People

Careers

Corporate

Commercial

Employment

News & Insights

Blog

News

Videos

Who we are

Environment & Sustainability

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

WONDER Foundation

Get legal updates and practical guidance straight to your inbox.

You’ve successfully signed up to the Linnear Legal mailing list

Home

Resources

Registered in England &amp; Wales at 73 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ
<a href="tel:+442081596000">Tel: +44 (0)20 8159 6000</a>
Company Nr: 15894546
ICO Registration Nr:  ZB842887
VAT Registration Nr: 484 5226 73
Linnear Legal is an unregulated legal services provider, meaning the firm itself is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). However, the solicitors employed by the firm are individually regulated by the SRA. Please see our Terms and Conditions for further information on our regulatory status, complaints procedure and insurance arrangements.

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Policy

Privacy Policy

Services

Insights

About

We are driven by doing things differently, from every angle. 

Taking our Carbon Neutral Certified  status seriously.  

Putting equity and inclusion at the heart of everything we do.

Supporting sustainable employment and gender equality with WONDER. 

WONDER foundation

Contact us

Understand the latest on the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Bill, which has dropped key AI copyright transparency clauses. Instead, it mandates government reports assessing AI’s use of copyrighted works and economic impact. Learn how this shift affects copyright holders and the future of AI regulation in the UK.

UK’s Data Bill drops AI copyright clauses, delaying transparency rules for AI developers and copyright holders.

On 2 May 2025, the <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3825" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Data (Use and Access) Bill</a> passed its third reading in the House of Commons, notably without controversial clauses on AI and copyright compliance that had been introduced in the House of Lords.
<h3 aria-level="2">The AI and copyright clauses</h3>
Clauses 135 to 137 would have imposed obligations on developers of general-purpose AI and operators of web crawlers to comply with UK copyright law. The central aim of these clauses was to ensure transparency about the activities of AI and web-crawler operators, but the clauses also tackled the controversial question of how AI and copyright intersect. Clause 136 in particular would have required operators to disclose information about the copyrighted works AI models access, potentially including specific works, copyright holders and how those works are being used.
These clauses had been backed by creatives hoping that the government would legislate to oblige AI models to adhere to copyright law and address the growing use of copyright-protected material in AI training data sets. However, their removal at the Public Bill Committee stage marks a setback for those advocating for stronger transparency requirements for AI developers. Subsequent attempts to reinstate them have also failed.
The government continues to insist, however, that the concerns raised by these abandoned clauses are the subject of a separate ongoing public consultation on AI and copyright.
<h3 aria-level="2">Changes to the Bill</h3>
The Bill – amended by government proposals – now mandates a two-pronged reporting process. Within a year of the Bill’s enactment, the Secretary of State must publish:
<ul>
<li>An economic impact assessment examining the UK effects of each of the four policy options set out in the government’s December 2024 consultation on copyright and AI, alongside potential alternative options. This must consider how both copyright holders and AI developers are impacted.</li>
<li>A comprehensive policy report on the use of copyright works in AI development. This must assess technical controls, standards for access (such as web crawling), legal obligations around transparency and the broader effects of copyright law on access to training data. Responses from the December 2024 consultation must inform the report’s conclusions.</li>
</ul>
This shift signals a pause in direct legislative intervention in favour of a technocratic approach, though critics argue it delays urgently needed reform.
<h3 aria-level="2">The debate in the Commons</h3>
During the Commons debate, MP Chris Bryant, Minister of State for Data Protection and Telecoms of the United Kingdom, said that the creative industries should be ‘remunerated for the work that they have produced’ and stressed that the government remained committed to ensuring ‘robust and clear’ UK copyright law. However, he defended the removal of the Lord’s amendments, arguing that members should wait until the government’s ongoing consultation on copyright and AI (which closed in February) is completed. ‘It must surely be better to legislate on this complex subject in the round rather than piecemeal,’ the Minister said.
The Labour MP for Scarborough and Whitby Alson Hume offered an alternative perspective and called on tech firms to ‘tell us what they are doing behind our backs, and pay up.’ While recognising the government’s legitimate – and understandable – desire for more time to grapple with the issue, she warned: ‘I worry that in the gap between this data Bill becoming law and a new Bill which addresses transparency in copyright, everything that can be scraped will be scraped.’
Speaking to The Bookseller, the CEO of the Publishers Association, Dan Conway, whose members protested outside Parliament as the debate went on, called the issue of copyright a ‘polarising red herring’ and suggested that with legislation on transparency requirements, it might be possible to create a partnership between tech and creative industries through licensing that benefits both parties.
Despite expressing concerns over the methods for training AI tools, neither the Advertising Association, which set up its AI Taskforce in 2023, nor the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) has commented on the latest changes to the Bill so far.
<h3 aria-level="2">What’s next for the Bill?</h3>
The Bill now returns to the House of Lords, where peers may yet challenge the Commons’ removal of the copyright provisions.
There will likely be many further twists in the AI and copyright drama, and UK policymakers will no doubt be keeping a close eye on how similar political dilemmas unfold around the world, as legal experts grapple with the ongoing tension in AI policy between encouraging innovation in the tech sector and protecting the works and rights of creatives whose output ultimately fuels that innovation.

The UK’s Data (Use and Access) Bill removes controversial AI copyright clauses, replacing them with government-led impact assessments and reports, postponing direct AI copyright legislation.

AI and copyright clauses dropped from Data (Use and Access) Bill

The Data (Use and Access) Bill passed the Commons without key AI copyright clauses. The government now opts for consultation over immediate reform.

AI and copyright clauses dropped from Data (Use and Access) Bill | Linnear Legal

https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/shutterstock_2400648421.jpg

Linnear Legal

https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Linnear-Legal-logo.png

https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/430378ba79491bc6fd9321b5f889b7c8c3b4952c79a934ef05647cb5b4385d93?s=96&d=mm&r=g

AI and copyright clauses dropped from Data (Use and Access) Bill

Related Insights