JIMMY PAGE Pushes Back Against U.K. Government’s Artificial Intelligence Copyright Proposal

Legendary LED ZEPPELIN guitarist Jimmy Page has a released a statement pushing back against U.K. government’s proposal to expand the ways that developers can use copyright-protected works to train artificial intelligence models.The British government recently said it was “consulting on a new approach that protects the interests of both AI developers and right holders and delivers a solution which allows both to thrive.” The government added it was looking into how copyright law can “enable creators and right holders to exercise control over, and seek remuneration for, the use of their works for AI training” while also ensuring “AI developers have easy access to a broad range of high-quality creative content.”But the proposal for a plan that would allow tech companies to use copyrighted material to help train A.I. models unless content creators explicitly opt out has raised concern among musicians — including Kate Bush, Imogen Heap, Annie Lennox, Cat Stevens and Hans Zimmer — who released a silent album last month titled “Is This What We Want?” in response to the U.K. government’s proposed changes to the copyright law.Earlier today (Saturday, March 1),Page released the following statement via his social media: “In the disciplined studios of the early 1960s London, I honed my craft as a session musician, lending my guitar to a myriad of artists across genres. Those countless hours, often three three-hour sessions a day, were more than just work; they were a crucible of creativity, collaboration, and ceaseless inspiration.”I was required to create and conjure riffs and lyrical figures immediately without slowing down the momentum of the work being recorded with the other musicians and the artist.”This journey from the anonymity of session work to the global stages with LED ZEPPELIN was not a path paved by algorithms or data sets. It was a voyage marked by spontaneous improvisation and the unquantifiable spark of human ingenuity. The alchemy that transformed a unique riff into an anthem was etched into the collective soul of the band — a synergy that no machine can emulate.”Today, as artificial intelligence seeks to mimic and monetise creativity, we stand at a crossroads. AI-generated art and music, synthesised from existing human works, lack the visceral essence that comes from lived experience. They are but hollow echoes, devoid of the struggles, triumphs, and soul that define true artistry.”Moreover, the ethical implications are profound. When AI scrapes the vast tapestry of human creativity to generate content, it often does so without consent, attribution, or compensation. This is not innovation; it’s exploitation.”If, during my session days, someone had taken my riffs without acknowledgment or payment, it would have been deemed theft. The same standard must apply to AI.”We must champion policies that protect artists, ensuring that their work isn’t siphoned off into the void of machine learning without due regard. Let us celebrate and preserve the human touch in art — the imperfections, the emotions, the stories behind every note and cadence.”In defending the sanctity of human creativity against the encroachment of AI, we safeguard not just the rights of artists, but the very soul of our cultural heritage. Yet, today, the UK government is proposing changes that would strip creators of this protection. Under the Data (Use and Access) Bill, AI companies would be allowed to take works, past and future, and use them as training data without consent or payment. These models digest vast amounts of human-created content and then generate imitations, bypassing the rights of the original creators.”The government’s proposed ‘opt-out’ system — the idea that artists will always be in a position to preemptively reserve their rights — is a sham. It is technically impossible for artists to opt out. The government’s consultation ends today, but we should be clear: this is not regulation; it is a free pass for AI to exploit creativity without consequence. We must push for legislation that ensures AI cannot monetise human creativity without explicit consent and fair compensation. The government’s preferred option in its current consultation does not do that.”Music is not a product of data. It is an evocation, a defiance of logic, a collision of time and place and soul. If we allow AI to co-opt the heart of human creativity, we are not ushering in a bold new era — we are signing the death warrant of originality itself.”The choice is ours. Will we let the machines take the stage, or will we fight for the irreplaceable magic of human artistry?”Critics of the opt-out proposal have argued that individual artists and writers would struggle to notify thousands of A.I. service providers or monitor how their content is being used. But a spokesman for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said in a statement that the U.K.’s “current regime for copyright and AI is holding back the creative industries, media and AI sector from realising their full potential — and that cannot continue. That’s why we have been consulting on a new approach that protects the interests of both AI developers and right holders and delivers a solution which allows both to thrive. We have engaged extensively with these sectors throughout and will continue to do so.”Photo credit: Gibson