Consultancy Circle

Artificial Intelligence, Investing, Commerce and the Future of Work

Elton John and Dua Lipa Push for AI Copyright Reform

On May 10, 2025, British music legends Elton John and Dua Lipa issued a public appeal urging the UK government to reconsider its current plans regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law. Their demands, supported by a coalition of nearly 300 musicians and music industry entities, center around growing fears that AI tools can easily scrape, reproduce, and monetize creative works without adequate legal protection or consent. This development highlights a rapidly intensifying global standoff between copyright stakeholders and AI technology developers, poised to reconfigure how creative intellectual property is valued and safeguarded in the 21st century.

The Core of the Conflict: Generative AI vs. Creative Ownership

Generative AI applications like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini have grown exponentially in capability. These tools can now generate music, lyrics, and full compositions using deep learning techniques trained on immense datasets. Much of the data they ingest is sourced from the open internet or private datasets, which may include copyrighted material.

In their open letter organized by the Ivors Academy and Musicians’ Union, Elton John and Dua Lipa argue that allowing AI models to be trained on music without permission weakens the economic and legal foundations of artistry. “It undermines the integrity of artistic work and risks devaluing human creativity,” John noted. As AI continues to scale in capability, the balance between innovation and fair compensation becomes increasingly contested.

Generative AI has already shown its capacity to mimic well-known artistic styles—mirroring lyrical tone, vocal timbre, and arrangement, as seen in tools like Suno and Udio, AI music-generation platforms that rival Spotify-level production. As outlined by the DeepMind Blog, these systems are nearing professional quality, requiring limited human input to produce songs at industrial scale.

Legal Context and the UK’s Stance on AI Copyright

The UK government proposed exempting text and data mining for AI research from traditional copyright provisions, a stance that has stirred criticism across creative sectors. According to the Bloomberg article that broke the story, the new legislation aims to remove the need for obtaining licenses for content used in AI training—effectively creating a legal neutral zone for developers.

This policy diverges from the European Union’s Digital Services Act framework, which mandates transparency, licensing, and traceability for copyrighted AI inputs. The United States remains in a gray area, with the U.S. Copyright Office declining to grant copyright protection for AI-generated works, while lawsuits from artists and platforms—such as those filed by Universal Music Group—are shaping precedent case-by-case.

Legal scholars from The Gradient argue that by eroding authors’ exclusive rights to duplication and performance, unmitigated AI access to media datasets could effectively collapse business models in publishing, art, and music. These stakeholders seek an opt-in rather than an opt-out approach—a regulatory protocol requiring AI companies to gain affirmative consent before training on any protected material.

Economic Stakes in the AI and Music Industries

The implications of unmoderated AI training on musical works extend into the billions. In 2023, the global music industry generated revenues exceeding $28 billion, according to IFPI, with streaming leading at 65% of total income. Yet AI labeling, attribution, and licensing mechanisms remain nascent, pushing human creators to the margins of monetization.

Revenue Source Amount (2023) AI Risk Level
Streaming $18.4 billion High
Live Performances $4.2 billion Low
Publishing Royalties $2.1 billion High

With AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic raising valuations above $80 billion (according to CNBC), incumbents fear that the economic benefits of creative work may disproportionately shift toward tech platforms without compensating original creators. As noted in AI Trends, AI training datasets frequently include copyrighted data scraped without transparency or royalties paid.

Industry Pushback and Global Regulatory Moves

Governments and advocacy groups are now grappling with the need to protect creative labor in an era of algorithmic productivity. In February 2024, the US Senate heard testimony from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) warning that “speech and sound cloning should not be permitted without artist consent.” Meanwhile, Japan and Australia are updating their copyright laws to better address AI-training exemptions.

Organizations such as the World Economic Forum and McKinsey Global Institute have stressed that the future of work will require legal clarity on machine-human collaboration. The WEF notes that industries depending on “non-reproducible talent,” such as music and visual arts, carry the highest risk of commodification from AI unless policy frameworks proactively intervene.

Supporters of AI innovation contend that strict limitations could hamper progress. As discussed in the OpenAI blog, democratic AI development requires access to diverse datasets including artistic and cultural media. However, detractors argue this democratic promise must include artists as compensated contributors, not involuntary content donors.

Exploring Alternatives: Transparency, Compensation, and Consent

One of the more actionable paths forward lies in developing and enforcing AI licensing platforms—digital interfaces where creators can choose whether to license their works for AI training. In August 2024, Adobe introduced a “Do Not Train” tag across its Creative Cloud suite, signaling rising industry readiness for more control over how data is used. Google and Meta are also experimenting with licensing agreements for datasets, though enforcement remains spotty.

The EU AI Act, adopted in March 2024, includes provisions for mandatory documentation of copyrighted datasets and origin logs. Such traceable infrastructure could enable royalty distribution akin to Spotify’s per-stream revenue model. The Deloitte Insights report on labor disruption by AI emphasizes the opportunity to create new digital employment structures—more transparent, traceable, and equitable across content and compensation channels.

Underlying these reforms is the principle of human dignity in creative labor. Elton John and Dua Lipa’s advocacy speaks to a broader cultural moment where society must ask: does democracy include the rights of creators over machines that imitate their voice, style, or message? The AI debate has moved well beyond innovation into the heart of human value systems.

The Path Ahead for Artists and Technologists

In response to mounting concerns, some AI companies are beginning to participate in industry initiatives like the Partnership on AI’s “Responsible Practices for Synthetic Media” program. Still, as shown in case studies by Kaggle and the VentureBeat AI section, the divide between open innovation and content attribution remains vast.

To maintain momentum around equitable reform, musical artists and tech developers need platforms for mutual engagement. This includes industry roundtables, API-level licensing protocols, and legislation that aligns creative rights with computational progress. Laws without technological inspection systems will falter; likewise, innovation without ethical guardrails will lose public trust.

The motion initiated by Elton John, Dua Lipa, and fellow musicians underscores an urgent cultural and economic tension. It’s not simply about stopping AI, but designing systems of consent, compensation, and credit within a digital economy. Artists aren’t resisting the future—they’re demanding a say in how it’s built.

References (APA Style):

Note that some references may no longer be available at the time of your reading due to page moves or expirations of source articles.