Campaigners have accused ministers of lying against parliament and the creative industry after the government indicated that the AI companies would not force how they train their models.
Ministers hold in an impasse with the House of Lords, which has called on to offer artists copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies.
PEERS voted on Wednesday with 221 to 116 to insist on a change in the data law that AI companies would force to be transparent about which copyright protected material they use to train their models.
In a change that was submitted on Friday, the government rejected the gentlemen’s request and repeated its promise to publish an economic impact assessment and technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation.
Beeban Kidron, the Crossbench Peer and film director who campaigned on behalf of the industry, said during Wednesday’s debate that she would “accept everything the commons does” after this week. “I will no longer stand for your Lords ships and press our business,” she said.
But the News Media Association (NMa), which represents publishers, including The Guardian, said that colleagues can make further changes to the data account when they will return to the Lords next Wednesday.
The figures from the industry said that the government acted in bad faith by not tackling the worries of the gentlemen and called on to make further changes before the members of parliament vote for it on Tuesday.
Kidron said: “The government has repeatedly removed all protection for holders of the British copyrights from the data account. In addition, they created the creative industry, and they are willing to decimate the second largest industrial sector of the UK. They have lied to parliament, and they lie against the sector.”
She said that the government’s action “adds another sector to the growing number with an unbridgeable gap of trust in the government”.
Owen Meredith, the Chief Executive of the NMa, said: “The government’s refusal to listen to the strong view of the gentlemen … to undermine the risks of the legislative process.
“There is still time for the government to do the right thing and to take transparency powers in this bill. This would be an important step to rebuild trust with an industry of £ 126 billion.”
After the promotion of the newsletter
The approach to the government of copyright has drawn the anger of great creative artists and organizations, including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush and the National Theater, where Elton John describes the situation this week as an “existential issue”.
Opponents of the plans have warned that even if the attempts to insert clauses in the data account, the government in the courts can be challenged about the proposed changes.
Consultations on copyright changes, which to produce his findings before the end of the year, contains four options: to have AI companies used by copyrighted work without permission, in addition to an option for artists to unsubscribe “from the process; to let the situation unchanged; to demand ai -companies to use a protected carpet; use work without opt-out for creative companies and individuals.
The technological secretary, Peter Kyle, has said that it is scenario-plus-open-open scenario of the copyright-open-open-open-open, is no longer the preferred option of the government, but have tried to deduce the changes of Kidron by to demand that technology companies demand that they use Licentic deals for all the content.
#British #government #signals #force #technology #companies #reveal #train