Communications and Digital Committee

The committee scrutinised the BBC charter review through two panels: first, media and policy experts on the BBC’s response to global platforms, algorithmic prominence, partnerships, discoverability, at-risk genres, and whether R&D should return as a core purpose; second, independent producers on the health of the UK production sector, BBC commissioning, regional clusters, rights, skills, and whether the BBC should have a stronger growth mission. Witnesses broadly supported a more ambitious, coordinated PSB strategy, but stressed that regulation of platforms, not just charter wording, is needed. They repeatedly warned that the BBC’s funding decline, bureaucracy, and dependence on commercial platforms threaten its remit, while also arguing that any growth objective must remain anchored in public interest rather than commercialisation.

Baroness Hodge of Barking presented findings from the Independent Review of Arts Council England, focusing on preserving the arm’s-length principle, reforming ACE’s funding processes (NPOs and Let’s Create), and devolving decision-making to local communities. She pressed for sustained leadership within ACE, ongoing DCMS involvement, and an outward-facing remit toward artists and the public. Key policy positions include devolving national/local decision-making, reintroducing peer-form panels, longer planning cycles for arts organisations, and expanding philanthropy (with tax-relief considerations) to support regional access to excellence. She also discussed touring, education, and the economics of arts funding, including considerations of touring tax relief, regional disparities, and the potential for joint funding with DfE/DCMS to strengthen creative education. The session signals ongoing scrutiny of government commitments to fund and reform ACE, while highlighting concerns about regional inequality, bureaucratic burdens, and the need for more stable, diversified funding streams.

The session scrutinised how the UK should regulate AI training data use, licensing, transparency and governance. Witnesses from Google and Charismatic.ai argued for an enabling copyright framework, including a UK text-and-data-mining (TDM) exception to facilitate access deals for off-platform or archived content, while emphasising licensing for non-open content. Government ministers and civil servants outlined a “reset moment,” stressing ongoing consultation, a scheduled report by 18 March on AI and copyright, and a broader package approach covering transparency, licensing, and enforcement. The inquiry also considered practical governance options such as a Creative Content Exchange pilot to unlock value from public assets, and debated opt-out mechanisms vs. exemptions, with industry and creatives urged to collaborate while Government sets necessary safeguards (e.g., Online Safety Act actions against Grok, and potential Data Act/transparency measures). The session signalled UK-specific policy signals: a push for clarity, a balance between AI innovation and creator remuneration, and active consideration of open-source/sovereign UK AI experimentation alongside international comparisons.

The committee scrutinised how the UK copyright framework interacts with AI training and outputs, focusing on licensing, data access, and remuneration. Industry witnesses urged a more permissive UK stance on text and data mining (TDM) to enable domestic training, paired with a rights-reservation regime and workable transparency to facilitate licensing, particularly for small creators. Open standards and asset-level provenance (e.g., C2PA) were emphasized as the backbone for tractable licensing and fair revenue-sharing. The panel highlighted government signaling and market-making mechanisms (including a kitemark and open standards) as critical to attracting and enabling UK start-ups, while flagging risks from dominant platforms (notably Google) and the potential burden of granular transparency. The EU AI Act was referenced as a comparative model for high-level transparency, and there was optimism that a combination of TDM, rights-reservation, and transparency can unlock a robust UK AI ecosystem without harming the creative sector. Two panels also underscored the importance of licencing markets that work for small rights holders and the need for government/ regulator roles in facilitating market infrastructure and governance.

The session scrutinised how a UK licensing market for AI training data could benefit rights holders and AI developers, focusing on licensing models, transparency, and regulatory signals. Witnesses from CLA, DACS, and Fairly Trained argued for a proactive, voluntary collective licensing framework (including a text-only training licence) and highlighted the need for transparency to enable rights holders to participate. They warned that government messaging and proposed opt-out options have chilled licensing uptake, and urged the government to avoid creating a new, government-run licensing marketplace. The witnesses emphasised maintaining a gold-standard UK copyright framework, opposing a text-and-data-mining (TDM) exception, and proposed proportionate transparency requirements to enable licensing while protecting business interests. Sector-specific dynamics (notably in music and visual arts) and international comparisons (e.g., Australia) were discussed to inform UK policy directions.

The session examined how different jurisdictions regulate AI-driven copyright, focusing on training data use, the balance between open-ended fair use and closed exception catalogs, transparency obligations and their enforcement, and the role of licensing versus exemptions. The two academic witnesses discussed EU frameworks (DSM Directive) and US approaches, advocating for legislative guidance, harmonised standards, and evidence-based reform, while highlighting UK-specific considerations like the CDPA and potential alignment with EU models. The discussion also covered voluntary codes of practice, transparency templates, rights reservations, and the need for international cooperation to manage cross-border AI activity and licensing negotiations.