Key Takeaways
The BBC has joined the rising opposition against the government’s plans to allow AI companies to scrape content from artists and publishers.
In a move similar to a provision within the EU AI Act, the government has proposed an “opt-out” scheme for publishers, meaning tech giants could use their copyrighted work to train AI models by default.
The U.K. government’s plan comes as the country seeks further investment from tech firms to bolster its position in the AI race.
The new AI scraping plans would majorly benefit tech giants, who have long argued that they should be free to use internet content freely to train their AI models.
In an “opt-out” model, leading tech companies would have free rein of the U.K.’s publishers and media content unless specific publications or creators denied them access.
The BBC has joined other leading publishers in the country to oppose the government’s plans.
In a reported statement to The Observer, the BBC said: “It’s critical that publishers and media companies retain control over how their content is used when it comes to AI.”
“The onus should remain on AI developers to seek permission for use of content, not on publishers to opt-out.”
Media executives and publishers in the U.K. argue that the plans will allow tech giants unlimited access to copyrighted material, with no clear picture of who uses the content.
Publishers also argue that the need to opt-out could place an unnecessary administrative load on businesses.
Tom Haylock, CEO of Saas provider Sharecat, told CCN that allowing AI firms to scrape publishers’ content could “turn the publishing world upside down.”
“Publishers invest heavily in creating unique content, and if it’s just taken for free to train AI, they lose control over their work—and maybe even their revenue,” Haylock said.
“Big publishers might find ways to protect their material or negotiate some benefits, but smaller ones may not have that kind of leverage and could end up being mined for content without getting anything back.”
Camden Woollven, Group Head of AI at GRC International Group, believes the new policy will hit U.K. publishers hard, especially smaller outlets.
“When AI systems can freely grab and summarise articles, readers have less reason to visit the original sites. That threatens both ad revenue and subscriptions,” Woollven told CCN.
It comes after a September report from Google warned that the U.K. risks being left behind if the government, public sector, and private companies do not work together.
However, experts are not convinced that the new policy is a surefire way of attracting interest and investment from Big Tech.
“While free access to content might appeal to AI companies, it comes with major headaches. Publishers are threatening to sue. Nobody knows how to enforce these rules, and the whole thing could change overnight depending on what happens in court,” Woollven said.
Over the last two years, major publishers and tech companies have been making direct licensing deals to use content in training AI models.
In return for millions of dollars, major organizations like The Associated Press and Condé Nast have allowed tech companies like OpenAI to access structured content accompanied by metadata to simplify AI training.
These agreements have allowed tech firms to sidestep any potential legal trouble over copyright infringement.
“The irony is that the market is already finding solutions. But instead of stability, we’ve got confusion,” Woollven added.
However, not all publishers have agreed to collaborate with tech giants.
In December 2023, the New York Times filed a high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that the AI company used copyrighted content from the newspaper to train its models without permission.
The lawsuit argued that OpenAI’s models, developed with Microsoft, were trained on “millions of The Times’s copyrighted news articles,” which the company says diminishes its value as a subscription news source.