The UK government wanted to let AI companies train on copyrighted works and give creators an opt-out. Elton John, Dua Lipa, and 11,500 public responses to the consultation said no. On March 18, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed the government has reversed course. The original plan is dead. The government now says it has “no preferred option” for what comes next.
Tom Kiehl, chief executive of UK Music, called it “a major victory for campaigners.” Mandy Hill, president of the Publishers Association, said the backtrack was a victory “over the self-interest of a handful of large corporations.” The government’s new position: an “evidence-led approach” that prioritizes transparency obligations and lets a licensing market develop on its own.
That last part is the story. Not the backtrack. The licensing.
Why Licensing Is the Entire Game
A license is permission to use something you do not own. It is the mechanism by which one party controls access to something another party needs. When you stream a song on Spotify, the label licensed it. When a pharmaceutical company uses a patented molecule, it licenses it. When a franchise opens a McDonald’s, it licenses the brand, the recipes, the systems. Licensing is not a niche legal concept. It is the infrastructure of modern commerce.
What the UK government just did, intentionally or not, is confirm that AI training data is a licensable asset. If AI companies cannot freely scrape copyrighted material, they must negotiate for it. That means publishers, music labels, photo libraries, news organizations, and individual creators now sit on something with a price tag. The question is no longer whether they get paid. It is how much.
This is not small. OpenAI has already signed licensing deals with Associated Press, Axel Springer, Le Monde, and Prisa Media. According to the Financial Times, these deals range from single-digit millions to over $100 million annually for large publishers. Every AI company that trains on text, images, music, or video will eventually need similar agreements, or face litigation. The UK just nudged the entire market toward that reality faster.
Three Countries, Three Approaches
The regulatory map is splitting in real time. Yesterday the UK committed £2 billion to quantum computing procurement, signaling aggressive tech investment. Today it retreated on AI copyright, signaling caution. Same government. Opposite energy. The pattern tells you something: the UK wants to build technology but is not willing to let technology take from creators without compensation.
The EU moved first. The AI Act requires transparency about training data and respects existing copyright law. Licensing is the default.
The United States has done nothing. No federal AI copyright legislation. The New York Times is suing OpenAI. Getty Images sued Stability AI. The courts are making the rules because Congress will not. The UK just chose to step off that path and let the market negotiate instead of waiting for judges to decide.
What This Means for Everyday People
If you have ever taken a photo, written a blog post, recorded a song, or published anything online, your work may have been used to train an AI model. Until now, most AI companies treated publicly accessible content as free training data. The UK’s reversal, combined with the EU’s existing rules, is establishing a global norm: that content has value and using it requires permission.
Licensing changes who has leverage. A photographer whose images trained Midjourney currently has no recourse and no revenue. In a licensing framework, that photographer’s images become an asset that AI companies must negotiate for. The same applies to journalists, musicians, authors, and researchers. This does not mean every creator will get rich. It means the default shifts from “your work is free” to “your work has a price.” That is a structural change, not a policy tweak.
The UK government does not have a plan for what comes next. It said so explicitly. But by killing the free-use option and endorsing licensing as the direction, it made a choice that will shape how AI companies operate globally. The companies that start building licensing infrastructure now will have an advantage. The ones that assumed the data would always be free just lost that bet.
For inquiries and analysis contact laterstack@proton.me