By Soph Johnson
As AI-generated art floods social media feeds and ad campaigns, the UK government is being pushed to catch up on regulation. With a few clear rules in place, questions are mounting over copyright, artist integrity, and the future of creative jobs. Art created by AI is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish from art created by humans, so AI-generated art must be appropriately labelled and categorised.
The UK’s “Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act”(1988)does allow for copyright protection in works generated by a computer when there is no human author for the work. But, since machines or non-human creators cannot own copyright, this means the author of any computer-generated work is the person “by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
However, this definition was not written with generative AI in mind. Its ambiguity leaves both artists and developers operating in a legal grey area that has yet to be addressed by policymakers.
As the cultural and commercial impact of AI-generated art continues to grow, the UK government is facing increased pressure to clarify its position. So, there is a need for new policies and regulatory interventions that can help the UK respond effectively to the challenges and opportunities presented by AI art.
- Copyright Law Reform
A potential starting point for the government would be to amend the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 to explicitly address the issue of legal ownership within AI-generated works. This could involve recognising the human prompter, programmer, or any other creative contributor as being the work’s “author”, which would clarify ownership and accountability.
Alternatively, the government could consider introducing a distinct legal category specifically for AI-generated content, with tailored rights and limitations which reflect its unique production process.
Some experts have also proposed restricting copyright protection for fully AI-generated works. This would be similar to the current position in the United States, where any non-human creations are not eligible for copyright whatsoever, which could help prevent misuse and reinforce the value of human creativity.
- Transparency in AI Training Data
To help improve the transparency and accountability in the development of generative AI software, the UK government could introduce some mandatory disclosure requirements for companies. For example, it could require them to reveal the datasets used to train their models, particularly where there are concerns that they may use copyrighted visual material.
Alongside this, a formal licensing or opt-in/opt-out system could be established, which would give artists the ability to grant or withhold consent for their work to be used in this training data. Similar frameworks are already under consideration in the European Union, and these measures would offer greater control to rights holders and artists, as well as encourage responsible practices among AI developers.
- Cultural and Economic Support
To make sure human creativity can thrive alongside technological innovation, the UK government could expand public funding schemes to specifically invest in human-made art and the work behind it. Targeted grants and cultural investment would help safeguard artistic professions that may be vulnerable to commercial displacement.
Also, establishing a dedicated advisory body, or expanding the remit of existing institutions such as the Arts Council, could provide some ongoing insight into the evolving relationship between technology and the arts. This body could then become an excellent addition to help guide policy, support research, and advocate for the cultural and social value of human creativity.
- Education and Professional Training
Education will also be able to play a crucial role in shaping a balanced future for both AI and the arts. The government could invest in digital skills funding to help artists adapt to emerging digital tools, to make sure they aren’t left behind in a rapidly changing creative landscape. By supporting this training in digital literacy and creative technologies, initiatives like these would empower some artists to use AI critically and effectively.
Additionally, introducing or funding educational programmes that address the ethical dimensions of AI in the arts would be able to foster a more informed and responsible approach going forward, not just for AI developers, but also for artists, policymakers, and the wider public.
- International Collaboration
Since AI development is becoming increasingly global by nature, and creative industries often have an international reach, the UK government could begin to play a more active role in shaping international standards on AI-generated content.
By working with organisations like the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and UNESCO, the UK could contribute to the development of coherent global standards around authorship, copyright, and ethical use of generative AI.
Similarly, by making sure that domestic regulations align with the emerging frameworks in the US and EU, this would help ensure that UK artists and companies can remain competitive and aren’t disadvantaged by inconsistent legal protections or market fragmentation.
In conclusion, the challenge now for the UK government is not just to regulate, but also to strike a balance between protecting human creativity and ensuring fairness in the cultural economy. With targeted, timely policies, there is an opportunity to be able to shape a future where technology does not eclipse the work of human creators and artists.
Surround Sound 