Bridging the Divide: Understanding the Issues between Technology and Creativity

by Vicki Willden-Lebrecht

As AI continues to develop at a rapid pace, a fundamental issue remains: authors’ and illustrators’ intellectual property has been used without their consent to train AI models. Creators’ work has been exploited, with no compensation or consultation, effectively disregarding their copyright and undermining their rights.

Until this issue is resolved, AI will remain a controversial subject for creatives. Shockingly, in newly disclosed court papers it transpires that Meta has already scraped a huge amount of authors’ work via a pirate website to train its AI models. Internal documents revealed that the company was fully aware that the works were pirated.

In a landmark decision made in early February 2025, a federal judge in Delaware has ruled against Ross Intelligence, an AI-powered legal research platform, in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Thomson Reuters. The judge determined that Ross Intelligence violated copyright law by using Thomson Reuters’ proprietary content to develop its competing AI platform. This ruling marks the first of its kind in the United States, setting a precedent for how copyright law applies to the burgeoning field of AI and raising important questions about fair use in the context of machine learning.

In a time when global and economic challenges prevail, the government is keen to support big companies and tech firms that could offer solutions. The latest Labour government proposals, though alarming, were perhaps an easy choice to make by a government that does not fully grasp the importance of the arts within society.

Illustration by Risa Kusumoto

Tech companies are pushing for access to copyrighted artwork to train their AI models; they want images that are free to use so they can improve their models and create images for commercial use, which they can fully own. To achieve this, they are trying to secure copyright protection for the art already used in their models. They are pressuring governments to change copyright laws to allow the use of artists’ works for AI training. Additionally, they are encouraging the government to revise these laws and persuading artists or copyright holders to participate by sharing their existing artwork. In return, they offer a share of the profits from the AI-generated images sold.

With the government proposing changes to copyright, this leaves artists and a society that values creativity facing a grave crisis. Many have not been compensated for the works that were used without permission to train earlier AI models. If clients are allowed to copyright AI-generated artwork for commercial use, it could severely undermine the opportunities and livelihoods of traditional artists, as clients may increasingly rely on AI to fulfill their design needs. It’s comforting for artists to know that companies that have utilised AI in their projects have experienced considerable backlash, which is evident in controversies surrounding campaigns such as the recent Coca-Cola advert. But for how long?

As a society, we must prioritise the preservation of human creativity, ensuring that the rise of AI does not overshadow or replace it. While there are many areas where governments could consider relaxing regulations, such as in trademarked scientific knowledge for the sake of environmental preservation, dismantling copyright protections that safeguard an individual’s right to their own creations is taking away rather than making better. Who wants to live in a world where robots make the art?

Illustration by Nia Gould

Currently there is no ‘uncertainty’ in the UK text and data mining regime: it is clear that UK copyright law does not allow text and data mining for commercial purposes without a licence. The only uncertainty is around who has been using the artists’ and creatives’ work as training material without permission so far, how they obtained it, and the vital need for transparency. Under the government’s proposed opt-out system, the assumption will be that going forward any work can be used to train AI models unless the creator opts out.

The UK Labour government is demonstrating a concerning lack of understanding and experience in the creative arts by proposing a change to copyright law that only exacerbates the challenges faced by creators. This poorly conceived plan suggests that all artwork will be considered available and free of copyright unless the creator chooses to opt out. As a result, any artwork ‘orphaned’ could be used to train AI models unless the artist takes the initiative to protect their work. This proposal is harmful to creators, as it shifts the burden on to them to actively defend their artwork and pursue legal action in cases of infringement, ultimately undermining the balance of power.

The implementation of this new plan is still ambiguous. The current copyright laws are simple, under our existing regulations, artists automatically receive protection for their work, and the creator retains copyright as soon as the work is produced. This legal framework ensures that creatives have their intellectual property safeguarded against unauthorised exploitation and guarantees they receive fair compensation. Labour’s proposal offers little reassurance to creatives, and it also fails to address the work that has already been used to train AI models up to this point. Without transparency from AI companies of the work already used to train these early models, artists have not been able to prevent their work, often taken from the internet and social media, from being used.

Several legal cases have emerged in recent years as image creators and artists challenge the use of AI models for generating images. An example is the Getty Images vs. Stability AI: Getty Images filed a lawsuit against Stability AI for allegedly using its copyrighted images to train its AI algorithms without permission. They argue that this constitutes copyright infringement and violates licensing agreements.

These cases reflect ongoing debates around the balance between innovation and protecting creators’ rights. The outcomes of these cases could significantly shape the future of AI and copyright law. Proceedings are ongoing. It is understood that the first trial to determine liability is listed to commence on 9 June 2025.

One comfort for artists is AI-generated images currently, on the whole, look pretty bad, and are too clumsy and unreliable for commercial use. For these models to improve, more scraped data needs to be inputted. For example, if you want AI to better understand how to draw hands, you need to feed it more hand samples. Tech companies want to keep using existing creatives’ works to continue scraping artwork to improve their AI’s capabilities, framing it as a way to harness ‘everyone’s rights’. They seem to believe that they have the right to use publicly available creative content without necessarily consulting or compensating its creators.

Illustration by Ronan Lynam

In my view, the inherent differences in human character and composition lead to diverse professional paths that shape our values and interests. Each profession attracts individuals who appreciate specific aspects of their work. I don’t believe that those in the tech industry are the ‘villains’; rather, I see them as individuals striving to create a more efficient world. However, it often seems that they do not fully appreciate the value of creative expression found in the arts and therefore don’t prioritise or respect it. And as creatives we need to stand up to protect the arts.

Artists frequently resist the technological advancements that could enhance their work, as their primary focus lies in the act of creation itself. This disconnect results in a cultural standoff, where neither side understands the other’s perspective.

We need to find a balance between embracing AI technologies for its benefits and ensuring creators are respected and compensated for their intellectual property that was used without their consent to train these models. There must be a clear distinction between work that is solely AI-generated and work that has been created with AI as a tool, but with human intervention. This is crucial in preserving artist integrity.

It’s disheartening to witness this situation unfold, especially because it’s the creatives who should be at the forefront of exploring and ethically leveraging the benefits of AI. The enthusiasm with which tech companies have showcased their innovations has understandably left the creative community feeling alarmed and reluctant, reducing their curiosity about the potential applications of AI in their work.

My advice is every artist needs to write to their MP, everyone needs to be loud.

“The voices of authors, artists, musicians and academics are important and we have heard anecdotally that the AI companies do not welcome the bad press that can be created by public figures speaking up. So we encourage authors, agents and publishers to keep on talking about it.” - Claire Wilson, The Bookseller: ‘Nibbies Literary Agent of the Year Claire Wilson on the state of the UK children’s market’

Commercial buyers hold significant power to influence the market, often opting not to purchase AI-generated products, similar to how we avoid harmful plastics and cigarettes. Companies must be transparent and candid about their use of AI in their products. Honesty in this regard not only fosters trust with consumers but also encourages ethical practices in the industry.

I am calling for fair compensation for artists for the data that has already been scraped and used, often without permission, to train the first generation of AI models for image and text generation. For the government to address how AI models will continue to access more artwork to improve their capabilities, especially in areas such as replicating distinctive artistic styles. For copyright and ownership laws to evolve and address the ownership of these machine-created pieces acknowledging a fundamental principle that ownership cannot be claimed over works produced using stolen or unlawfully sourced content. For there to be a distinction between AI assisted and AI generated and for companies to have to declare if they are using AI generated work.

Lastly, I am calling to preserve human creativity. We need to ensure that the rise of AI does not diminish or replace human creativity. History should not look back in regret as technology eclipsed our artistic expression.

Click here to write to your MP - it’s the most powerful thing you can do.

You can lend your support to the campaign by contacting the CRA here.

—

Want to discuss this further? Contact Vicki at vwl@thebrightagency.com