Generating key takeaways...
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.
Tom Kiehl, chief executive of UK Music, has welcomed the findings set out in the UK Government’s 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’s 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 “anti-creator, anti-business” proposal. [1]
Kiehl called on ministers to shift from the TDM proposal to a licensing-centred approach and to establish a “robust regulatory framework for AI firms’ 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.” The company’s statement framed those measures as necessary to back British music and the wider creative industries. [1]
The response builds on sustained warnings from UK Music that unfettered use of artists’ work for AI training risks serious harm to creators and the sector’s economic ecosystem. Earlier in 2025 Kiehl described plans that would permit tech firms to train models on music without consent as “catastrophic” 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][5]
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’ rights and the integrity of the music industry. Speaking to the House of Lords’ Communications and Digital Committee in November, he went further, warning that some activities by AI firms amounted to “pure theft” and citing examples of AI systems producing verbatim copies of lyrics from artists such as Gloria Gaynor and Louis Armstrong. [4][2]
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’s 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]
UK Music’s recent public interventions reflect Kiehl’s 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’s response to generative AI, while pressing for greater diversity and protections for venues and creators. Industry representatives say that history underpins UK Music’s insistence on binding safeguards rather than voluntary or one-off commitments from AI firms. [6][7]
The company’s 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’s 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]
##Reference Map:
- [1] (UK Music) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 8
- [2] (UK Music) – Paragraph 4
- [3] (UK Music) – Paragraph 3
- [4] (UK Music) – Paragraph 4
- [5] (NME) – Paragraph 3
- [6] (UK Music) – Paragraph 6
- [7] (UK Music / Musicians’ Union interview) – Paragraph 6
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is current, dated 16 December 2025, and pertains to recent developments in UK copyright and AI policy. No evidence of recycled or outdated content was found. The report is based on a recent government statement, indicating high freshness. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were identified. No earlier versions of this narrative were found. The article includes updated data and new material, justifying a high freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
The direct quotes from Tom Kiehl are unique to this report, with no earlier usage found online. This suggests the content is original or exclusive.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from UK Music, a reputable organisation representing the UK music industry. This enhances the credibility of the information presented.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made align with known industry concerns regarding AI’s impact on copyright. The language and tone are consistent with official communications from UK Music. No inconsistencies or suspicious elements were identified.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current, original, and originates from a reputable source. The claims are plausible and consistent with known industry concerns. No issues were identified in the freshness, quotes, source reliability, or plausibility checks.
