The authors wish to thank Joshua Saunders for his contributions to this post.
In February 2025 we reported on the UK government consultation on potential changes to UK copyright legislation in light of AI, Clock is Ticking for Responses to UK Government Consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | Global IP & Technology Law Blog. That consultation invited interested parties to submit their views on four potential options under consideration, those options range from “option 0”, simply doing nothing and leaving UK copyright legislation in its currently uncertain state when it comes to the use of copyright materials to train AI models, through to options which would either require specific consent from rights holders in all cases (“option 1”) or allow consent to be assumed by AI developers unless a rights holder objects, subject to developers being transparent about what materials have been used in training (“option 3”).
When inviting responses, the government indicated its preferred approach was option 3 in order to strike a balance between both the interests of rights holders and AI developers. However, many high-profile rights holders disagreed with that view and engaged in a well-coordinated campaign against any change which might result in their work being used without permission to train AI models.
The success of that campaign to date is reflected in the progress update on the consultation published by government in December 2025, Copyright and artificial intelligence statement of progress under Section 137 Data (Use and Access) Act – GOV.UK. The publication has revealed that over 11,500 responses were received (an usually high number) and that of the circa 10,000 responses submitted via the government’s online “Citizen Space” portal, 88% of those supported option 1, with more of those respondents supporting option 0 of simply doing nothing (7%) than the government’s preferred option 3 which was supported by a mere 3% of those respondents.
Next Steps
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has pledged to publish by 18 March 2026 an economic impact assessment (EIA) and report on the use of copyright works in the training of AI.
The EIA will assess the impact of each option outlined in the original consultation on rights holders and AI developers, including individuals, micro, small and medium-sized businesses. As part of the EIA, the government will consider evidence submitted in response to the consultation alongside wider evidence, such as evolving AI activity in the UK and the licensing market generally.
Separately, the report will evaluate the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems (both in the UK and further afield) and in relation to AI outputs. Like the EIA, the report will assess the impact of each option on rights holders and AI developers of all sizes. In addition, it will have a specific focus (amongst other points) on technical measures that may be used to control the use of copyright works to train AI systems and the process of granting copyright licences to AI developers – significant challenges given the ever evolving nature of technology; the cross border nature of AI development and deployment; and the fact that in the UK copyright is an unregistered right meaning there is currently no centralised or reliable database of copyright works and rights holders.
As such, whilst it is hoped that the EIA and this report will provide some much-needed clarity on the direction of travel in the UK and future legislative changes in particular, the challenges should not be underestimated and in the absence of judicial guidance on the issue of AI training and primary copyright infringement (something which the recent high-profile case of Getty Images v Stability AI failed to provide, Getty Images (US) Inc (and others) v Stability AI Limited. Input: Getty Images v Stability AI. Output: Continued Uncertainty. | Global IP & Technology Law Blog, the current uncertainty seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
The post A Year On from UK Government Consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence appeared first on Global IP & Technology Law Blog.