Content and copyright

AI training rights.

Work published to be read, watched or listened to has in many cases also been used to build something else. Whether that required permission, and what a rightholder can realistically do about it, is contested in the UK and is actively moving. What follows describes the shape of the problem and the decisions in front of you. It does not predict how any of it will land.

Talk to us › All of content and copyright ›

What this looks like when it goes wrong

The version that brings most people to the question is recognition. A creator or a publisher sees generated material that resembles their own, in style or in substance, and concludes that their work must have been used to build the thing that produced it. That conclusion may be right. It is also a different question from the one that would have to be proved, because what an output resembles and what a system was built on are not established the same way.

The second is exposure created from the inside. Staff or suppliers have been putting material into third party tools, and the terms of those tools permitted further use of what was uploaded. Nobody outside the business did anything to it. Confidential material, client material and unreleased work left the building because somebody chose a convenient tool, and the terms said what they said.

The third arrives as an opportunity. An offer to license an archive, a catalogue or a body of published work for use in building models, on terms using unfamiliar language about derived systems, retention, deletion and what survives the end of the arrangement. The money is real. The difficulty is that the thing being granted is hard to price, hard to bound and, once done, hard to reverse.

The fourth is in documents that already exist. Back catalogue licences, archive deals, contributor agreements, platform terms and distribution contracts drafted before any of this was contemplated, and silent on it either way. Whether an existing grant reaches this kind of use is a question about wording, and it is now being asked of a great many documents that were never written with the question in mind.

What actually decides it

The starting point is that the legal position is not settled. There are live arguments about whether and when the acts involved in building a system engage copyright at all, about the scope and conditions of the exceptions that exist, about where the relevant acts took place, and about what any claimant could actually establish. Policy in the United Kingdom has been under active review and has changed direction more than once. Anybody telling you the answer is clear, in either direction, is telling you something the position does not currently support.

Territory may matter more than the merits. The activity involved in building a system can span more than one country, the law differs between them, and the exceptions available in one place are not the exceptions available in another. Where the relevant acts occurred is capable of deciding which law applies.

Evidence is the practical constraint. A claim has to identify particular works, establish rights in them, and connect them to something that was done. Information about how a given system was built is not ordinarily available to the person asking at the outset. That gap is why many rightholders find their practical position weaker than they expected.

Contract is the part you can decide today. What your own terms say about collection and reuse of your material, what your outbound licences permit and whether they can be brought to an end, what your suppliers and tools are allowed to do with what your business puts into them, and whether your contributor agreements would even let you grant this kind of licence if you wanted to. None of those depend on how the law settles, and all of them are worse to address afterwards.

What we do

State your position

Terms, licences and published signals that record what you do and do not permit, so silence is not the answer.

Check what you have already granted

Whether existing licences, archive deals and platform terms reach this use, and whether they can be ended.

Supplier and internal exposure

What the tools and vendors your business uses are permitted to do with the material put into them.

Assess a possible claim honestly

What could realistically be established, where, and at what cost, without predicting an outcome nobody can predict.

Licensing from your side of the table

Terms for permitting it, covering scope, retention, deletion and what survives when the arrangement ends.

Tell you when it moves

Flagging developments that change a decision you have already taken, rather than leaving you to find out later.

When to spend nothing

For most individual creators and most smaller businesses there is currently no proportionate route against a large developer, and anybody promising one should be asked what they know that the rest of the field does not. Speculative spending here competes directly with spending on the parts of your position that are settled.

What costs very little is putting your own house in order. Terms that state your position, records that identify your works and when they were published, and supplier arrangements that do not quietly give away more than you intended. Those are useful whichever way the law develops, none of them requires you to take a view on an unsettled question. Waiting is a reasonable strategy. Waiting without doing those things is not.