Proposed changes to copyright law would deny what makes us human, says Helen Ward. Plus letters from Jason Mills and Daniel Heuman. Your article (Kate Bush and Damon Albarn among 1,000 artists on silent AI protest album, 25 February) quotes a government spokesperson: “As it stands, the UK’s current regime for copyright and AI is holding back the creative industries, media and AI sector from realising their full potential.”.
To suggest that an artist’s full potential can only be reached with the help of artificial intelligence is to dismiss what makes us human and to ignore the vast scope, power and achievement of thousands of years of human creativity. Genuine creativity is not about full potential – it is about imagination and learning, about continually asking and answering questions; it is a process.
Creativity is a source of wellbeing and comfort even for those whose work may never be seen, heard or read by anyone else. Creativity needs to be valued, protected and encouraged as a human activity. I suggest that all those involved in this AI-biased consultation spend time away from their screens, make something with their own heads or hands, and then listen to those deeply involved in creativity to understand what they are stealing, repackaging and, more disastrously, offering: AI-manufactured pseudo-creativity. This is junk food for the mind on the children’s shelf of some megalomaniac’s digital supermarket. A shortcut to “full potential” or yet another way to stop human beings thinking for themselves?.
I was brought up in a creative family – I am an illustrator and author – and quite apart from all of the above, my living depends on the selling of copyright. Helen Ward. Stroud, Gloucestershire. Even as AI pushes from below, the top tier of artistic endeavour implicitly requires conscious authorship. We attend galleries and concerts to encounter communication from one mind to another about the experience of living. Truly conscious AI might be as worth listening to as any other individual, but that’s over the horizon. For now, a machine-generated production, while impressive, is of only novelty interest. But it’s small comfort to those further down the chain whose gig is up – jobbing artists, writers and composers. For their changing situation, the government needs to do a lot more than roll over. Impoverishing creatives to accommodate big tech’s latest overhyped wheeze is not progress.
Jason Mills. Accrington, Lancashire. As the CEO of a UK-based tech company, I might be expected to disagree with your article. On the contrary: we share the concerns about the erosion of copyright protections that the proposed data (use and access) bill would bring.
Our firm is deeply invested in AI technology, and our customers are writers, editors, artists and scientists. Without enforceable copyright laws that protect their work, they simply won’t be able to continue their work. Your article rightly highlights the moral and economic implications of the unchecked use of creative content. It’s essential that AI firms obtain consent and provide fair remuneration when using copyrighted materials. This respects the rights of creators and ensures the sustainability of the creative sector. It also supports British businesses that rely on the creative sector.
I stand with you in urging policymakers to reconsider this bill. It’s crucial that we strike a better balance between fostering technological innovation and upholding the rights of those who contribute so much to our cultural and economic landscape.
