You probably already know that the UK government has “kicked the can down the road” on AI and copyright reform, concluding in its March Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence that “We will not introduce reforms to copyright law until we are confident that they will … [protect] the UK’s position as a creative powerhouse, while unlocking the extraordinary potential of AI to grow the economy and improve lives.” (see our article AI and copyright: UK government no longer has a preferred option).
You may be less sure what this means in practice for the life sciences sector, where commercial plans can’t be kept on hold. Most businesses in the life sciences industry are pursuing both competing goals at the heart of this debate: seeking to protect their own valuable content, while also leveraging AI across large and diverse datasets to develop new products and improve patient outcomes. As this recent report on Text and Data Mining and its value to the UK economy highlights, and as we heard discussed at the BioIndustry Association (BIA)’s recent TechBio and IP event, policy decisions around copyright and AI will have a significant impact on the wider economy.
For life sciences businesses, the practical consequences of the government’s wait-and-see approach are explored below:
There will be no immediate change to the UK’s text and data mining (TDM) exceptions. Use of copyright-protected content for model training, fine-tuning or deployment in the UK will (provided no other exception applies) continue to require a licence. The UK government no longer advocates for a new, broad TDM exception, noting the uncertainty around the practical impact of such an exemption in light of the developing legal landscape around the world. The report discusses the potential benefit of new targeted exceptions covering commercial science and research or other uses in the public interest, including the potential for a targeted exception to be drafted in a way that minimises the impact on the creative industries at the white-hot centre of this debate. However, the report does not propose any concrete next steps. The government will “gather further evidence” and “give further consideration” to alternative approaches.
The government will not intervene to facilitate licensing of copyright-protected content. Businesses wishing to license copyright-protected content for AI training, tuning or deployment will largely need to negotiate private licences on a one-to-one basis. The report notes the limitations of the current, relatively nascent market for licensing content for AI development, including through collective licensing. However, the report only examines the licensing market through the competing interests of the creative industries and larger AI developers, and does not engage with the challenges it presents for the effective deployment of AI in the life sciences sector and wider economy.
The government is positive (in principle) about practical measures to support the AI and content ecosystem: transparency in relation to the data and content used for development and deployment of AI, and technical tools and standards to control access to copyright works. However, the report doesn’t outline any tangible next steps; the government will support “best practice”, but doesn’t move the discussion forward in terms of what that best practice might look like.
In short: there is no legal change on the horizon in the UK to help the life sciences sector navigate this challenging landscape. Legal counsel must continue to develop licensing and content clearance strategies around the status quo, while keeping an eye on commercial, technical and legal developments globally that might change the bigger picture.
