AI and Copyright: House of Lords publishes recommendations ahead of imminent government consultation report

Committee Recommendations

1. Rule out a commercial TDM exception with opt-out model.

1. The Committee was not persuaded that current UK copyright law is uncertain or that copying of copyright works should be characterised as ‘learning’ (an argument made by AI developers).
2. The Committee recommends that the government rule out introducing any exceptions for use of copyright works in AI model training and focus on strengthening licensing, transparency and enforcement within the existing framework.
3. Specifically, the Committee recommends that the government reach and publish a final decision on its approach to copyright and AI within the next 12 months. This decision should make clear that strong copyright protection and fair licensing are the default and in its March consultation report, the government should set out the steps and timetable it will follow to reach this decision.
4. In the meantime, the Committee urges the government to issue a clear public statement setting out an expectation that commercial AI developers operating in the UK should obtain appropriate licences. That statement should signal the government’s support for a licensing-first approach.

2. Close gaps in protection for style imitation and digital identity

The Committee identified generative AI output “in the style of” an artist (where a recognisable style, voice or personality has been imitated) as an area where legislative change may be necessary, because the UK has no specific personality right or protection for digital likeness. The Committee recommends that the government should introduce protections against unauthorised digital replicas and “in the style of” uses. Any new framework should give creators and performers enforceable control over the commercial exploitation of their identity.

3. Make transparency a statutory obligation

The Committee found that granular transparency about the individual works used in training AI models is required by rightsholders but that developers objected, citing technical barriers, commercial sensitivity, competitive dynamics and cost. The Committee recommends that the government establishes a clear, mandatory (statutory) transparency framework. The government should identify the appropriate regulator to set reporting formats, monitor compliance and take enforcement action. Care should be taken to avoid disproportionate burden on SMEs. The government should also design transparency requirements in a way that minimises incentives for UK-based developers to relocate training abroad.

4. Champion the development of technical standards

The Committee’s view is that effective rights-reservation mechanisms will be an essential part of any licensing regime and are needed to give rightsholders granular control over their works, and to allow developers to assemble large datasets. However, existing opt-out mechanisms were not designed with current AI use cases in mind. The Committee recommends that the government back the creation and adoption of open, interoperable and globally aligned standards for rights reservation, provenance and labelling, led by industry. It should be prepared to legislate to ensure effective implementation, as the Committee has heard that voluntary regimes may not be sufficient.

5. Create the conditions for a fair and inclusive UK licensing market

Evidence given to the Committee indicated that a licensing market is emerging and the Committee sees a significant opportunity for the UK to position itself as global leader for responsible AI development, due to the UK’s wealth of creative content and existing well-developed collective licensing schemes. The Committee think Collective Management Organisations (CMOs) have an important role to play. The Committee recommends that the government prioritise enabling a sustainable ecosystem that works for rightsholders and developers of all sizes and ensures that remuneration reaches individual creators, including through collaboration with existing CMOs. The government should also determine whether existing CMOs have the resources to bring forward new solutions and provide assistance to those organisations as required.

Comment

One of the most significant aspects of the House of Lords report is that the Committee has said that current UK copyright law is not uncertain and that the making and processing of digital copies of copyright works for training AI models is a reproduction and must be assessed under normal copyright principles. The Committee says that the call from AI developers to introduce a TDM exception means the AI sector do not regard training as clearly covered by any current exceptions under UK copyright law. Consequently, the Committee’s view is that the government should urgently publish a statement setting out an expectation that developers operating in the UK should obtain licences when using copyright works and that the prolonged uncertainty and extended consultation period has undermined trust and stalled licensing and investment.

It will be interesting to see to what extent the government takes note of the Committee’s recommendations, when it publishes its copyright report, required under the Data (Use and Access) Act, next week. When the consultation was published, the government’s favoured option was stated to be a TDM exception, with a rightsholder opt-out. However, during an evidence session before the House of Lords’ Communications and Digital Committee on 13 January 2026, the Secretaries of State Liz Kendall (Science, Innovation and Technology) and Lisa Nandy (Culture, Media and Sport) said the government was wrong to have expressed any preference, and that it was a “reset” moment. Whether the government will go as far as ruling out any copyright reform with regard to exceptions when it publishes its report next week remains to be seen. However, a straightforward step for the government at this stage would be to heed the Committee’s call and set out a timetable to publishing a final decision on copyright and AI within 12 months. We will see on Wednesday.

Authored by Penny Thornton.