British celebrities beat AI companies lobbying to get free use of their work. They have a warning for Australia

Elton John called the UK government ‘absolute losers’ over a proposal to allow AI companies free access to creative work produced in the UK. Photograph: Buda Mendes/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Elton John called the UK government ‘absolute losers’ over a proposal to allow AI companies free access to creative work produced in the UK. Photograph: Buda Mendes/Getty Images Analysis British celebrities beat AI companies lobbying to get free use of their work. They have a warning for Australia Dan Milmo ‘People care about the songs, books and pictures that influence the critical moments in their lives,’ says the architect of the fightback in the UK Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast If you want to state the case against copyright reform in Australia, get Kylie Minogue’s phone number. If there is one lesson to be learned from a similar battle in the UK, high-profile members of the creative industries make a difference. They get your argument on the front of newspapers, in the news bulletins and on social media. In the face of this onslaught, the UK government backtracked on plans to let AI firms use copyright-protected work without permission. The many artists who put their name to various letters and protests against the reforms to create a virtual red carpet, included: Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, Abba’s Björn Ulvaeus, the actor Julianne Moore and the Radiohead singer Thom Yorke. John had one of the most memorable soundbites, calling the government “absolute losers” who were on course to “rob young people of their legacy and their income”. Overall, the campaign was more sophisticated than just rounding up irritated celebrities. Beeban Kidron, a member of the upper house of the UK parliament and an award-winning film director, marshalled an effective political campaign against the proposals by pushing legislative amendments that would have spiked the plans. She also helped organise celebrity opposition. Kidron says the campaign struck a chord with the public. “People care about the songs, books and pictures that influence the critical moments in their lives,” she says. Polling backed this up, with seven out of 10 adults in the UK supporting the payment of royalties to copyright holders whose work had been used to train AI models. The Australian prime minister should take heed, Kidron says. “Albanese has been a leader in standing up to tech. He should not squander his reputation by selling Australian creatives down the river.” The campaign against copyright reform also benefited from the ingenuity of an industry that knows how to grab people’s attention. One of the most prominent figures in the movement against the proposals, Ed Newton-Rex, organised a “silent” album and an “empty” book, to warn of the consequences of watering down copyright law. “There is no one out there, who does not work for an AI company, who thinks AI companies should not pay for the content they use,” he says. “What we did in the UK was make the government understand that was the case.” Newton-Rex, a composer and former AI executive, put together an album featuring recordings of dormant music studios and performance spaces, called Is This What We Want? It was backed by more than 1,000 musicians, including Damon Albarn, Kate Bush and Annie Lennox. The author stunt, called Don’t Steal This Book, involved 10,000 writers listing their names in an otherwise empty paperback. Contributors included Kazuo Ishiguro, Philippa Gregory and Richard Osman. “The only way the government gets something like this copyright proposal through is if no one notices what they are doing. It will take just a moment for people to understand this is not fair,” says Newton-Rex. Albanese’s government needs to be wary of committing the same mistake as its centre-left UK counterpart, says Pierre Andrews, a former adviser on culture policy under Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government in 2023-2024. “The [UK] Labour government’s mistake was that it thought it could convince the creative industries to go along with it,” he says. Instead, the nation’s assembled artists and authors recoiled at a perceived betrayal by a party they thought would be on their side. “There was a strong sense of surprise within the creative community that Labour would even consider changing copyright to their detriment,” he says, adding that he foresees another government U-turn, but in Australia this time. The tech industry still believes in the win-win argument; that the UK could get behind a policy where domestic AI companies are able to train models on British shores using copyright-protected content, while the holders receive adequate compensation for their work. “The government recognised that it didn’t frame the initial consultation very well,” says Antony Walker, deputy chief executive of trade association techUK. “But I also think rights holders were extremely effective at shouting down the debate. It was a one-sided argument.” In March the then UK technology secretary, Liz Kendall said the key proposal to let tech companies train on copyright protected material unless artists “opt out” of the process beforehand was no longer the government’s preferred option. The new prime minister, Smiths-loving Andy Burnham, has yet to set out a new policy on copyright but would face a battle-hardened opposition if he took the unlikely step of taking on the creatives again. Explore more on these topics Australian politics AI (Artificial Intelligence) Australian law Arts policy analysis Share Reuse this content