Nick Clegg: Artists’ demands over copyright are unworkable - The former Meta executive claims that a law requiring tech companies to ask permission to train AI on copyrighted work would ‘kill’ the industry

Sir Nick Clegg said it was “not unreasonable” for artists to want to be able to opt out of their work being used to train AI
DAVID MCHUGH FOR THE TIMES

Making technology companies ask artists’ permission before they scrape copyrighted content will “basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight,” Sir Nick Clegg has said.

The former deputy prime minister, who spent almost seven years working for the social media giant Meta, sided with technology companies when asked on Thursday about the clash over AI copyright laws.

He was speaking as MPs voted against proposals that would have allowed copyright holders to see when their work had been used and by whom.

Leading figures across the creative industries, including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, have urged the government not to “give our work away” at the behest of big tech, warning that the plans risk destroying the livelihoods of 2.5 million people who work in the UK’s creative sector.

However, Clegg said that their demands to make technology companies ask permission before using copyrighted work were unworkable and “implausible” because AI systems are already training on vast amounts of data. He said: “It’s out there already.”

Clegg defended technology companies at an event to promote his book How to Save the Internet, which will be released in September.

Speaking at the Charleston Festival, held at the East Sussex farmhouse made famous by the artist Vanessa Bell and the early 20th-century creatives known as the Bloomsbury Group, Clegg claimed that artificial intelligence was already able to “create” its own art.

“You can already create art of a sort [using AI], whether it’s a poem, a ditty, an essay, a short story, a picture. You can already do that,” he said

Referring to the question of whether “artists should be able to withhold their content from the AI models that are being trained,” he said: “On the one hand, yeah, I think it seems to me as a matter of natural justice, to say to people that they should be able to opt out of having their creativity, their products, what they’ve worked on indefinitely modelled. That seems to me to be not unreasonable to opt out.”

However, he added, “I think the creative community wants to go a step further. Quite a lot of voices say ‘you can only train on my content, [if you] first ask’. And I have to say that strikes me as somewhat implausible because these systems train on vast amounts of data.

“I just don’t know how you go around, asking everyone first. I just don’t see how that would work. And by the way if you did it in Britain and no one else did it, you would basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight.

“So, I think people should have clear, easy to use ways of saying, no, I don’t. I want out of this. But I think expecting the industry, technologically or otherwise, to preemptively ask before they even start training — I just don’t see. I’m afraid that just collides with the physics of the technology itself.”

Parliament heard on Thursday how both sectors needed to succeed to grow Britain’s economy. MPs voted 195 to 124, majority 71, to disagree with Baroness Kidron’s transparency amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

Clegg stepped down from his job at Meta earlier this year, after seven years in Silicon Valley. He resigned from his role as president of global affairs just weeks before President Trump’s return to the White House.

Article Link

Archive

 

[Historical Strelkov]

CorridorDigital (one of the people who started experimenting with AI first with their AI Anime) Got an artist for the second episode.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FQ6z90MuURMThere was also Love Letter to LA, where they had the animators work with the AI on pretty much every step:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=envMzAxCRbwYou actually get better results with an artist, because you can fine tune the models with the help of the artists themselves instead of relying on whatever you can scrape and confusing the model with junk images. But the companies refuse to do this because the end result they want is all the zeroes on the balance sheet rubbed off, not more efficency or a better product.

The funny takeaway from all of this, as someone who works in the entertainment business is that people have completely lost the plot on what art is for. On what the point of style and imagery even is.

It's not about generating A/V at the highest quantity for the sake of money. That is what the business of art is about.
It's like saying the reason you exist is to provide value for a company.
It's also not about generating A/V at the highest quality for the sake of ego and pride. That is what the cope of artists is.

The point of all of this is to generate shared memories that we relate to in our own real life. AI and Anti-AI people are not really living in the real world, they're living in their fantasies. One is fantasizing about how easy everything will be one day while ignoring reality, the other ignores reality because it can never "live up to art".

The point of all this AI shit, and all of the hyperfixation on IP is that human beings have a need for meaning, and spitting out imagery faster/better doesn't make a story more meaningful.

Somehow no matter how an effect is achieved, or a story is told, the meaning of the story only matters if it relates to your real life. That is the most incredible thing of this whole experience.

This life is supposed to be yours. You're not supposed to be a corporate slave, or an AI learning tool. And the reason why artists and AI manufacturers are such pricks is because they are both living meaningless lives in pursuit of meaning.
Suffah, both sides of "the argument".

 

[xXthrowawayaccountXx]

This life is supposed to be yours. You're not supposed to be a corporate slave, or an AI learning tool. And the reason why artists and AI manufacturers are such pricks is because they are both living meaningless lives in pursuit of meaning.
Suffah, both sides of "the argument".

This is an incredible rant, and I want to pin it on my wall.

But I want to say this on the AI companies specifically, since I am more wary of them than the artists: They will never ever argue for the removal of copyright like they argue for the copyright if artistic training data. Never forget, this is being argued by microsoft, apple, google, and the rest of FAGMAN. The end goal for all of this for them is to keep extending for as long as possible, then when all of the competition has fizzled out and they know they have an insurmountable lead, they can then charge the highest number they can think of as a monthly subscription as the only player remaining. That or some soft power play like restricting what you can generate or tracking your every move. I feel like people have forgotten that fact. All those images you generate? They want 15$/month for that. They are just counting down the days until it can happen. It's why I have only recently started using AI with deepseek. I don't trust anything that isn't in my hard drive that I own. You should remember not to trust these people, they've sold us out before and they will do it again.

 

[𖦹Junkpop𖦹]

This life is supposed to be yours. You're not supposed to be a corporate slave, or an AI learning tool. And the reason why artists and AI manufacturers are such pricks is because they are both living meaningless lives in pursuit of meaning.

happen. It's why I have only recently started using AI with deepseek. I don't trust anything that isn't in my hard drive that I own. You should remember not to trust these people, they've sold us out before and they will do it again.

You both bring up really good points about the AI debate. Yes the system we currently have suffers from a lot of problems, a lot of it stemming from the pursuit of profit over all else.

AI could hypothetically help us out with a lot of shit and free us from a lot of issues like disease, poverty, and inequality. There have been studies and test runs showing that UBI could work. But that could also be used as a method of even more control. Look at wtf is happening with certain websites including here with payment processors cutting us off because they disagree with what we say.

The people who run these companies are some of the most scumbag people on the planet.

Take the pharmaceutical industry and health insurance, these people are gonna have a cure and make it inaccessible to most people. Or intentionally pay “professionals” to say their product is healthy for advertising (it’s happening with ozempic and weight loss). When it’s side effects are fucking terrible.

Or the brain chips, sure it’s helping people with cerebral palsy talk and find automy. Or robot legs that help people who are cripple walk. But the very blunt truth is that they’re not going to let this be accessible for those who need it most. Because of the pursuit of profit and control over all else. Sure you have a couple of unknown good actors in there but the majority of the mix is bureaucrats.

We can’t have a world without copyright or IP because none of these people, even the pro AI fags, would like the implications of any of that. yes it’s a tool but so is a nuclear bomb. These people will never allow a world without scarcity.

 

[linchan]

Don't worry I think the UK did plenty to kill the AI industry without having to ask permission

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

Don't forget that Meta also trained their writing AI off of people's published books.

By buying them?

No. They went to a fucking pirate site and downloaded them.

Their excuse? It would be too expensive and it was on the internet so they didn't REALLY pirate the books, the books were still there.

So, yeah, there's Meta for you.

 

[browserbowser]

If the ai work can own and retain copyright, it means it can own and retain copyright over your EVERYTHING, because they can just scrape everything without permission.

That's not how copyright works, retard.

That's why OpenAi just go ahead and use a voice similar to Scarlett Johansson

Zoom, enhance:

a voice similar to

Exactly.

You can't copyright shit that is 'similar to' you, your work, etc.

If you're worried about a likeness 'similar to' you, guess what? That's not your likeness. Just like something 'similar to' your work, isn't your work. This logic is a large part of how fair-use 'works' as a defense for non-educational derivatives like satirical works.

They couldn't give a shit about you

We both don't give a shit about you so at least they and I have that in common. This is at its core about fair-use, and restricting it for the benefit of myopic retards. I am against enhancing copyright and restricting fair-use because of myopic retards. This is simple to understand.

 

[sadbird]

Okay then this sets a good precedent to reform or remove it altogether does it not? They want to make their bed and eat it too.

 

[Weeby Catto]

This is at its core about fair-use, and restricting it for the benefit of myopic retards. I am against enhancing copyright and restricting fair-use because of myopic retards. This is simple to understand.

What a retard, totally brainwashed by the corpo. I guess it is all also fair-use when the corpos sell back those datas back to you commercially and copyright them back at you.

Pretty sure people other than yourself can't legally use your likeness without permission first.

You can't copyright shit that is 'similar to' you, your work, etc.

So which one is it? They have to "ask"(lmao) your permission first or that you don't have any copyright over anything? Already contradicting yourself and providing non-argument.

hey retard, your work is automatically copyrighted the moment it is done.

And you really believe you cannot copyright work similar to your work? Lmao, you are dumber than a vegetable.
Then why isn't there 20 similar variations that looks like Mario or Iron Man out there? Why is Palworld under lawsuit for similarities??

You argue with an irrelevant argument and answer with your own childish delusions about copyright and fair use. Corporations are already signing deals with other corporations for their datas because they know it's bullshit and illegal, but you are here ready for your everything to be scraped and owned by the corpos for free and sold back to you. Even whores has a higher price than you.