Human artists could disappear if copyright not protected from AI, MPs told
5 February 2025, 15:04
Composer Max Richter told MPs that music culture would become more ‘vanilla’ as AI edged out human creators being ‘impoverished’ by the technology.
Allowing the erosion of copyright rules to enable AI models to be trained on artists’ material could see human artists disappear and may damage culture, MPs have been told.
Composer Max Richter said the training of AI models of copyrighted created material that could enable it to replicate human artists would “impoverish” human creators and lead to a “vanilla-isation” of music culture.
Mr Richter was giving evidence to a joint sitting of the Culture, Media and Sport and Science, Innovation and Technology select committees on the subject of copyright and artificial intelligence.
The Government recently launched a consultation around the issue, and suggested it may introduce an exemption to copyright law for “text and data mining”, but with an opt-out system for artists.
Mr Richter told MPs that there was currently “nothing” he could do to stop AI models generating a piece of music which sounds “uncannily” like him.
“Now that wouldn’t be possible unless it hoovered up my stuff without asking me and without paying for it – and I think that’s happening on a huge scale, it’s happened to basically every artist whose work is on the internet,” he said.
“In the longer term, that’s going to lead to, I think societal consequences. You’re going to get a ‘vanilla-isation’ of music culture as this automated material starts to edge out human creators, and I also think you’re going to get an impoverishing of human creators.
“It’s worth remembering that the music business in the UK is a real success story – it was £7.6 billion income last year, 200,000 people employed and that is a big impact. It’s the second biggest music exporter after the US, so this is a big thing.
“If we allow the erosion of copyright, which is how value is created in the music sector, then we’re going to be in a position where there won’t be artists in the future.”
He added that an “opt-in” system would be much more acceptable to artists as it would put less onus on individuals to “police” and monitor who was trying to use their work.
Last month, Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney both spoke out against the Government’s proposals.
Mr Richter, and other representatives from the creative industries giving evidence, also said they would support a licensing system where AI developers had to pay to access content, but that more transparency measures were also needed in the sector.
Speaking in an earlier session, AI expert James Smith, the co-founder and chief executive of Human Native AI, an AI data marketplace where AI developers can pay to access data, said it had to be accepted that the entire public internet had already been consumed by AI models.
“We’ve been looking at how you build AI models – how companies like Google and OpenAI – they require huge amounts of data to put out these models,” he said.
“I think that’s all well understood. The internet has generally already been consumed into these models.
“I think we have to all accept that as truth as well. Now if you agree if that’s correct or not is a difficult issue, and there are some jurisdictions where it may or may not be legal.
“I think the challenge is that a lot of the damage on text and data mining has probably already been done – the original sin, if you like, has happened, and I think the question is how do we move forward?”
He added that he too would like to see the Government examine a licensing approach to the issue.
