A coalition of over 1,000 musicians has released a symbolic “silent album” in protest against proposed changes to U.K. copyright law that would allow artificial intelligence companies to train their models on artists’ work without permission or compensation unless creators opt out.
Titled “Is This What We Want?”, the album features recordings of empty studios and performance spaces contributed by high-profile artists such as Kate Bush, Imogen Heap, Damon Albarn, Annie Lennox, and Hans Zimmer. Released on Monday, the project yet again points to the fears that the legislative shift could undermine artistic rights and livelihoods.
Each track on “Is This What We Want?” is named to spell out a pointed message: “The British government must not legalize music theft to benefit AI companies.” For instance, contemporary classical composer Thomas Hewitt Jones contributed ambient sounds from his studio, including faint noises made by his cats. “You can hear my cats moving around,” he explained, emphasizing the stark absence of actual music—a metaphor for what artists fear will happen if the laws pass.
This initiative was spearheaded by Ed Newton-Rex, a former AI entrepreneur turned advocate for creators’ rights. Newton-Rex, who once developed an AI-powered music composition tool called Jukedeck (later acquired by TikTok), now leads a campaign opposing unlicensed AI training practices. His petition against these practices has garnered more than 47,000 signatures from writers, visual artists, actors, and others in the creative sector, with nearly 10,000 new supporters joining since the U.K.’s AI strategy announcement last month.
Newton-Rex argues that requiring artists to opt out places an unreasonable burden on them, especially given the lack of clear mechanisms to do so. “Opt-out schemes are just not taken up,” he said. “This is going to give 90% to 95% of people’s work to AI companies. That’s without a doubt.”
The planned reforms are part of the U.K. government’s broader strategy to position itself as a global leader in AI innovation. However, critics argue that the move prioritizes corporate interests over creators’ rights, potentially enabling tech firms to exploit vast amounts of copyrighted material freely. The controversy highlights growing tensions worldwide between the creative industries and the burgeoning field of AI development.
The backlash against the proposed U.K. legislation reflects a wider international debate about how AI systems interact with intellectual property. Similar protests have emerged in the United States and other markets, where creators worry that decades of encouragement to share their work online for exposure are being weaponized against them.
“We’ve been told to put our work online because it’s good for visibility,” Newton-Rex noted. “But now AI companies—and governments—are saying, ‘Well, you put that online for free.’” He added that some artists have already stopped creating or sharing new content due to these concerns.
Hewitt Jones echoed this sentiment, revealing that he is exploring alternative markets like Switzerland for future distribution of his music. Such moves underscore the potential economic ripple effects of the policy, which could drive talent away from regions perceived as hostile to creators’ rights.
The current copyright landscape for AI-generated music varies significantly across countries, and the UK’s proposed changes position it as an outlier in some respects. In the UK, under Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, works generated by computers—where there is no human author—are granted copyright protection, with ownership attributed to the person who made the necessary arrangements for the creation of the work .
This framework contrasts sharply with the United States, where the U.S. Copyright Office has maintained that material generated wholly by AI is not copyrightable because it lacks human authorship.
China, on the other hand, amended its Copyright Law in 2021 to explicitly state that AI-generated works can be copyrighted, provided they meet originality requirements, with ownership assigned to the organization or individual that owns the AI system. Similarly, the European Union’s legal framework emphasizes human creativity and authorship, though specific applications of these principles to AI-generated outputs remain debated.
The UK’s recent proposals to allow AI companies to train models on copyrighted material without permission—unless creators opt out—represent a significant shift, diverging from both stricter regulatory approaches like those in the EU and more conservative stances in the U.S. While the UK seeks to foster innovation by easing access to training data, critics argue this could undermine creators’ rights and devalue original content.
These differences highlight the global divergence in balancing technological advancement with protections for human creators, making the UK’s approach particularly contentious amid international debates over AI and intellectual property.
