Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 – copyright and AI aspects
Locations
We reported in our recent update on copyright and AI (AI and copyright – where are we now?) that after much ping pong back and forth between the House of Lords and the House of Commons over provisions on AI and copyright, the Data (Use and Access) bill (which aims to modernise UK data law) was close to royal assent. We can now confirm that it was finally granted royal assent on 19 June 2025 and is now known as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA).
Background
House of Lords member, Baroness Kidron, had originally put forward proposals regarding compliance with copyright and transparency in relation to content scraped by operators of web crawlers and general purpose AI (GPAI) models (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-E). These were as a result of her concerns about the limited scope of the UK government's copyright and AI consultation paper, published on 17 December 2024. The proposals were also backed by hundreds in the creative industry, including celebrities such as Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney and Coldplay. However, the bill was not considered to be the right vehicle for these copyright and AI proposals, partly because the government did not want to pre-empt its response on the consultation, but also because it would all be too rushed, and they were ultimately rejected. The Lords however, whilst very disappointed, did settle on a compromise in relation to the copyright and AI proposals, which pushed the bill over its final hurdle.
AI and copyright provisions
The diluted copyright and AI provisions are covered under sections 135 to 137 of the DUAA under a section entitled, 'Copyright works and artificial intelligence systems'.
Economic impact assessment
Section 135 requires the Secretary of State, within 9 months from 19 June 2025 when the bill was passed, to publish (and lay before Parliament) an economic impact assessment, on copyright owners and AI developers and users, of the four policy options set out in section B.4 of the copyright and AI consultation paper (covering copyright law and the training of AI models using copyright works), or alternative policy options. As a re-cap the core policy options set out in the consultation are:
| Option 0 | Do nothing: Copyright and related laws remain as they are |
| Option 1 | Strengthen copyright requiring licensing in all cases |
| Option 3 | A broad data mining exception, allowing data mining on copyright works, including for AI training, without right holders’ permission |
| Option 4 | A data mining exception which allows right holders to reserve their rights, underpinned by supporting measures on transparency (this was originally the government's preferred option, but there has been a lot of lobbying from the creative industry against introducing this). |
Don't miss a thing, subscribe today!
Stay up to date by subscribing to the latest Intellectual Property insights from the experts at Fieldfisher.
Subscribe nowReport on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems
Section 136 requires the Secretary of State within 9 months from 19 June 2025 when the bill was passed, to publish (and lay before Parliament) a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems, taking into account the above four policy options, or appropriate alternatives. The report must consider and make proposals in relation to how copyrighted works are being used in AI development, including the extent and nature of such use. The consideration and proposals must also take into account AI systems developed outside the UK.
Progress statement
Section 137 requires the Secretary of State, within 6 months from 19 June 2025 when the bill was passed, to provide to Parliament a statement setting out what progress has been made on both the economic impact assessment and the report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems.
Comment
Having reached the ninth ping pong round between the House of Commons and House of Lords, there was a risk that the House of Lords was going to de-rail the entire bill, even though the copyright and AI aspects were a very small part of it. However, just in the nick of time and despite a rather unsatisfactory result for the Lords, they did agree to a compromise. The government is now compelled to focus on its copyright and AI policy and provide data to Parliament within a specific timeframe. However, the government has made it clear that it will not rush into anything, or bring in any legislation, until everything is in order.
The government will likely be consulting with various copyright and AI cross-party working groups it has pledged to set up and will be using the results of its AI and copyright consultation to inform its impact assessment and report. We may also have the judgment for the Getty Images v Stability AI dispute (which just came to a close in the High Court on 30 June 2025 after an 18-day trial) over the Summer and it may be that the judiciary provides some further guidance to the government to aid its reports.
The government will therefore now continue with the challenging task of finding the correct balance for the creative industry, AI developers and users, to ensure that rightsholders are adequately rewarded for their creativity, but at the same time, the UK is an attractive hub for the development and use of AI.
