AI, Copyright, and Creative Survival: Why UK Law Is Heading in the Wrong Direction

With major changes to UK AI copyright law under debate, creatives like me are being asked to give up control of our work (often without consent, credit, or compensation). In this post, I’ll explain what the government is proposing, why it matters to anyone working in the creative industries, and what we stand to lose if these changes go ahead.

As a freelance illustrator running a small creative business, I wear every hat in the studio. Project manager, accounts team, new business, and somewhere in there, the illustrator. That’s why I’ve embraced AI. Not as a gimmick, but as a genuinely helpful tool. It scheduled me to write this post, just like it manages my admin, nudges me on invoicing, and cleans up my grammar (because while I can draw a figure in five strokes, I still don’t know where semi-colons go). I’ll likely use it again to look at the SEO for this post and make changes for socials.

So no, I’m not against AI. It’s become a useful part of my workflow. But I’m deeply concerned by what the UK government is proposing when it comes to AI and copyright. It directly threatens the foundation not just of my business, but of thousands of others like it. Whether you’re an illustrator, copywriter, editor, designer, musician, or photographer, if your work is original, it’s vulnerable under these proposals.

What’s Being Proposed?

The problem isn’t that AI exists it’s how the UK government is choosing to support it. Instead of protecting the rights of creators, the proposed copyright changes shift the burden onto us, and that’s where things start going dangerously off course.

Right now, UK law only allows AI systems to analyse and learn from creative work for non-commercial research, and even then, only if the content was accessed legally. But the UK government is proposing to change that, allowing commercial AI companies to use copyrighted work without permission, unless creators actively opt out. That means it would be up to people like me (and thousands of others) to find a way to keep our work out of AI training datasets—something most freelancers simply don’t have the time, tools, or budget to manage.

Why Copyright Matters to Creatives

For those of us working in the creative industries, copyright isn’t just legal fine print, it’s how we earn a living. It ensures we’re compensated when our work is used. It protects the uniqueness of what we create. Without copyright, there’s no licensing, no commercial control, no leverage.

And yet, this new proposal would allow AI systems to scrape our work; images, text, illustrations and designs, without consent or compensation. That’s not innovation. That’s exploitation.

What AI Companies Want

Large AI companies argue that training their models on massive datasets (including copyrighted material) is essential to progress. They say copyright is a barrier to innovation and that removing these restrictions will help the UK remain competitive in the global tech race.

But let’s be clear: They’re asking for free access to the work of others, while simultaneously building commercial products they plan to charge for. My illustrations, someone else’s editorial, a musician’s lyrics; all turned into uncredited, unpaid training material for tools that might one day be used to replace us. The narrative that the creative industries are somehow in the way is not just wrong, it’s damaging.

Why This Hits Small Creatives Hardest

Big media firms can afford legal teams, monitoring tools, and subscription services generating revenue for further growth. Most independent creatives can’t. I certainly don’t have access such funds and tools.

We often won’t even know if our work has been scraped. We don’t have the time or resources to opt out of every platform or monitor how our images are used in training. The imbalance of power here is stark—and deeply unfair.

These are no imaginary costs. Animation giant Aardman recently told The Times they already annually spend £300k protecting their copyright. An op-out approach would inflate this further.If that’s what it takes for an established studio, where does that leave freelancers?

What’s at Stake

The UK’s creative industries aren’t a niche, they’re a cornerstone of the economy, contributing over £124 billion a year in gross value added and supporting 2.4 million jobs. That’s more than aerospace, automotive, and oil & gas combined. It’s one of the few sectors where the UK is genuinely world-leading.

What’s at risk here isn’t just the income of individual creators, it’s the long-term sustainability of the entire creative ecosystem. If AI tools are trained on our work without permission, and potentially used to generate content that competes with it, we’re looking at a future where originality is undervalued and creative careers are harder to sustain.

Beyond that lies cultural impoverishment, fewer opportunities for emerging talent, and damage to industries, from publishing to music, that thrive on professional, protected creative output.

This isn’t resistance to progress. It’s a demand for progress that values the people powering it.

The Pushback

Thankfully, the creative sector is fighting back.

Campaigns like Make It Fair, supported by major artists like Elton John and Kate Bush, are calling for an opt-in system so creators must give consent before their work can be used to train AI. The Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) is lobbying Parliament for stronger rights, greater transparency, and fair licensing frameworks to ensure creators are properly compensated.

Meanwhile, Creative UK and legal experts at Briffa have described the proposals as “flawed,” citing a lack of proper economic impact analysis and the danger posed to the UK’s £124 billion creative sector.

The UK government and House of Lords are locked in a tug-of-war over AI and copyright. The Lords have repeatedly backed an amendment that would force AI firms to disclose which copyrighted materials they’ve used to train their models, a transparency measure widely supported by creators and campaigners. The government, however, has stripped the amendment out each time, arguing that it falls under “financial privilege” and should be dealt with in future, broader copyright reform. This has triggered a round of political ping-pong between the Commons and Lords, with no resolution in sight.

What’s frustrating is that while ministers promise more consultation and economic assessments, AI companies are already training on vast amounts of copyrighted content—without asking or paying. Creatives, meanwhile, are left in the dark. Without transparency, we can’t protect our rights or even know if our work is being used. The Lords are fighting for something simple and fair: a basic level of accountability from tech firms. And yet, the government keeps stalling—while the tech keeps advancing.

What Comes Next?

In the second part of this series, I’ll explore what a fair system could look like. One where AI can continue to grow, but not by exploiting human creativity without consent or compensation. Because while I use AI every day, I believe creators deserve a future where our work is respected, not scraped.

What impact do you think these changes will have on your corner of the creative industry? I’d love to hear how others are navigating this. Feel free to comment below.