A senior adviser to Labour’s science secretary has left many in the creative industries reeling after declaring that artificial intelligence companies would never be forced to pay creators for using their work.
Kirsty Innes, now an adviser to Liz Kendall, stated online that AI firms “will never legally have to” compensate artists, writers and musicians.
Those words, now deleted, have been circulating among campaigners who demand a stronger stance from Labour on protecting creators’ rights.
Innes had previously been part of the Tony Blair Institute, a think tank which has received hundreds of millions in funding from Silicon Valley leaders.
Just last week, high-profile artists including Mick Jagger and Kate Bush signed an open letter to Labour leader Keir Starmer, urging him to defend creative works in the face of aggressive moves by the tech sector.
Many have interpreted Innes’s statement as a sign that the government will look the other way as tech giants continue to use creative content in training vast artificial intelligence systems, without explicit consent or payment. One now deleted message she wrote cautioned, “A lot of this has already happened and it can continue to happen outside the UK, whatever our laws say.”
The Copyright Clash
Labour finds itself at a crossroads over the nation’s copyright laws, particularly as it weighs how far to let AI developers copy material that is protected.
Some British outlets have already negotiated deals to license their own content to OpenAI, while others fear open doors will let powerful tech companies raid their archives without reward.
Government sources say the old idea of making creators “opt out” from AI use has been ditched. Instead, new working groups are trying to hash out a solution between creative professionals and tech experts, guided in part by a pro-innovation approach to AI regulation.
The tension is palpable.
Ed Newton-Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, voiced what many are thinking: “It is alarming that Liz Kendall will be getting advice from someone who seems so bought into big tech’s dreams of upending the UK’s copyright law.” He echoed widespread wishes for ministers to consider voices more in tune with the public, “who are rightly anxious about the impacts of AI and the power of big tech.”
Neither Innes nor Kendall offered any comment despite mounting calls for clarity.
Beeban Kidron, a cross bench peer and leading opponent of copyright relaxation, summed up the stakes: “Last week the creatives sent a letter to the PM asking him to explain why the government was breaking human rights law, which clearly states a person’s right to copyright in their scientific and creative work.”
As Labour navigates this delicate debate, the creative sector is watching closely, and trust looks increasingly hard to win back—including in ongoing copyright law and originality debates.
