Although Anti Copying in Design (ACID) welcomes the Government’s rethink on artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP), there’s little sign of any long-term resolution, leaving the creative industries in limbo – writes ACID’s co-founder, Dids Macdonald OBE …
The UK’s creative industries remain in a state of uncertainty following the Government’s long-awaited response to the Copyright and AI Consultation. Published 13 months after receiving an unprecedented 11,500 submissions, the report marks a significant shift in direction. Thankfully, previously proposed ‘opt-out’ model, where creators would have had to actively prevent AI companies from using their work, has been abandoned after widespread backlash.
For many, this reversal is a short-term victory, but it leaves a longer-term question unresolved – how will IP be protected in the age of AI?
The Government has now paused legislative action and committed to further consultation over the next year. Instead of pushing forward with a single approach, it has outlined priority areas including greater control for creators, improved licensing frameworks (particularly for smaller rights holders), transparency around AI training data, protections against ‘digital replicas’, and potential labelling of AI-generated content.
While these signals are broadly welcomed, the absence of a clear framework prolongs uncertainty for creators across sectors.
This uncertainty comes at a time when AI is rapidly transforming industries, particularly retail and design. Major retailers are already integrating AI into their business models, offering consumers highly personalised and efficient shopping experiences.
While this innovation delivers convenience and speed, it raises serious concerns for designers and manufacturers. AI systems often rely on vast datasets that may include copyrighted works scraped without permission, attribution or payment. As a result, original designs can be replicated or reinterpreted at scale, undermining the value of creative labour.
At the heart of the issue is a fundamental tension between technological advancement and the protection of originality. Copyright has long provided the foundation for creative investment, giving individuals and businesses the confidence to develop new ideas. If AI systems are allowed to use protected works freely, that incentive structure is weakened. Over time, this could erode the economic model that underpins the UK’s £124b creative sector.
Many argue that, at a minimum, AI developers should be required to obtain licences for copyrighted material and operate within transparent systems. Current ‘text and data mining’ exceptions must not become loopholes that enable large-scale, uncompensated use of creative work.
Transparency is equally critical – creators need visibility over whether and how their work is being used in AI training datasets.
Alongside copyright reform, attention is also turning to design law. The Government’s Design Consultation has raised questions about whether existing protections are fit for purpose in a digital age. There are growing calls for stronger deterrents against copying, including making intentional infringement of unregistered designs a criminal offence. For many creators, accessible and affordable legal redress remains out of reach, further compounding the risks posed by AI-driven infringement.
The Government’s decision to step back from the opt-out model preserves existing copyright protections for now, giving creators some reassurance. However, the lack of immediate reform creates practical challenges. Artists, writers, and designers face ongoing difficulty in monitoring and enforcing their rights, particularly against large, often opaque technology companies. Without clear rules, planning, licensing and investment decisions become increasingly complex.
Ultimately, policymakers face a pivotal choice. They can allow the rapid evolution of AI and globalised production to dilute the rights of creators, or they can reaffirm the principle that innovation thrives when originators retain control over their work. Striking the right balance between opportunity and protection will determine not only the future of AI, but the sustainability of the UK’s creative economy itself.
