Controversial AI transparency law passes despite backlash from musicians including Elton John

19 June 2025, 22:44 | Updated: 20 June 2025, 17:19

By Classic FM

@ClassicFM

The Data (Use and Access) Bill has passed into law, after much debate around transparency in training AI models. Here’s what it means for musicians and the creative sector in the UK.

A new bill on how UK creatives’ data can be used when training artificial intelligence (AI) models has passed into law on 19 June 2025.

Campaigned against by the likes of Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, Kate Bush, Sir Simon Rattle and many more, the Data (Use and Access) Bill has been the subject of much discussion and backlash over recent months.

The DUA Bill includes important new rulings on protecting children’s data and prosecutions on harmful AI-generated content known as ‘deepfakes’.

But it also sparked an argument over tech firms’ access to UK creatives’ works, and how they could be used to train AI models without their permission.

It’s an issue that has caused concern and outrage from UK musicians, authors, film makers and other creatives, and a game of political ‘ping pong’ between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Read more: More than 1,000 musicians record ‘silent album’ to protest plans to let AI use their music

What was the backlash against the bill?

In October 2024, when the bill was first drafted, a statement from members of the creative industries was released, making headline news: “The unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted.”

To date, more than 50,000 people and counting have added their signatures to the statement, led by Abba’s Björn Ulvaeus and also backed by Sir John Rutter, Sir Simon Rattle, Max Richter, Rachel Portman, and Dario Marianelli, in addition to many others from across the creative industries.

One of Parliament’s greatest champions for UK creators is film maker Baroness Beeban Kidron, who put forward an amendment to the bill which would require businesses to be transparent in the data they use to train AI models and thus safeguard the creative industries, which bring £126 billion to the UK economy each year, and provide jobs for 2.4 million people.

Read more: Watch the piano-playing robot developed by leading AI lab that can also read human emotions

Baroness Kidron also organised an open letter to prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, urging the UK Government to accept her amendment.

“These amendments recognise the crucial role that creative content plays in the development of generative AI,” the letter reads. “They will spur a dynamic licensing market that will enhance the role of human creativity in the UK, positioning us as a key player in the global AI supply chain.”

Signed by more than 400 UK creatives from the worlds of music, cinema, theatre, dance, film and more, the letter concluded with a powerful statement: “Supporting us supports the creators of the future. Our work is not yours to give away.”

After multiple rounds of back-and-forth, the House of Commons ultimately rejected Baroness Kidron’s amendment.

What is the law now for training AI on musicians’ data?

The official law in the UK has been passed without a requirement for businesses to disclose the data they use to train AI models. This means that creators, including musicians, cannot be sure that their work hasn’t been used to train AI models without permission.

Instead, the government has agreed to publish a report on the use of copyright works in training AI within nine months of the law passing, and a progress report in six months.

In the meantime, the government is also reviewing the 13,000 responses to its AI and copyright consultation – a process which could take months or even years, says composer and campaigner Thomas Hewitt Jones.

“The problem is that in that time, big data companies are just stealing our work,” he told Classic FM. “It’s still illegal in UK law for copyright works to be pilfered, but that doesn’t stop these big AI companies. There’s absolutely nothing that we can do about it.”

Fellow composer and AI transparency campaigner Ed Newton-Rex also spoke to Classic FM, saying: “For me, the main issue is what it means for human creators. AI is not only coming, but already here.

“So I think the biggest question is – what does this do to the ecosystem of talented musicians who are currently responsible for making up the entire, broad music industry?”

Having signed both the AI training statement and Baroness Kidron’s open letter, Newton-Rex says transparency is crucial: “If companies were forced to be transparent about their training data, then they wouldn’t take people’s work without permission and train [AI models] on it, because they would know that they would be sued for doing so.

“That transparency amendment was incredibly important and it’s a massive, massive shame that the Labour government decided to reject it three times.”

Is AI ‘stealing’ people’s music?

In addition to his work as a composer, Ed Newton-Rex founded an AI music-making company in 2012. He says that there are a few ways in which the AI and creative industries can be ‘symbiotic’, if done right.

“At the moment, most AI companies, sadly, steal people’s music without permission and build their models on it,” he said. “And these models outcompete those musicians. Not all of them, but especially musicians who aren’t household names.

“This is already happening. There’s already copious evidence of this, not only in music but also in other domains. We see generative AI models out-competing the people whose work they have stolen.”

One example is AI-generated music uploaded to Spotify, that Newton-Rex says “eats into the royalty pool of human musicians.” Spotify boss Daniel Ek has previously said that there are no plans for a complete ban on AI-generated music on the platform, although music found to be directly imitating existing artists will be removed.

Social media giant TikTok has also seen a rise in AI-generated music in recent months. Vinih Pray – who doesn’t actually exist – ‘wrote’ viral hit ‘A Million Colors’, which became the first-known AI song to enter the Top 50 in the TikTok charts in March 2025.

“This slop is going everywhere,” Thomas Hewitt Jones told Classic FM in response. “It just muddies the waters. In a very practical way – on the download networks they pay lower royalties to everybody else, to all the real people who are writing music, because there is this slop that is generated, and it's all shared across everyone.”

Funny Song (Original Version) by Funny Song Studio – Official Video

“The output of AI music is quite grim, actually”

Hewitt Jones, who had his own viral hit in ‘Funny Song’, described AI-generated music as “quite grim”. Since it can emulate, but not invent new material, he says AI music is essentially “combinations of what’s gone before in a slightly sinister kind of way. And it really is quite grim, the output of AI music so far.

“But the even fact that people are trying to do that, I think, is very upsetting to the industry. Why would people want to do that when music can offer you such an amazing, enriching of your soul? And it gives such a meaning to people's lives to listen to a great piece of music. It’s anathema to me why this would be allowed. And I think it's down to governments to legislate, otherwise we're going to be in a very dirty place.”

Ed Newton-Rex, however, doesn’t seem hopeful, telling Classic FM: “We don't seem to have a culture secretary. I mean, Lisa Nandy has done absolutely nothing, at least publicly, to defend creators in the government's battle with them over the last few months.

“I don't say that lightly. I think that if we ever needed a culture secretary to stand up for the cultural sectors, this was the time. And I think that Lisa Nandy has totally failed creators, in that respect, which I think is a huge, huge shame.

“There are now rumours that the entire DCMS [Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport] may be sort of disbanded, which again, I wouldn't be surprised at because I think this government – I'm not a political person, and I don't say this lightly, but I think the Labour Party has proved that it is not a friend to the creative industries, and I suspect that creatives will desert it in huge numbers at the next election.”

In response, a DCMS spokesperson said: “DCMS Ministers and officials have convened a series of roundtables with the creative industries - including trade bodies, businesses and representatives of artists - to discuss the risks that AI poses to copyright holders, with further sessions planned.

“The Culture Secretary has been clear that creators must be able to control and be properly rewarded for the use of their work. She has publicly committed to working with them to find a solution with transparency and trust as its heart, and will be working closely with the Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary to achieve this.”

Is This What We Want?

What can musicians do now?

All is not lost for musicians when it comes to AI, says Ed Newton-Rex, urging musicians to come together and unite to create change: “A better response to this age of technological development is to try to increase the value we place on human-produced art and music.

“There are many ways of doing that but I think individual and organisational commitments are really important. I think creators need to club together and say: ‘We are not going to support the exploitation that is going on in the AI industry’.”

Newton-Rex was the organiser behind the 25 February 2025 album Is This What We Want?, consisting of 12 tracks of recorded silence in protest against AI models being trained on art without permission. 1,000 artists are credited as co-writers, including Hans Zimmer, Max Richter, The Sixteen, and John Rutter.

The album’s release coincided with the ‘Make It Fair’ campaign, which appeared on the cover of almost every major British newspaper that day.

“I think all the newspapers [and] so many in the creative industries coming together – you know, we released the silent album at the same time – frankly, it got a lot of attention, and I think it raised the topic in the public consciousness,” Newton-Rex told Classic FM.

“One of the interesting things is that the public agrees with the creative sector here. Every single time the public has been asked about how AI companies train their models, in overwhelming numbers the public say: ‘Of course AI companies should ask permission to train their models on people’s work. Of course they should pay them’. There is not a single poll that goes the other way.”

“People go to classical music for soul-enrichment”

For now, live classical music appears to remain largely unaffected by AI, and still has plenty to offer that technology cannot yet compete with.

“The classical music industry, in terms of live concerts, I think is a very, very slow burn,” Thomas Hewitt Jones told Classic FM. “And I don’t think it’s particularly affected by AI at the moment.

“But that’s because people go to opera, they go to classical music in person because they want that soul-enriching that only classical music can give, in my humble opinion. It’s a different thing to an instant hit of a pop song.”

The human element of music is what Ed Newton-Rex says matters most, too.

“Lean heavily into what makes you, as a musician, unique,” he concludes. “And what makes your art human. I think that there will be a gradual movement in the arts, away from the kinds of things that AI is increasingly capable of doing.

“As an example, I write choral music and thankfully, maybe AI companies don't think this is a big enough market. I don't know, but it’s not something that they’re very focused on.

“If anything, AI companies encroaching so much on other parts of the music industry has made me want to write my own music more. Frankly, I see this as one of the last times – maybe the last time in history, that we will still be able to say: ‘We composed this music before anyone could press a button and compose it themselves’.

“So I would say write as much music as you can as fast as possible. Lean into what makes music human, the ability to move people in real time, in person. Because I think that this is an area where AI is not yet able to encroach, for now.”