What should the government do about AI and copyright of content? Bristol Creative Industries members share their views
AI and copyright of content is a controversial issue in the creative industries, with the government receiving 11,500 responses to its consultation on the UK’s legal framework for copyright. Ministers say they are reviewing all the responses and technology secretary Peter Kyle said:
“I am determined to harness expert insights from across the debate as we work together to deliver a solution that brings the legal clarity our creative industries and AI sector badly need in the digital age.”
We asked some Bristol Creative Industries members what they think the government should do. See below for their responses.
Join our Wake Up Call webinar on 1 August: When AI kills the click, what comes next for SEO?
Russell Jones, JonesMillbank (see JonesMillbank’s BCI profile here):
“Jean-Luc Godard (1930-2022), a pioneer in filmmaking, said “It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to”. Had he lived three more years, would he be saying the same thing about the generative imagery we’re seeing today?
“When nothing is original, and humans have copied and been inspired by others since the dawn of time, where do we draw the line between human inspiration and en-mass machine learning?
“Nobody has the answer yet, but any regulation must be worldwide – human-wide – to avoid creating an AI-divide.”
Phil Robinson, Proctor + Stevenson (see Proctor + Stevenson’s BCI profile here):
“I believe clarity and fairness are the two critical factors here. AI offers exciting creative opportunities, but we need a legal framework that respects the rights of artists while helping us explore new tools. Creators should know if their work is used to train AI, and there must be proper consent and fair compensation.
“I’d like to see rules that protect originality but also empower creatives to be ambitious and produce incredible work. If the government gets that balance right, AI could become a genuine asset to the creative industries, not a threat to them.”
Catherine Frankpitt, Strike Communications (see Strike Communications’ BCI profile here):
“Creative professionals are natural early adopters, so we must balance protecting our intellectual property with harnessing AI’s potential through proper legal safeguards.
“The government must work urgently with creative and tech sectors to establish a legally enforceable framework requiring clear disclosure of AI training data sources and mandatory opt-in licensing. We need a distinction between AI as a creative tool versus unauthorised training on copyrighted works. Creators must retain ownership and receive fair compensation for any AI usage of their work. Given AI’s global reach, this framework needs both robust UK legislation and international coordination.
“Finally, we must move at pace with regular legal reviews to ensure our protections evolve alongside the technology, preventing creators from being left behind.”
Mark Shand, UWE Bristol (see UWE Bristol’s BCI profile here):
“The proposals in the government consultation reflect an inconsistent approach to intellectual property, favouring undisclosed AI companies (other industries compensate creators), while disadvantaging university copyright holders across culture, research, education, business, science, and health. It places an unfair burden on creators, remains vague, appears technically unfeasible, and perpetuates business practices that undermine creators’ control and compensation.
“We are also concerned by the accompanying narrative, which frames creators as being at odds with ‘innovators’. In reality, our students and staff are innovators – they are also current and future income generators, market disruptors, and employers.”
Tim Shapcott, Tiki Media (see Tim Shapcott’s BCI profile here):
“Painful as it is to consider, it may be unrealistic to hold AI companies accountable for what’s already been done. Rather than close our borders to the world as other countries take advantage of the up-side, a more pragmatic path may be to focus on future solutions.
“Applying pressure to the AI industry to establish clear checks and balances could ensure that original creators receive fair recognition and compensation as AI evolves. This balanced approach may allow us to embrace the benefits of AI while still supporting our creative talent. If ‘back pay’ is possible as a part of that, then awesome!”
Claire Snook, AMBITIOUS (see AMBITIOUS’ BCI profile here):
“For the last 20 years, AI has helped our work and operations through programmatic ads, content development, chatbots, virtual assistants and more.
“But it’s undermining our creativity. Copyright is essential to protect our work. Our government has a responsibility to provide clarity for how AI is used in conjunction with creative work; we need clear and defined safeguards for creators. This should have been in the works decades ago.
“Companies are taking measures to protect our content. Cloudflare, one of the biggest architect providers, now prevents AI crawlers from scraping content without the creators’ permission meaning websites will be able to charge AI companies for accessing their content.
“We need a practical approach that protects and ensures our creative labour isn’t stolen, while making sure people can responsibly use AI for their needs and wants.”
Susan Pearson, Wordways (see Susan Pearson’s BCI profile here):
“The copyright for anything I write is 100% mine or my client’s. No-one or no ‘thing’ should ever have the right to reproduce the words of writers exactly unless these words are expressed within quote marks with the source of the quote acknowledged – unless they have specific permission. Anything else would be creative theft.
“Weakening of copyright law in any way will have a profound effect on the livelihood of writers and others in the creative industries. Even the suggestion that AI software can re-hash original material from creatives is a suggestion that theft should be legalised!”
Jessica Morgan, Carnsight Communications (see Carnsight Communications’ BCI profile here):
“AI is rarely out of the spotlight – particularly in the creative industries. It’s also a growth opportunity identified by the government, so it’s likely to remain there. This feels like a pivotal moment. Will we be left behind if we don’t evolve our regulations, or do we risk completely exploiting creativity if we do?
“Holding the consultation is a good first step, and those thousands of views given will have to be considered and taken into account (AI may prove useful here!) The key thing is, creative work is important and should be valued. Copyright exists for a reason and we’ve been abiding by it for decades. Any path forward needs to acknowledge that.”
Sandra Mouton, French translator (see Sandra Mouton’s BCI profile here):
“Copyrighted works available for reading online are routinely used to train the LLMs AI runs on. In my field of translation, that’s translated books, but also magazine articles, white papers from businesses or NGOs, video game content, etc. All this IP was created within the framework of copyright law and the protection it’s meant to provide for authors’ and copyright-holders’ rights.
“The government needs to ensure that protection is real and that the work of creatives like translators cannot be exploited for money without our express consent (with a default opt-in rather than opt-out system) and adequate compensation through royalties.”
Alex Murrell, Epoch (see Epoch’s BCI profile here):
“Human creativity thrives on curious minds and their insatiable appetite for inspiration. Film, fashion, art and architecture; it all gets devoured, connected and remixed into new and novel ideas. Copyright laws protect this process: copy too closely, and you risk infringement.
“But now, generative AI is rewriting the rules. If a machine uses your work to train a model, is that theft or fair use? Is it ethically different from a human remixing their inspiration? Should copyright continue to cover one’s output, or should it cover the input as well? That’s the question governments must answer—and fast.”
Emma Barraclough, Epoch
“AI is reshaping the creative landscape; enabling highly personalised, efficient design at scale. And as it becomes mainstream, using it has become essential to staying competitive in a fast-moving industry. But there are concerns we can’t ignore. Ambiguity around the ownership of AI-generated content presents legal challenges.
“For brand assets to be valuable, they must be protectable. And yet without clear rules AI generated assets are at risk of being copied and compromised by others. For AI to become a truly powerful tool for creatives, we need laws that make its output safe, ownable, and enforceable.”
Penny Beeston, Beeston Media (see Beeston Media’s BCI profile here):
“As an SME in the creative sector we embrace AI where it improves the efficiency of our craft. The red flags are where AI stifles or steals creative human endeavour. The horse may well have bolted in terms of past copyright theft, but the government has an important role to play in regulation going forward.
“Original assets used in generative AI should be traceable, accredited or paid for by third parties. The government’s commitment to investing in AI research and innovation with projects such as the Isambard-AI supercomputer is impressive. Let’s use that sovereign capacity for good by creating AI tools to shift the balance of power from poachers to gamekeepers.”
Chas Rowe, voiceover artist (see Chas Rowe’s BCI profile here):
“First, AI steals from creators. Then, AI steals from creators. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The government should stop providing shovels for the gravediggers of the creative industries.”
Join our Wake Up Call webinar on 1 August: When AI kills the click, what comes next for SEO?
Bristol Creative Industries is the membership network that supports the region's creative sector to learn, grow and connect, driven by the common belief that we can achieve more collectively than alone.
You need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information
