Data bill opposed by Sir Elton John and Dua Lipa finally passes
Peers wanted an amendment to the drably-titled Data (Use and Access) Bill which would have forced tech companies to declare their use of copyright material when training AI tools.
Without it, they argued, tech firms would be given free rein to help themselves to UK content without paying for it, and then train their AI products to mimic it, putting human artists out of work.
That would be "committing theft, thievery on a high scale", Sir Elton John told the BBC.
He was one of a number of household names from the UK creative industries, including Sir Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa to oppose the government.
The government refused the amendment. It says it is already carrying out a separate consultation around copyright and it wants to wait for the outcome of that.
In addition there are plans for a separate AI bill. Critics of the peers' proposal say it would stifle the AI industry and result in the UK getting left behind in this lucrative and booming sector.
So, this left the bill in limbo, pingponging between the Houses of Commons and Lords for a month.
But it has now finally been passed, without the amendment, and will become law once royal assent is given.
"We can only do so much here. I believe we've done it. It's up to the government and the other place (the Commons) now to listen," said composer and broadcaster Lord Berkeley.
The government has welcomed the wide-ranging bill passing.
"This Bill is about using data to grow the economy and improve people's lives, from health to infrastructure and we can now get on with the job of doing that", a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) spokesperson said.
Caught in the crossfire of this row were other useful proposals contained within the bill, including:
New rules on the rights of bereaved parents to access their children's data if they die
Changes to allow NHS trusts to share patient data more easily
A 3D underground map of the UK's pipes and cables, aimed at improving the efficiency of roadworks by minimising the possibility of them being accidentally dug up.
"So this is good news for NHS workers and the police who will be freed from over a million hours of time spent doing admin, bereaved parents who will be supported to get the answers they deserve, and people who will be kept safer online thanks to new offences for deepfake abuse," DSIT said.
But even though the Lords have decided they had made their point on AI, the argument has not gone away.
Those who fought the battle have not changed their minds. Baroness Kidron, a film maker who led the charge for the amendment, told me the passing of the bill was "a pyrrhic victory at best" for the government, meaning it would lose more than it gains.
That cost, she argues, is the giving away of UK assets, in the form of creative content, to largely US-based AI developers.
There are many who remain defiant and they believe strongly that the UK's £124bn creative industry is under threat if the government doesn't actively engage with their demands
Owen Meredith, chief executive of the News Media Association which supported the Lords said the bill sent a "clear message" to the government "that Parliament, and the UK's 2.4 million creative workers, will fight tirelessly to ensure our world-renowned copyright law is enforced".
"We keep being told that AI will change everything, which, I'm afraid, means that we will discuss this during debates on every bill," said Baroness Dido Harding in the House of Lords, recorded in Hansard. "We will prevail in the end."
Peers demand more protection from AI for creatives
Government AI copyright plan suffers fourth House of Lords defeat
Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California finally passed CEQA reform. Will it stop housing roadblocks?
The titanic shift in California housing policy orchestrated by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday night, resulting in the rewriting of large parts of the California Environmental Quality Act, will allow him to spend the final 18 months in office trying to correct one of his biggest policy failures unencumbered by what he views as a key roadblock. Newsom and housing advocates have long blamed the CEQA environmental review process for the state's inability to keep up with growing housing demand. But with the legislation passed Monday those reviews have been severely curtailed. As pro-housing advocates celebrated one of their biggest victories in years and environmentalists decried the potential damage from the new laws, one question went largely unasked: Will they work? While CEQA lawsuits from environmental groups and neighbors across California — often a single neighbor — have protected open space, thwarted polluters and spared pristine coastlines from luxury resorts, Newsom and housing advocates believe they have also been weaponized to bog down and kill badly needed housing, and in doing so, have helped make housing more expensive and less accessible. But plenty of obstacles to home-building remain — including construction costs and interest rates — meaning it's unclear just how big of an impact the CEQA reforms will have and how quickly Californians will feel them. Proponents of the legislation saw some quick victories. After a five-year period in which the slow pandemic recovery and high costs clogged the pipeline of new projects, a much improved regulatory landscape awaits builders as soon as conditions improve. 'It will absolutely speed up project approvals in infill locations with no or low litigation risk under CEQA,' said land use attorney Jennifer Hernandez. 'And it will make the application cheaper for sure.' Labor unions will no longer be able to use CEQA lawsuits to extract better wages and other concessions from developers on individual projects, sometimes without any clear benefit to the environment, according to Oakland-based real estate attorney Robert Selna. 'The unions have gone astray in this regard — they use environmental law as leverage to extort contracts for their members, which has been a significant impediment to building housing,' Selna said. He pointed to a former client's project in San Lorenzo, which faced heavy opposition from organized labor after its developer declined to commit to exclusively using union labor. The project was never built. 'This is the first time I have seen a CEQA reform really have a chance to make a difference,' Selna said. Union representatives contacted by the Chronicle were reluctant to speak on the record. But the general sentiment was that not all were neutral about the provisions of the reform. In San Francisco the laws won't make a huge impact because the majority of infill housing developments already take advantage of state programs that exempt them from CEQA review. The problem in the city remains challenging market conditions. Nonetheless, Mark MacDonald of DM Development, one of the city's most prolific buildings over the last 12 years, said that the streamlining bills have been a game-changer, cutting at least a year off the approval process — and sometimes more. 'In San Francisco, best case you are looking at 18 months and worst case you are looking at years, or never,' he said. 'It's certain and it's fast and that is why S.F. has tens of thousands of units entitled. If market conditions were different we would be building a lot of housing now. That time will come.' The new laws were spearheaded by two Bay Area housing reform advocates, Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, and Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco. But by making the state budget contingent on the reforms' passage, Newsom employed all his political clout in what was for him an unusual foray into the legislative process. In a statement after he signed the measures, Newsom called them 'transformative' and 'the most consequential housing and infrastructure reform in recent state history.' Sam Oliker-Friedland, executive director of Institute of Responsive Government, agreed, calling the new laws 'one of the most important housing reforms in a generation.' But environmentalists, who said CEQA is not to blame for California's housing crisis, predicted that relaxing the law will provide a gaping loophole for developers willing to damage the environment in pursuit of a profit. Bradley Angel, of Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, said its reform comes 'under the false guise of promoting affordable housing' and weakens an 'incredibly important' tool for advocates to 'challenge bad decisions that pose a threat to public health.' 'Any weakening of CEQA will make it easier for dirty industries to pollute communities,' he said. Longtime environmental law and land use attorney Stu Flashman agreed. 'They are telling untruths and they are telling them on purpose. The fraud is: if we get rid of CEQA, we get much more affordable housing,' Flashman said. 'It's a minor factor in the cost of housing in California.' Flashman credits the law with preventing a Chiron biotech manufacturing plant from encroaching on a residential neighborhood in Emeryville in the 1980s. 'The city of Emeryville was going to approve it under a negative declaration,' said Flashman, referring to a determination under CEQA that a proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment. Flahsman, who lived two blocks away from the planned project, was part of a lawsuit against the city to thwart the massive development. A settlement between the parties required the city to conduct a full blown environmental impact analysis for the project. The plan ultimately unraveled. Flashman is as certain today as he was then that Emeryville was 'the winner of that fight.' 'There is still biotech going on in the city, but it's not manufacturing. It's much more contained. Part of the area (where the plant was planned) later on became Pixar Studios,' he said. 'Development still happened, jobs still came, but the risks of building a huge biotech plant weren't there, and other (growth) happened instead.' Flashman referred to the present attempt at reforming the law as 'horrifying,' The fact that CEQA legal process is 'complaint based' has long meant that the more urban the location, the more vulnerable a developer is to being challenged in court. That means that the 100-acre subdivision in an exurb often flies through the approval process while the 100-unit apartment building next to a rail station gets bogged down, and often killed, in appeals. 'If you don't have any neighbors, if you are building in a green field, a place that is by definition the least sustainable, then you are going to have an easier time with CEQA than if you build in a place where people already live,' said Sonya Trauss, who founded the YIMBY movement in 2015 and is the executive director of the group YIMBY Law. As the housing crisis has tightened its grip on the state, pressure to make building housing easier has ratcheted up. Still, instead of major reforms, lawmakers over the last few years took a piecemeal approach — carving out so many projects for exemptions that critics have called it 'Swiss cheese CEQA.' But the bills Newsom signed Monday grant broad exemptions to CEQA for homes and other buildings in already developed areas. The list of projects that are now exempt includes mostly categories that would hardly be seen as environmental scofflaws: childcare centers, food banks, farmworker housing, health clinics, advanced manufacturing sites, and infill housing complexes less than 85 feet. And the list of exemptions is not exactly random. From a food bank in Alameda to a plan to add 34 bike lanes in San Francisco to farmworker housing in downtown Half Moon Bay, the list includes types of projects that have been targeted by opponents using CEQA. As he was failing to meet his goals for building new housing, Newsom tried, among other things, forcing cities to rezone for bigger buildings and denser neighborhoods and punishing towns that blocked development. But those steps didn't work, leading to Monday's drastic actions. Trauss attributed CEQA reform passing with such a lopsided vote to the fact that so little housing is being built at the moment. She compared it to the years after the Great Recession when San Francisco lowered affordability requirements with the support of groups normally on the opposite sides of the political spectrum. 'This is a similar moment,' she said. 'People are surprised that politics lined up to facilitate homebuilding without doing all these exactions for labor or affordability. It makes sense. We are not seeing applications, stuff is not being built. When things dry up that much everybody starts to realize what an emergency it is and they are more open to solving the problem.' Trauss said the CEQA reforms 'really zero in on where the action is.' 'It's definitely the new environmentalism,' she said. Melissa Romero, policy advocacy director for California Environmental voters, disagrees, predicting that public health and community safety will suffer under the new laws. 'The quiet but dangerous rollback of California's core health and safety protections paves the way for industrial projects to move forward without proper review and creates a long list of exemptions from endangered species habitat protection,' Romero said.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Corona's owner says beer sales have slowed because one major customer group isn't buying beer like it used to
Corona's parent company said its sales have fallen, in part because Hispanic customers aren't buying as much beer. New York-based Constellation Brands posted its first quarter earnings on Tuesday, reporting $2.23 billion in beer sales in the quarter — a 2% decline from the year before. The company said its top sales states, particularly "zip codes with larger Hispanic populations," saw subdued spending. Hispanic customers make up about 50% of the company's beer consumer base, Constellation Brands' CEO, Bill Newlands, said in April's earnings call. Newlands and the company's CFO said in a joint commentary on Tuesday that the company had surveyed a group of its customers, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic. The execs wrote that survey results showed "over 80% of the surveyed Hispanic and non-Hispanic consumers expressed concerns about the socioeconomic environment in the U.S." The survey results also showed that customers were reducing their group gatherings, both in public and at home, and avoiding shopping at convenience stores and gas stations. Newlands said in the earlier April earnings call that over half of their Hispanic customers were concerned about immigration changes. Since the start of President Donald Trump's second term in January, he has cracked down on illegal immigration. In his campaign rally last November, he promised to carry out the "largest deportation program" in American history. Business owners in neighborhoods with large immigrant populations previously told BI that they saw lower footfall because customers feared Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Constellation Brands, which also owns the beer brand Modelo and the wine brand Kim Crawford, saw an overall 6% decline in sales in the latest quarter compared to the year before, with a total revenue of $2.52 billion. The company's wines and spirits category performed worse than its beer category, with a 28% decrease in net sales in the quarter.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump-approved portrait hangs in Colorado Capitol after ‘purposefully distorted' version was replaced
A self-approved portrait of President Trump now hangs in the Colorado Capitol – replacing an earlier version he ripped as 'purposefully distorted' and 'truly the worst.' The new portrait, created by Arizona-based Christian worship artist Vanessa Horabuena, is displayed in the third-floor rotunda of the Denver building's wall of past presidents, occupying the same spot where Sarah Boardman's original painting had hung since 2019. The latest display, donated by the White House, mirrors Trump's intense official presidential photo, depicting him leaning slightly forward with a furrowed brow and a steely gaze. 4 Trump's new portrait, created by Arizona-based Christian worship artist Vanessa Horabuena. AP 'Thank you to the Highly Talented Artist, Vanessa Horabuena, and the incredible people of Colorado,' the commander in chief posted on Truth Social Tuesday. 'Now on display at the Colorado State Capitol!' The previous portrait, featuring a much younger version of Trump, was removed from the famed wall back in March after the president randomly took to social media to criticize it – despite its six-year run on display. The original painting was commissioned after former Colorado Senate President Kevin Grantham, a Republican, raised more than $10,000 through a GoFundMe account during Trump's first term. 4 Trump's original portrait was removed after he lambasted the painting in March. Denver Post via Getty Images 'Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol, put up by the Governor, along with all other Presidents, was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before,' Trump raged in March. 'The artist also did President Obama, and he looks wonderful, but the one of me is truly the worst. She must have lost her talent as she got older.' 4 Portraits of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump displayed at the Colorado State Capitol. Denver Post via Getty Images The Colorado Building Advisory Committee, not the governor, oversees the portraits. Boardman, who received backlash following the president's scathing comments, previously told The Denver Post that it was important for her portraits of both Trump and Obama to appear 'apolitical.' 4 Wall of presidential portraits in the Colorado State Capitol featuring Trump's latest creation. AP Colorado Democrats, who are in charge of the legislature, eventually agreed to take the painting down at the request of local Republican leaders. Lois Court, a former state lawmaker who chairs the Capitol Building Advisory Committee, said she received the Trump-endorsed portrait over a month ago and decided on Thursday to hang it this week. 'There was a blank on the wall,' she said. 'It seemed inappropriate. We knew that the White House had sent us this replacement and it simply made sense to put it up.' With Post wires
