidating”.
He continued to shed light on concerns raised by the IP All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) regarding the government's proposal to broaden exceptions to copyright and database rights, potentially infringing on the rights of individual creators in favour of AI development.
“The government withdrew that proposal and have began to investigate alternative solutions with the industry, such as collective licensing and consent that might respect authors’ rights,” said the Earl.
“Can the Minister please give the House an update on those important discussions?
“Since the public launch of multiple large language model AI systems, such as Open AI’s ChatGPT, Stability AI and others, it has become readily apparent that they have been extensively trained or “educated” using copyrighted materials for which no consent has been given.
“There is a real risk that AI is, in effect, larceny—an industry built on the theft of the personal property of creative authors for commercial ends.” he continued.
Courtenay cited instances like Getty Images' case against Stability AI and Sarah Silverman's case against Open AI and Meta for theft of her written material.
It is the “brazen nature” of this conduct that enables the creators of AI models to not consider the need to licence protected works in training AI machines, according to the Earl.
He urged the government to address this issue and questioned its engagement with these creators on this topic.
The Earl proceeded to read out a statement released by the IPO last year.
“Although factual data, trends and concepts are not protected by copyright, they are often embedded in copyright works. Data mining systems copy works to extract and analyse the data they contain. Unless permitted under licence or an exception, making such copies will constitute copyright infringement.” the statement said, read by the Earl.
“Does the Minister agree with that statement and therefore that any large language model firms making copies without permission or exception will be infringing copyright?” asked Courtney.
AI inventor issue: ‘Has government updated its point of view?’
Additionally, the Earl sought an update from the AI and IP Minister on the government's thinking regarding AI inventions.
“When they reported last June, the government had no plan to change the UK’s patent law because AI was not “yet” advanced enough to invent without human intervention. Given the rapid developments since, has the government’s view changed on this point?” he said.
He finished his speech by noting that “the UK is coordinating closely with the US on this issue. In the US in Thaler v Vidal, the Federal Circuit said that AI cannot be an inventor for US patents, but the USPTO has sought fresh evidence on the point.”
“Similarly, the Copyright Office in the US rejected the registration of copyright in AI-generated works but has issued guidance and sought further evidence on the topic. What are the UK government doing?”
Creation of ARIA-AI?
Lord Ravensdale proposed the creation of a specialised AI organisation to spearhead advancements in AI research while addressing critical safety concerns
“If we agree that AI needs a research focus, we could perhaps set up a different organisation in the same way as the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), but with a specific focus on AI, and call it ‘ARIA-AI’; or we could even increase funding and provide that focus to an existing part of ARIA’s organisational set-up.
“In committee on the ARIA Bill, we debated extensively the potential to give ARIA a focus or aim similar to that of the United States’ Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, and ARPA-E.”
“The government wanted ARIA to maintain the freedom to choose its own goals, but there is an opportunity now to look at this again and use the strengths of the ARIA concept—its set-up, governance structures and freedom of action—to help the UK move forward in this area,” said Ravensdale.
While acknowledging the government's White Paper for its balanced approach in managing AI's risks and opportunities, Ravensdale emphasised the urgency of devising comprehensive regulatory frameworks.
“Here is the bones of an AI bill, perhaps legislating to set up a new research organisation, providing regulators with the right initial powers and the funding to sit behind all of this, which would at the same time build upon the world-leading AI development capabilities we now have in the UK,” he concluded.
Watch the debate or view the Hansard transcript.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
