Following a recently published policy report on AI, Copyright, and Productivity in the Creative Industries, authored by a Glenlead researcher, the Government rolls back plans for copyright reform which would have allowed for copyrighted works to be web-scraped to train AI models.

Glenlead’s Dr Ann Kristin Glenster is lead author on a recent University of Cambridge report arguing against the introduction of a broad text and data mining (TDM) exception as part of the UK Government’s plans for copyright reform. The report was published by the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy and the Bennett Institute for Public Policy, both at the University of Cambridge.

In February 2025, the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy and the Bennett Institute for Public Policy published the policy brief AI, Copyright, and Productivity in the Creative Industries, which argued that the Government’s proposals for an ‘opt out’ model whereby copyright-holders would be able to reserve their works from being web-scraped to train AI models would be detrimental to the British creative industries.

Based on original academic research by the report’s lead author, Dr Ann Kristin Glenster, Executive Director of the Glenlead Centre, the report demonstrated how the business case has yet to be made for the economic growth that is assumed will derive from efficiency and productivity gains from the use of AI and especially generative AI models.

She said, “the UK is facing a crossroad on how it adopts policies that will unlock the innovative potential of AI in a responsible way that will lead to growth. Changing copyright law to suit big tech will not automatically serve the British creative industries. While there undoubtedly are great efficiency and productivity gains to be made in the creative sector by the uptake of AI, the lack of details leaves a gaping hole in the business case for how these proposals will lead to economic dividends benefitting the UK’s industries and workforce.”

Dr Glenster argued that the opt out model would not work because the technical feasibility has yet to be demonstrated, the revenue gains have yet to be mapped out, and there is a risk to legal coherence as copyright reform may well be countered in other proposed domestic legislation and notably the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).

The report attracted widespread attention by legislators, policymakers, academics, and industry. It was featured in The Times, The Sun, The Indian Express, In Publishing, Daily Mail, MusicTech, Yahoo Entertainment, The Drum, and The i Paper, and BBC Radio 4’s flagship news show World at One.

In his weekly column in The Observer, John Naughton called the report a landmark briefing note, citing its conclusion: “The unregulated use of generative AI in the UK economy will not necessarily lead to economic growth, and risks damaging the UK’s creative sector.”

Naughton highlighted why this matter because the stakes are so high: He wrote, “get it wrong and we kiss goodbye to one of “global” Britain’s most vibrant industries.” In his view, instead, the “aim of public policy should be building a copyright regime that respects creative workers and engenders the confidence that AI can be fairly deployed to the benefit of all rather than just tech corporations.”

What is certain, is that copyright reform alone cannot remedy the plethora of problems associated with the rapid advent of generative AI for the creative industries. Copyright reform does not, for example, address performers’ rights or the replication of visual and musical styles, which currently fall outside the protection of the UK’s copyright regime.

Much work is still to be done to find fair solutions that support all parties. We will continue to contribute rigorous academic research to help craft a win-win path forward that can help navigate the perils and opportunities AI offers the British economy.

You can read the AI, Copyright, and Productivity in the Creative Industries policy brief here.