Latest news with #creativeIndustries
Telegraph
18-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
No visa, no work: Why celebrities are suddenly terrified of Trump
Earlier this year I interviewed a well-known British pop star who made some vaguely disparaging comments about the US president. Nothing particularly odd about that – liberal-leaning artists (i.e. most of them) have always tended to speak their minds. But no sooner had this person's comments filtered up the chain of command – from their publicist to their manager – than a message came back. 'Probably better it's not in the article,' said the manager, who has a decades-long reputation for not giving a fig about upsetting anyone. I obliged, largely because I found the comments tasteless and tangential to the matter in hand. Yet the incident was telling: people in the creative industries are desperate not to upset the Trump administration for fear that they'll be denied a visa, and therefore entry, into the potentially lucrative country. And musicians, actors and writers – and their teams – are taking pre-emptive action. My pop star's manager is not the only one. Last month Squid Game creator Hwang Dong-hyuk – a man who in the past has appeared to criticise Trump with little prompting – was asked in a Telegraph interview about parallels between the president and one of the characters in his grizzly South Korean drama. 'I have to visit the United States quite often and you know how they are getting trickier issuing their visas… So why don't we return to this subject after [Trump] has left office?' Hwang said. Other big names are equally aware of the situation. In March, the Liverpool-born Harry Potter and White Lotus actor Jason Isaacs said that although he has a US work visa, he was unsure whether his 'clear dislike' for the president would affect his ability to work there. In general, the chorus of disapproval that stars voiced during Trump's first term has fallen noticeably silent. The issue of US visas and the arts re-entered the news today when Liam O'Hanna, a rapper who goes by the stage name Mo Chara in controversial Belfast hip-hop group Kneecap, appeared at Westminster magistrates' court on a terror charge after allegedly displaying a flag in support of proscribed organisation Hezbollah at a London gig last year. Kneecap are due to play a sold out US tour in October. O'Hanna, who has denied the charge, was released on unconditional bail until a further appearance in August. Legally, Kneecap can still go the US. But will they be allowed in? Kneecap aside (and we'll come back to them), music promotors say working visas are already hard to get.'Visas for America are a major issue. Getting them has definitely got worse, and more expensive,' one high-profile tour promoter tells me. 'They're just making it really difficult.' US immigration officials and officers are known to search publicly available information about potential visitors, including their social media and online profiles. These searches can take place either when a visa is being applied for or at an airport on arrival. Electronic devices can be confiscated and searched. An author friend tells me that he's been advised buy to a new laptop rather than risk any contentious manuscripts being found on his old one. Border control agency the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is principally looking for information regarding a person's planned activities in the US, according to Tamizdat, a Brooklyn-based organisation that helps international artists navigate US visa policies and is a huge advocate of cross-border cultural mobility. 'But if an officer discovers politically sensitive statements in your devices, it is reasonable to assume this will not improve your chances of being admitted to the US,' Tamizdat says on its website. Earlier this year, three members of punk rock band UK Subs said that they were denied entry and detained on arrival in Los Angeles. Bassist Alvin Gibbs took to Facebook in March to explain that he was questioned at length at LAX after being 'flagged' by the computer system, firstly because he had an 'incorrect visa' and for a second reason he claimed agents wouldn't disclose to him. 'I can't help but wonder whether my frequent, and less than flattering, public comments regarding their president and his administration played a role – or perhaps I'm simply succumbing to paranoia,' Gibbs wrote. But paranoia may be what's at play here after all. Matthew Covey co-launched Tamizdat and founded law firm CoveyLaw, which last year helped arrange US visas for nearly 1,000 UK artists. Covey says that 'no artist has been denied a visa, detained or deported [under Trump] who would not have been subject to the same process under [former US president] Biden. We have certainly seen denials and we've seen people being turned around at the border, but every one of those follows a well-established fact pattern.' Artists, to date, have not been banned due to their political opinions, the content of their art or their public statements, he reiterates. 'They don't want to be Springsteened' What has changed among the arts community, Covey says, is a creeping 'fear' about what could happen, given what's happened to academics and students. Earlier in June, an Australian writer and former Columbia University student called Alistair Kitchen was denied entry into the US and sent home due – he claimed – to his writings on the pro-Palestine student protests at Columbia. The CBP denied this, saying Kitchen had 'provided false information on his ESTA [visa waiver] application'. But creatives are concerned. They don't want to be Springsteened, to coin a phrase. US citizen Bruce Springsteen has been excoriating about Trump on his current European tour, calling the administration 'corrupt, incompetent and treasonous'. Trump, in return, took to his Truth Social platform to call The Boss 'highly overrated' and 'a pushy, obnoxious JERK'. Neil Young is another case in point. The US-Canadian dual citizen, who will headline Glastonbury next week, is a long-term Trump critic. In April the 79-year-old rocker openly wondered whether he'll be barred from US when he returns from his European tour in August. 'I may be one of those returning to America who is barred or put in jail to sleep on a cement floor with an aluminium blanket. That is happening all the time now,' Young wrote. You can see why some worried Britons are self-censuring. On top of this, the cost of visas has risen. The cost to a hypothetical British actor obtaining a work visa for a stint on Broadway, including legal fees, has risen from 'under $3,000' three years ago to 'at least $5-6,000' now, Covey says. This latter fee includes 'fast-tracking', which is all-but essential these days. Add into this the rising cost of living once in the US, and an artist has to be sure that the juice is worth the squeeze. 'I haven't heard of anyone giving up yet,' says the music promoter. 'But I imagine if you're fee isn't that great you'll give up. I think the fees have to be solid enough to make it worth your while to employ the correct visa people to do the work.' Cost, red tape and paranoia Covey argues that it is the cumulative impact of cost, red tape and paranoia about potential rejection due to political views that is worrying artists. 'The barriers of entry to the US market were already so high – in terms of cost and administrative lift – that for years many artists have been questioning whether the US is worth the effort. I think that adding fear into the mix is the straw that breaks the camel's back, for many artists,' he says. (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, was approached for comment.) But the reasonably benign situation could change 'in a heartbeat', says Covey. And that heartbeat might have occurred on Wednesday in the broiling heat of Westminster magistrates' court in central London when Kneecap's O'Hanna appeared. Even if O'Hanna is eventually found guilty, he could, technically, still legally travel to America to perform. This is because while section 2.12(a) of the US's Immigration and Nationality Act can deem anyone with a criminal history ineligible for entry, there is a waiver for this. Meaning the tour could still happen. 🚨🚨North American Tour🚨🚨 We're off to Canada and the US in October for our Smashing Walls Tour! Tickets: — KNEECAP (@KNEECAPCEOL) April 18, 2023 At the time of writing, there is no suggestion that Kneecap's 21-date US tour in October will not going ahead. However, a music industry source is doubtful. 'Realistically, Kneecap would have a major issue with any American tour now. I imagine they're working under the assumption they're going to get turned away,' the source says. (Kneecap was approached for comment.) There's also a time issue. Visas take months to arrange. Their cause may not be helped by a poster for an earlier 2023 US tour which showed a cartoon of the trio holding a makeshift bomb that bore a distinct resemblance to Donald Trump's head. Meanwhile, the UK music industry says that it fully backs creative expression. 'Freedom of creative expression is one of the cornerstones of music. Singers and songwriters throughout history have never been afraid to use their voice to protest and bring about positive change,' Tom Kiehl, the chief executive of UK Music, which represents the industry, tells me.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI
Campaigners have accused ministers of lying to parliament and the creative industries after the government signalled it would not force AI companies to disclose how they train their models. Ministers are holding firm in a standoff with the House of Lords, which has called for artists to be offered immediate copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to the data bill that would force AI firms to be transparent about what copyrighted material they use to train their models. In an amendment tabled on Friday, the government dismissed the Lords' request and reiterated 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 has campaigned on behalf of the industry, said during Wednesday's debate that she would 'accept anything that the Commons does' after this week. 'I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case,' she said. But the News Media Association (NMA), which represents publishers including the Guardian, said peers could table further amendments to the data bill when it returns to the Lords next Wednesday. Industry figures said the government was acting in bad faith by not addressing the Lords' concerns and called for it to make further amendments of its own before MPs vote on it on Tuesday. Kidron said: 'The government has repeatedly taken all protections for UK copyrights holders out of the data bill. In doing so they have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK's second-biggest industrial sector. They have lied to parliament, and they are lying to the sector.' She said the government's action 'adds another sector to the growing number that have an unbridgeable gap of trust with the government'. Owen Meredith, the chief executive of the NMA, said: 'The government's refusal to listen to the strong view of the Lords … risks undermining the legislative process. 'There is still time for the government to do the right thing, and take transparency powers in this bill. This would be a key step towards rebuilding trust with a £126bn industry.' The government's approach to copyright has drawn the ire of major creative artists and organisations including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush and the National Theatre, with Elton John describing the situation as an 'existential issue' this week. Opponents of the plans have warned that even if the attempts to insert clauses into the data bill fail, the government could be challenged in the courts over the proposed changes. The consultation on copyright changes, which is due to produce its findings before the end of the year, contains four options: to let AI companies use copyrighted work without permission, alongside an option for artists to 'opt out' of the process; to leave the situation unchanged; to require AI companies to seek licences for using copyrighted work; and to allow AI firms to use copyrighted work with no opt-out for creative companies and individuals. The technology secretary, Peter Kyle, has said the copyright-waiver-plus-opt-out scenario is no longer the government's preferred option, but Kidron's amendments have attempted to head off that option by effectively requiring tech companies to seek licensing deals for any content that they use to train their AI models.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Peers vote to defy government over copyright threat from AI
Defiant peers have delivered an ultimatum to the government – calling on it to offer artists copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies or risk losing a key piece of legislation. The government suffered a fifth defeat in the House of Lords over controversial plans to allow the AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to force AI companies to be transparent about what material they use to train their models. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning Elton John Speaking at an awards event after the vote, Elton John said copyright protection was an 'existential issue' for artists and urged the government 'to do the right thing'. He added: 'We will not let the government forget their promise to support our creative industries. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning.' Wednesday night's vote prolongs a lengthy standoff between the Commons and Lords over the data bill, which has been used as a vehicle by campaigners to oppose the government's proposed copyright reforms. Resistance to the changes in the Lords has been led by Beeban Kidron, a cross-bench peer and film director, whose amendments have been repeatedly backed by the upper chamber. The data bill now faces the prospect of being shelved unless the Commons accepts the Kidron amendment or proposes an alternative. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, had urged peers to vote against the Kidron amendment after the government offered last-minute concessions in an attempt to stave off another defeat. Before the vote, Jones said peers were 'choosing whether they want the entire bill to fall' and that by voting for Kidron's amendment they would 'countenance the unprecedented – to try to collapse a bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law' but included other important measures including to combat sexually explicit deepfake images. Kidron told peers: 'This is our last chance to ask the government to provide a meaningful solution' and urged ministers to set out concrete steps to subject AI companies to copyright rules. 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the house widespread theft. 'We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Several peers pushed back against the suggestion that the Lords' move was unprecedented and said the government was itself breaking precedent by not compromising. Tim Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the digital economy, offered his party's 'staunch support' for Kidron's amendment. The Lords' move puts the data bill in double insistence territory. This means the Commons and Lords cannot reach agreement over legislation. In this scenario, under parliamentary convention, the bill would fall unless ministers accept the rebel amendment or offer an alternative. A bill falling is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European parliamentary elections bill in the 1997-98 session. Under parliamentary convention, the Commons has primacy as the elected house, and in rare instances where the Lords refuses to back down ministers can resort to the Parliament Act to pass the bill in the next parliamentary session. This would significantly delay the legislation. In concessions offered to peers on Tuesday night, the government said it would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' Jones said in her letter, reiterating that ministers regretted the way the Lords rebels had gone about the changes. Jones stressed that the data bill was expected to generate £10bn of economic benefit by updating data protection law and that it would improve online safety, including by strengthening powers to ask social media companies to preserve data after the death of a child. Kidron said: 'It is in the gift of the government to accept the amendment, or put something meaningful in its place. They have failed to listen to the Lords, they have failed to listen to the creative sector, they have failed to listen to their own backbenchers.' Under the government's proposals, AI companies would be allowed to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner opts out. The plans have been fiercely criticised by creators and publishers including high-profile artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has said he regretted the decision to launch a consultation on changing copyright law with the opt-out system as the 'preferred option'. Campaigners against the changes believe that there is resistance inside Downing Street to making more substantial concessions.
Daily Mail
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer suffers THIRD defeat in fight with the House of Lords (and Elton John) over AI copyright protections for artists
Sir Keir Starmer 's government last night suffered yet another defeat over copyright protection from artificial intelligence for the creative industries as peers backed by Sir Elton John showed no sign of backing down. For the third time the House of Lords tried to toughen up a law to prevent tech firms using copyrighted work without permission, after efforts by ministers to block them. The row centres on firms using copyrighted material like song lyrics and books to train their AI systems, without paying those who produced the works. Sir Elton at the weekend branded the Labour government 'losers' for blocking efforts to improve protection. Peers supported by 287 votes to 118, majority 169, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, that adds a commitment to introduce transparency requirements, aiming to ensure copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by who. Peers backed independent crossbencher Baroness Beeban Kidron's transparency amendments at report stage of the Bill, which were later voted down by MPs. The unelected house supported her again during the first round of so-called ping-pong and now again in the second round of ping-pong, with the majority increasing each time. Among the 287 to vote in favour of her amendment on Monday were 18 Labour peers, including former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, now known as Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. The Government has said it will address copyright issues as a whole after the more than 11,500 responses to its consultation on the impact of AI have been reviewed, rather than in what it has branded 'piecemeal' legislation. Lady Kidron, who directed the second film in the Bridget Jones series, rounded on the Government, accusing them of being 'turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley'. She said: 'The Government have got it wrong. They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley, who have stolen – and continue to steal every day we take no action – the UK's extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output. 'Silicon Valley have persuaded the Government that it is easier for them to redefine theft than make them pay for what they stole. 'If the Government continues on its current intransigent path, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry, fundamental to country and democracy. It will be a tragedy and it's entirely avoidable.' The online safety campaigner explained that her new amendment accepts that the Government's consultation and report will be the mechanism by which transparency measures will be introduced, and gives the Government free rein on enforcement procedures. However, it does require the Government to ensure clear, relevant and accessible information be provided to copyright holders so they can identify the use of their copyrighted work, and that legislation to be brought forward within six months of the Government's report being published, 18 months from the Bill's passing. Lady Kidron told peers: 'If the Government is not willing to accept a time-limited outcome of its own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling widespread theft of UK copyright into the long grass. 'Because failing to accept a timeline in the real world means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive.' She insisted that UK copyright law as it stands is unenforceable, because 'what you can't see you can't enforce', and that without her amendment it will be years before the issue is legislated on, by which time the creative industry will be 'in tatters'. Former BBC children's TV presenter and Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Floella Benjamin backed the amendment, saying it would 'secure our children's future and not sell them down the river', assuring them that 'their creativity will not be stolen'. In a nod to Sir Elton's comments on the issue, former Labour deputy leader and UK Music chairman Lord Watson said: 'It's a little bit funny this feeling inside that I rise to support Baroness Kidron's amendment today, an amendment that my front bench so clearly opposes. 'But my lords, I'm still standing. I'm still standing because I do not yet believe that ministers have heard the clarion cry from our country's creators that they need more from this Bill.' Also backing the amendment was former EastEnders actor and Labour peer Lord Michael Cashman, who recalled character actress Claire Davenport cherishing the royalty cheques she would receive by rubbing them on her 'ample bosom' and saying: 'Now, I can eat'. Responding, technology minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch insisted that transparency 'cannot be considered in isolation' and that the issue of copyright is 'too important a topic to rush'. She said: 'Alongside transparency, we must also consider licensing, the remuneration of rights holders, and the role of technical solutions and any other number of issues relating to copyright and AI. This is why we consulted on all of these topics. 'We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted by the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright, the creative sector and AI development. We cannot ring-fence the UK away from the rest of the world.' She added: 'This is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others.' The minister told peers: 'We are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI. 'This isn't about Silicon Valley, it's about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors. We have to find a solution that protects both sectors.' Earlier, peers ended their stand-off on two other amendments, one designed to require public authorities to record sex data based on biological sex, and another to change the definition of scientific research, which critics argued gave AI companies a 'powerful exemption' to reuse data without consent.
The Independent
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Government suffers third defeat over copyright protection against AI
The Government suffered a resounding defeat in the House of Lords for the third time over copyright protection for creative industries against artificial intelligence (AI). Peers voted 287 to 118, majority 169, to amend the Data (Use and Access) Bill, echoing concerns raised by prominent artists like Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney about AI companies using copyrighted material without consent. The amendment mandates transparency requirements, ensuring copyright holders can identify when and by whom their work is utilised. Peers backed independent crossbencher Baroness Beeban Kidron's transparency amendments at report stage of the Bill, which were later voted down by MPs. The unelected house supported her again during the first round of so-called ping-pong and now again in the second round of ping-pong, with the majority increasing each time. Among the 287 to vote in favour of her amendment on Monday were 18 Labour peers, including former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, now known as Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. The Government has said it will address copyright issues as a whole after the more than 11,500 responses to its consultation on the impact of AI have been reviewed, rather than in what it has branded 'piecemeal' legislation. Lady Kidron, who directed the second film in the Bridget Jones series, rounded on the Government, accusing them of being 'turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley'. She said: 'The Government have got it wrong. They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley, who have stolen – and continue to steal every day we take no action – the UK's extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output. 'Silicon Valley have persuaded the Government that it is easier for them to redefine theft than make them pay for what they stole. 'If the Government continues on its current intransigent path, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry, fundamental to country and democracy. It will be a tragedy and it's entirely avoidable.' The online safety campaigner explained that her new amendment accepts that the Government's consultation and report will be the mechanism by which transparency measures will be introduced, and gives the Government free rein on enforcement procedures. However, it does require the Government to ensure clear, relevant and accessible information is provided to copyright holders so they can identify the use of their copyrighted work, and that legislation is to be brought forward within six months of the Government's report being published, 18 months from the Bill's passing. Lady Kidron told peers: 'If the Government is not willing to accept a time-limited outcome of its own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling widespread theft of UK copyright into the long grass. 'Because failing to accept a timeline in the real world means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive.' She insisted that UK copyright law as it stands is unenforceable, because 'what you can't see you can't enforce', and that without her amendment it will be years before the issue is legislated on, by which time the creative industry will be 'in tatters'. Former BBC children's TV presenter and Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Floella Benjamin backed the amendment, saying it would 'secure our children's future and not sell them down the river', assuring them that 'their creativity will not be stolen'. In a nod to Sir Elton's comments on the issue, former Labour deputy leader and UK Music chairman Lord Watson said: 'It's a little bit funny this feeling inside that I rise to support Baroness Kidron's amendment today, an amendment that my front bench so clearly opposes. 'But my lords, I'm still standing. I'm still standing because I do not yet believe that ministers have heard the clarion cry from our country's creators that they need more from this Bill.' Also backing the amendment was former EastEnders actor and Labour peer Lord Michael Cashman, who recalled character actress Claire Davenport cherishing the royalty cheques she would receive by rubbing them on her 'ample bosom' and saying: 'Now, I can eat'. Responding, technology minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch insisted that transparency 'cannot be considered in isolation' and that the issue of copyright is 'too important a topic to rush'. She said: 'Alongside transparency, we must also consider licensing, the remuneration of rights holders, and the role of technical solutions and any other number of issues relating to copyright and AI. This is why we consulted on all of these topics. 'We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted by the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright, the creative sector and AI development. We cannot ring-fence the UK away from the rest of the world.' 'This is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others.' The minister told peers: 'We are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI. 'This isn't about Silicon Valley, it's about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors. We have to find a solution that protects both sectors.' Earlier, peers ended their stand-off on two other amendments, one designed to require public authorities to record sex data based on biological sex, and another to change the definition of scientific research, which critics argued gave AI companies a 'powerful exemption' to reuse data without consent.
