<\/p>\n
UK Music’s chief executive Tom Kiehl calls for a shift towards robust licensing and transparency measures to protect creators’ rights amid government consultations on AI copyright frameworks.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Tom Kiehl, chief executive of UK Music, has welcomed the findings set out in the UK Government\u2019s Copyright and AI Statement of Progress, saying the consultation vindicates the position taken by the creative sector on how artificial intelligence should interact with copyright-protected works. According to the original report, only 3% of some 11,500 respondents backed the government\u2019s preferred text and data mining (TDM) exception, while 95% supported licensing of training data through stronger or retained copyright protections , a result UK Music says requires the Government to abandon what it describes as an \u201canti-creator, anti-business\u201d proposal. [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Kiehl called on ministers to shift from the TDM proposal to a licensing-centred approach and to establish a \u201crobust regulatory framework for AI firms\u2019 interaction with copyright protected works, requiring transparency, labelling and a requirement for AI companies to comply with UK copyright laws regardless of where models are trained, in return for UK market access.\u201d The company\u2019s statement framed those measures as necessary to back British music and the wider creative industries. [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The response builds on sustained warnings from UK Music that unfettered use of artists\u2019 work for AI training risks serious harm to creators and the sector\u2019s economic ecosystem. Earlier in 2025 Kiehl described plans that would permit tech firms to train models on music without consent as \u201ccatastrophic\u201d for the creative industry, arguing such measures would enable exploitation of artists without compensation. Industry data and commentary cited by UK Music point to job and pipeline risks should protections not be put in place. [3]<\/a><\/sup>[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Kiehl has repeatedly urged stronger safeguards in recent months. In January he pressed the Government to rethink proposals that offered limited transparency in exchange for a TDM exception, warning that copyright exceptions could undermine creators\u2019 rights and the integrity of the music industry. Speaking to the House of Lords\u2019 Communications and Digital Committee in November, he went further, warning that some activities by AI firms amounted to \u201cpure theft\u201d and citing examples of AI systems producing verbatim copies of lyrics from artists such as Gloria Gaynor and Louis Armstrong. [4]<\/a><\/sup>[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The position echoes broader industry concerns that any exception permitting the use of copyrighted works without permission risks hollowing out the revenue streams and bargaining power of songwriters, performers and rights holders. According to the original report and UK Music\u2019s commentary, a market-access model that conditions entry on compliance with UK copyright law, plus mandatory labelling and transparency, would aim to balance innovation with rights protection. [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n UK Music\u2019s recent public interventions reflect Kiehl\u2019s longer track record on music-sector advocacy. Since joining the organisation in 2012 and becoming chief executive after serving as Director of Public Affairs and Deputy CEO, he has led campaigns on live music measures and on the sector\u2019s response to generative AI, while pressing for greater diversity and protections for venues and creators. Industry representatives say that history underpins UK Music\u2019s insistence on binding safeguards rather than voluntary or one-off commitments from AI firms. [6]<\/a><\/sup>[7]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The company\u2019s call places pressure on ministers as they prepare a fuller report and an economic impact assessment on copyright and AI. Government figures released alongside the Statement of Progress set out next steps, but UK Music\u2019s stance makes clear that the creative sector expects any final policy to enshrine licensing, transparency and enforceable compliance for AI operators seeking access to the UK market. Whether the Government will revise its approach in light of the consultation results remains the key question for artists, rights holders and technology companies. [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n ##Reference Map:<\/p>\n\n