WIREDGOV

Whilst we are not in agreement with the recommendations advanced by the Committee in yesterday’s report, techUK remains keen to work constructively with Government and the creative industries to develop a copyright framework that ensures the UK can effectively compete when it comes to AI moving forward.  More clarity around how to incentivise text and data mining (TDM) would help ensure that the UK can better provide business clarity and attract investment for AI development, deployment, and fine-tuning. 

Overview 

On 6 March 2026, the Lords Communications and Digital Committee published the outcome of their inquiry into AI and copyright.  

The report discourages the Government from introducing a new TDM exception with an opt-out mechanism, advocates for statutory transparency requirements for on AI training data, and urges the Government to act against unauthorised digital replicas “in the style of” of creators’ work.  

At the same time, the UK risks drifting further behind other major AI economies. Countries including the United States, Japan, Singapore and the European Union have already moved faster to provide legal clarity around text and data mining, creating more predictable environments for AI development and investment. Meanwhile the UK has remained in limbo while decisions on how copyright reform could help the UK be an AI maker have been delayed. 

techUK strongly believes that the growth and development of the UK’s AI industry is reliant on a stable copyright regime that allows access to training data through a TDM exception.  

We do agree with the Committee’s view that the emerging market for licensing content for AI use should be allowed to continue to develop, rather than relying on a single marketplace initiative. 

techUK View 

The UK now faces a clear strategic choice about the role it wants to play in the global AI economy. A copyright regime that is significantly more restrictive than those in other major AI economies will only further cement that AI development is more likely to happen elsewhere.  

Despite the Committee’s hesitancy to consider international examples, techUK Deputy CEO, Antony Walker, raised the need to understand the UK’s copyright position in a global context in his oral evidence.  

International context matters and the UK currently risks losing its position as a world leader in both technology and the creative economy. The UK is currently falling behind countries like the US, Japan, Singapore, and others who have clearer copyright frameworks that attract AI training and finetuning. These frameworks recognise a simple reality – AI development is global and companies are more likely to build and train AI solutions where there are clearer, more predictable rules. 

Moreover, the Government risks jeopardising current and future data infrastructure investment in the UK. Our members have warned that without reform, the UK also risks becoming primarily a deployment market for models trained elsewhere rather than a place where AI is built. The economic implications are significant. Training activity drives sustained demand for compute and data infrastructure. If training takes place overseas, the UK risks suppressing domestic demand for frontier compute and structurally limiting the growth of its AI infrastructure ecosystem.  

The UK should be aiming to create an environment where both the creative industries and AI developers can succeed. Restricting AI training in the UK will not prevent AI systems being trained on globally available data. It will simply ensure that the jobs, investment and economic benefits associated with that development take place elsewhere. 

A clear, workable framework anchored around a TDM exception would keep AI development in the UK while allowing the market for licensing and creator compensation to evolve. 

The question facing policymakers is therefore not whether AI development will continue. It is whether the UK chooses to be an AI maker or an AI taker. 

techUK’s Deputy CEO, Antony Walker, responded to the report saying: 

The UK needs a way forward on AI copyright that works for the whole of the UK economy. But to do that we have to recognise that the US, Japan, Singapore and even the EU have much more enabling environments for AI development and deployment. The Committee was explicit that it didn't want to hear about international approaches when we gave evidence, and that central flaw is apparent in the conclusions. 

This report is based on the misconception that the UK’s copyright regime can exist in splendid isolation from the rest of the world. In fact, these recommendations are a recipe for ensuring that the UK is an AI taker rather than an AI maker. The most likely scenario based on these recommendations is that AI models continue to be largely trained in the US and that the ultimate legal framework of AI copyright is determined by the US courts. 

We believe we need a better approach that works for both the UK’s creative and technology sectors if we want the UK to play a leading role in defining the global AI future.